s, everybody in Galilee
lived, _so_ innocent, so simple, so Arcadian were they all--_and that is
all_! What shall a man do, whom this fine style of novel writing doesn't
answer--to whom, in fact, it seems just a bit of disgusting nonsense? Is
this wonderful power, this omnipotent wisdom, a production of the
'delicious' climate? Is this all 'philosophical criticism' has to offer,
and is he to accept that as more reasonable than the Gospel theory that
they were supernatural and divine?

In this wonderful romantic dialect, M. Renan describes the beginning of
our Lord's ministry. He is embarrassed, however, by the fact that, as
Jesus goes on, He Himself makes claims, and sets up pretensions, and
exercises powers, which are totally at variance with the proposed
explanation. M. Renan cannot deny that He claimed to be the Son of God,
the Messiah, the Son of David, that He claimed to work 'miracles,' to
possess supernatural powers, to be somewhat altogether different from
the amiable, sentimental, young carpenter of his modern biographer.

How is this to be got on with? Why, by declaring boldly that Jesus was
half deceiver and half deceived! by accepting the difficulty, and
confessing that He cheated men for their good--that, as they wished to
be deceived, He stooped to deceive them, and at last half deceived
Himself!

We know nothing more thoroughly _immoral_ than is M. Renan on this
matter. This Jesus of his, about whom he sentimentalizes, whom he
declares a thousand times to be so 'charming,' and so 'divine,' and the
rest, turns out to be a deliberate cheat and quack, putting out claims
He does not Himself believe, and acting in sham miracles which people
coax Him, according to his biographer, to perform.

The raising of Lazarus, for instance, which M. Renan would like to turn
out of the Gospels, but which he is forced to confess must
stay--according to him, was a deliberate, planned, stage performance, a
gross piece of juggling imposition. Now we do not object _per se_ to M.
Renan's taking that view of it. He has a perfect freedom of choice. We
_do_ object to the immorality, the essential blindness to right and
wrong, which lead him to apologize for the cheat, and try to prove it a
perfectly innocent and justifiable thing. We protest against confounding
eternal distinctions, against debauching conscience by proving wrong
right, and a cheat an innocent bit of acting, against claiming an
impostor and a liar as the high pr