say:  “Moreover they prayed, after the example of Stephen the perfect martyr, for those who inflicted upon them cruel torments, ’Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.’” Irenaeus, in the last part of the second century, Tertullian in the last part of the same century and the beginning of the third, Clement of Alexandria about the end of the second century and onwards—­all these bear explicit testimony to the book of Acts, ascribing it to Luke as its author; and from their day onward the notices of the work are abundant.  We may add the concurrent testimony of the Muratorian canon and the Syriac version, called the Peshito, which belong to the last quarter of the second century, and the still earlier testimony of the Old Latin version.  In a word, the book is placed by Eusebius among those that were universally acknowledged by the churches.

The rejection of the book by certain heretical sects, as the Ebionites, Marcionites, Manichaeans, etc., is of no weight, as their objections rested not on historical, but on doctrinal grounds.  As to the statement of Photius that “some call Clement of Rome the author, some Barnabas, and some Luke the evangelist,” it is to be remarked that he is giving not his own judgment, for he expressly ascribes it to Luke, but the arbitrary opinions of certain persons; and these are contradicted by the obvious fact that the third gospel, which proceeded from the same hand as the Acts of the Apostles, was never ascribed to any other person than Luke.

3.  The internal testimony to Luke’s authorship is decisive.  The writer himself, in dedicating it to the same Theophilus, expressly identifies himself with the author of the third gospel:  “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.”  Acts 1:1.  Then there is a remarkable agreement in style and diction between the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, as any one may learn who peruses them both together in the original Greek.  Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, p. 8, has collected forty-seven examples of “terms that occur in both, but nowhere else in the New Testament.”  Luke, moreover, as the travelling companion of Paul, had all needed facilities for composing such a work.  With regard to the latter portion of the book, this is denied by none.  His use of the first person plural, “we endeavored,” “the Lord had called us,” “we came,” etc.—­which first appears, chap. 16:10, and continues, with certain interruptions, through the remainder of the book—­admits of but one natural and reasonable explanation, namely, that when he thus joins himself with the apostle he was actually in his company.  As it respects the first part of the book, we notice that he visited Caesarea with Paul’s company, and “tarried there many days,” chap. 21:8-10; afterwards he went up with him to Jerusalem, chap. 21:15.  We find him again with Paul at Caesarea when he sets out for Rome.  Chap. 27:1.  Now at such centres as Jerusalem and Caesarea he must have had abundant opportunities to learn all the facts recorded in the present book which could not be gathered from Paul’s own lips.