The book passed through eight editions in three months. The writings of those who opposed it had an equal vogue. That of Freppel had reached its twelfth edition in 1864.(110) Their name was legion. Whatever wore a soutane and could wield a pen charged against Renan, the bishops leading the van. The tone of these attacks was not always very elevated, nor their logic very profound. In most cases the writers were only concerned to defend the Deity of Christ,(111) and the miracles, and are satisfied that they have done so when they have pointed out some of the glaring inconsistencies in Renan’s work. Here and there, however, among these refutations we catch the tone of a loftier ethical spirit which has recognised the fundamental weakness of the work, the lack of any definite ethical principles in the writer’s outlook upon life.(112) There were some indeed who were not content with a refutation; they would gladly have seen active measures taken against Renan. One of his most embittered adversaries, Amadée Nicolas,(113) reckons up in an appendix to his work the maximum penalties authorised by the existing enactments against free‐ thought, and would welcome the application of the law of the 25th of March 1822, according to which five years’ imprisonment could be imposed for the crime of “insulting or making ridiculous a religion recognised by the state.” Renan was defended by the _Siècle_, the _Débats_, at that time the leading French newspaper, and the _Temps_, in which Scherer published five articles upon the book. Even the _Revue des deux mondes_, which had formerly raised a warning voice against Strauss, allowed itself to go with the stream, and published in its August number of 1863 a critical analysis by Havet(114) who hailed Renan’s work as a great achievement, and criticised only the inconsistencies by which he had endeavoured to soften down the radical character of his undertaking. Later on the _Revue_ changed its attitude and sided with Renan’s opponents. In the Protestant camp there was an even keener sense of distaste than in the Catholic for the sentimental gloss which Renan had spread over his work to make it attractive to the multitude by its iridescent colours. In four remarkable letters Athanase Coquerel the younger took the author to task for this.(115) From the standpoint of orthodox scholarship E. de Pressensé condemned him;(116) and proceeded without loss of time to refute him in a large‐scale Life of Jesus.(117) He was answered by Albert Réville,(118) who claims recognition for Renan’s services to criticism.