Page 151 - Demo

147composed by persons who had heard them narrated by the Apostles and others who were the eyewitnesses of those events and doctrines, and that the author very attentively examined them all and chose only such as he considered true or trustworthy. Moreover, it is quite evident from the confession of St. Luke himself, as it may be easily deducted from his preface, that he claims no direct revelation made to himself, nor does he attribute any inspiratory character to his book. It may, too, be safely assumed that the first and the fourth Gospels were either not written when Luke compiled his own narrative, or that he had not seen them; for he could not have ventured to counterpoise or contradict the Gospels written by the two Apostles, Matthew and John .These brief observations, which can be multiplied, must convince every impartial reader that the so-called “Four Gospels” do not exhibit the necessary features, which are indispensable for any Scripture claiming a divine inspiration.The Churches have believed that the author of the third Gospel is the Physician Luke (Col. iv. 14) who accompanied St. Paul in his missionary journeys and was with him a prisoner at Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11; Philem. 24, etc.). However, this is not the place to discuss the question of the authorship of the book, nor its other important peculiarities. Suffice it to say that St. Luke has recorded some beautiful parables and teachings of the Holy Master, such as the parable of the Good Samaritan (x. 25-37); the Avaricious Rich Man (xii. 15-21); the Self-righteous Pharisee and the Publican(xiii. 9-18); the Perseverance in Prayer (xi. 1-13); the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Prodigal Son(xv.); the Dives and Lazarus(xvi. 19-31); the Mite of the Poor Widow (xxi); the Wicked Husbandman (xx. 9-16); the Unjust Judge (xviii. 1-8); the Conversion of Zacchaeus (xix. 1-10); and several others. But the most