law of the Jews, and to the calling of the gentiles, and yet the testimony, incidentally borne in the history and in the epistles of the apostles, to the great truths of the christian religion, may be entitled to the most reverential acceptance, as that of men who had not only received originally the communications of our Saviour from himself, but had also been fully instructed by the Holy Spirit in regard to the extent and purport of these very communications. This is not, as doctor Bruce has represented, to set the disciple against his master, but to respect the testimony of a disciple, whom, on the authority of his master, we know to have been perfectly instructed in regard to the communications, which that master had made. If indeed the communications of our Saviour had been recorded by himself for our instruction, there might have been some apparent reason for such a representation; but the present question is between the disciples themselves, recording in some treatises the discourses of Jesus Christ, and in others those of divinely commissioned and instructed apostles, or addressing directly to the christian churches the exhortations of inspired wisdom.

Nor is the principle more reasonable, according to which the essential doctrines of christianity are to be collected from the evangelists themselves. It is alleged by doctor Bruce, as it had been before urged by doctor Priestley in his

defence of socinianism, that each of the evangelists must have designed to furnish a complete system of religious instruction. If then some doctrine be found clearly revealed in one gospel, which had not been stated with equal distinctness in the others, what is to be done? The answer is that this doctrine should be regarded as not necessary. Why then was it revealed? Must we suppose that the Deity varied his communications, that, while enough was made known in all for the instruction and salvation of mankind, some information should also be separately imparted in some one or more, which should be superfluous to these great purposes of his mercy, but might serve for the gratification of curious and speculative persons, who should wish to know more of such matters than ordinary men? Who will maintain that it is more reasonable to think, that he has judged correctly of the specific design of each of the evangelists, in giving his narrative to the world, than that the Almighty should not have made any clear and distinct communication, for which he did not claim the reverential acceptance of his creatures, as important to their everlasting interests? We, on the other hand, hold, that all which God has made known by any part of the sacred writings, is essentially necessary for the salvation of all those persons, who have enjoyed the means of acquiring so much knowledge of divine truth,

though we trust that the poor and ignorant shall be accepted by him, according to a just consideration of their limited opportunity of obtaining spiritual information. We do not reject as unimportant any part of that knowledge, which God has thought fit to be communicated, arrogating to ourselves the right of determining, how much ought to have been revealed, if the revelation had any reasonable purpose. The principle indeed, on which alone this right can be maintained, is such, that it cannot even be examined without some appearance of irreverence.

Doctor Bruce has endeavoured to prove that each of the four evangelists professed to deliver every essential principle of the truth of the gospel. What is the fact. Matthew clearly has made no such profession, for he has begun his gospel simply with entitling it "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ," the natural inference from which is, agreeably * to the consent of antiquity, that he composed it with the design of proving to the Jews that Jesus was the expected Messiah. Mark has commenced his narrative merely with naming it "the gospel of Jesus Christ ;" and † it appears both from the testimony of ancient writers and from internal

• Horne's Introd. to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 4. p. 264. Lond. 1822.

↑ Ibid. p. 271.

evidence, that it was designed to be a summary of the preaching of Peter, to whom Mark had been long a companion. The design of Luke has been declared by himself to have been to substitute for various defective, though authentic, accounts of Jesus Christ, one more complete narrative, that his friend Theophilus might know the certainty of those things, wherein he had been already instructed. There is however in this preface no assurance given, that the narrative should omit nothing essential to salvation, but merely that it should be the work of one, who had "perfect understanding of all things from the very first," and was therefore competent to establish the conviction of his friend on grounds of sufficient certainty. The general purpose of John, in common with the other evangelists, was, as he has himself declared, to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, and that believing we may have life through his name; but his special purposes appear to have been to refute the heretics who had already corrupted the christian doctrine, and to supply a narrative of those actions and discourses of our Saviour, which had been omitted by the other evangelists. In every instance we find some object distinct from undertaking to propose a perfect system of christian doctrine. Matthew wrote to satisfy the Jews that Jesus was the

C

*

* John, ch. 20, v. 31.

Messiah, whom their prophets had taught them to expect; Mark to gratify those who were anxious to retain a memorial of the preaching of Peter; Luke to strengthen the conviction of an individual by a comprehensive narrative; and John to confute heretics and to supply omissions.

It may appear from these observations that, if the rule proposed by doctor Bruce were admitted, it would exclude from our consideration chiefly the testimony of the beloved companion of our Lord, because the narrative of this evangelist has more which is peculiar to itself than the others, John having proposed to himself peculiar objects, and especially to record those discourses, which the other evangelists had failed to relate. In this manner we should lose the very important advantage of receiving from the beloved disciple the narrative, which, on account of his affectionate intimacy with his master, should naturally engage our principal attention; and in relinquishing this advantage we should be deprived of the instruction to be derived from him, who has, more than any other evangelist, communicated the doctrinal discourses of our Saviour. This may indeed suit well the plan of one, who wishes to pare down the doctrine of christianity to the standard of a narrow faith; but will not satisfy the mind of him, who is anxious to receive the