age and authorship of the Gospels, be it observed, but as to their
historical value) is made, and he has been so good as to do so. Now
let us consider the parts of Dr. Wace's citation from Renan which are
relevant to the issue:--

The author of this Gospel [Luke] 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.

This is a curious "practical surrender of the adverse case." M. Renan
thinks that there is no doubt that the author of the third Gospel is
the author of the Acts--a conclusion in which I suppose critics
generally agree. He goes on to remark that this person _seems_ to be a
companion of St. Paul, and adds that Luke was a companion of St. Paul.
Then, somewhat needlessly, M. Renan points out that there is more than
one objection to jumping, from such data as these, to the conclusion
that "Luke" is the writer of the third Gospel. And, finally, M. Renan
is content to reduce that which is "beyond doubt" to the fact that the
author of the two books is a man of the second apostolic generation.
Well, it seems to me that I could agree with all that M. Renan
considers "beyond doubt" here, without surrendering anything, either
"practically" or theoretically.

Dr. Wace ("Nineteenth Century," March, p. 363) states that he derives
the above citation from the preface to the 15th edition of the "Vie de
Jesus." My copy of "Les Evangiles," dated 1877, contains a list of
Renan's "Oeuvres Completes," at the head of which I find "Vie de
Jesus," 15^e edition. It is, therefore, a later work than the edition
of the "Vie de Jesus" which Dr. Wace quotes. Now "Les Evangiles," as
its name implies, treats fully of the questions respecting the date
and authorship of the Gospels; and any one who desired, not merely to
use M. Renan's expressions for controversial purposes, but to give a
fair account of his views in their full significance, would, I think,
refer to the later source.

If this course had been taken, Dr. Wace might have found some as
decided expressions of opinion, in favour of Luke's au