AGNOSTICISM. 77 



However, to turn finally to the important fact of external evi- 

 dence. Prof. Huxley reiterates, again and again, that the ver- 

 dict of scientific criticism is decisive against the supposition that 

 we possess in the four Gospels the authentic and contemporary 

 evidence of known writers. He repeats, " without the slightest 

 fear of refutation, that the four Gospels, as they have come to us, 

 are the work of unknown writers." In particular, he challenges 

 my allegation of " M. Kenan's practical surrender of the adverse 

 case " ; and he adds the following observations, to which I beg the 

 reader's particular attention : 



I thought (he says) I knew M. Kenan's works pretty well, hut I have contrived 

 to miss this "practical" — (1 wish Dr. "Wace had defined the scope of that useful 

 adjective) — surrender. However, as Dr. "Wace can find no difficulty in pointing 

 out the passage of M. Kenan's writings, hy which he feels justified in making his 

 statement, I shall wait for further enlightenment, contenting myself, for the pres- 

 ent, with remarking that if M. Kenan were to retract and do penance in Notre 

 Dame to-morrow for any contributions to biblical criticism that may be specially 

 his property, the main results of that criticism, as they are set forth in the works 

 of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, would not be sensibly affected. 



Let me begin, then, by enlightening Prof. Huxley about M. 

 Renan's surrender. I have the less difficulty in doing so as the 

 passages he has contrived to miss have been collected by me al- 

 ready in a little tract on the " Authenticity of the Gospels," * and 

 in some lectures on the " Gospel and its "Witnesses " ; f and I shall 

 take the liberty, for convenience' sake, of repeating some of the 

 observations there made. 



I beg first to refer to the preface to M. Kenan's " Vie de Je'sus." J 

 There M. Penan says : 



As to Luke, doubt is scarcely possible. The Gospel of St. Luke is a regular 

 composition, founded upon earlier documents. It is the work of an author who 

 chooses, curtails, combines. The author of this Gospel is certainly the same as the 

 author of the Acts of the Apostles. Now, the author of the Acts seems to be a 

 companion of St. Paul — a character which accords completely with St. Luke. I 

 know that more than one objection may be opposed to this reasoning ; but one 

 thing at all events is beyond doubt, namely, that the author of the third Gospel 

 and of the Acts is a man who belonged to the second apostolic generation ; and 

 this suffices for our purpose. The date of this Gospel, moreover, may be deter- 

 mined with sufficient precision by considerations drawn from the book itself. The 

 twenty-first chapter of St. Luke, which is inseparable from the rest of the work, 

 was certainly written after the siege of Jerusalem, but not long after. We are, 

 therefore, here on solid ground, for we are dealing with a work proceeding en- 

 tirely from the same hand, and possessing the most complete unity. 



It may be important to observe that this admission has been 

 supported by M. Renan's further investigations, as expressed in 

 his subsequent volume on " The Apostles." In the preface to that 



* Religious Tract Society. f John Murray, 1883. % Fifteenth edition, p. xlix. 



