[Footnote 1: In the same manner we say, "The Gospel according to the
Hebrews," "The Gospel according to the Egyptians."]

Firstly, as to Luke, doubt is scarcely possible. The Gospel of Luke is
a regular composition, founded on anterior documents.[1] It is the
work of a man who selects, prunes, and combines. The author of this
Gospel is certainly the same as that of the Acts of the Apostles.[2]
Now, the author of the Acts is a companion of St. Paul,[3] a title
which applies to Luke exactly.[4] I know that more than one objection
may be raised against this reasoning; but one thing, at least, is
beyond doubt, namely, that the author of the third Gospel and of the
Acts was a man of the second apostolic generation, and that is
sufficient for our object. The date of this Gospel can moreover be
determined with much precision by considerations drawn from the book
itself. The twenty-first chapter of Luke, inseparable from the rest of
the work, was certainly written after the siege of Jerusalem, and but
a short time after.[5] We are here, then, upon solid ground; for we
are concerned with a work written entirely by the same hand, and of
the most perfect unity.

[Footnote 1: Luke i. 1-4.]

[Footnote 2: _Acts_ i. 1. Compare Luke i. 1-4.]

[Footnote 3: From xvi. 10, the author represents himself as
eye-witness.]

[Footnote 4: 2 Tim. iv. 11; Philemon 24; Col. iv. 14. The name of
_Lucas_ (contraction of _Lucanus_) being very rare, we need not fear
one of those homonyms which cause so many perplexities in questions of