"to all nations," without any other reftriction, than that they should commence their labours at Jerufalem. Some of the epiftles of St. Paul are thought to have preceded the publication of the Gospels; the time, therefore, when learning was to be more properly applied to the inftruction of mankind, coincides with the period, when the less educated Apostles were engaged in preaching the fame Gospel in other parts of the world. But the portion of time, which had elapfed fince the promulgation of Christianity, had made no alteration in the state of the world, as to the progress of literature. The nations of Greece and Afia were not extending their knowledge, nor advancing in civilization by the introduction of new arts. About the period of the birth of our Saviour literature and the arts had nearly reached, at Rome particularly, that perfection of which, under the circumftances of the empire, they were fufceptible. The nations above mentioned had neither receded nor advanced in those respects, which might seem to require more than ordinary attainments and abilities in the primitive teachers of Christianity. Besides, the converts in these countries were numerous long before the conclufion of the first century. The interval of time therefore, which the argument

comprises, is much too narrow, and the change of circumftances too fmall, to enable us to determine the neceffity or propriety of employing the learned and eloquent in the apoftolical miffions.

By feparating fecular wisdom from infpiration we should distinguish, and perhaps not advantageously, the teachers of the evangelical from the great teacher of the Jewish dispensation. What could create the incompatibility of one with the other under the Gospel? Nothing can be discovered in the nature of inspiration, or of human knowledge, which will explain it. All the various wisdom of the Egyptians did not interfere, as far as we can discern, with the inspiration of Mofes, nor could the erudition of Daniel, nor the natural abilities of the other prophets, be supposed to obfcure or to augment the splendour of their divine illumination. They preferved indeed, as the Evangelists preserve, a difference of style and manner, which appear to be their own. The learning and acquired knowledge of Solomon were confpicuous, as well as the wisdom, which he received from God. But as all knowledge is the gift of God, the wisdom of the Almighty was as much manifested in the choice of perfons, on whom this gift had been

previously bestowed, as it would have been by a fubfequent inspiration of fuch a proportion of human knowledge, as was neceflary to enable the Apostles to perform the duties of teachers of the Gospel.

The expreffions of St. Paul, "the wisdom " of men," have been paradoxically interpreted, and arbitrarily applied by a writer, the principles of whofe work, "The Diffonance "of the four generally received Evangelists, "&c." it is my intention to attempt to analyze in the usual series of these Lectures. He has explained the phrase, as denoting not merely the early evidence of the Christian Fathers in establishing the authenticity of the books of the New Teftament, but also the human learning by which that evidence has been collected and examined. He condemns upon this authority" the pious fraud," as he terms it," of "the Fathers of the Church," and the studies of modern critics. "Obferving," he says, "from St. Paul's mode of preaching the Gof

66

pel to the Corinthians, that the faith of a wife ❝ and rational Christian ought to stand not in "the wisdom of men, but in the power of

God," he rejects all the teftimony, and all

• Evanfon's Letter to Dr. Priestley's Young Man, p. 4, 5.

the enquiries of writers "from Serapion to Mi"chaelis." The words of St. Paul, in which he defcribes his own manner of preaching the Gofpel, are then referred, not, as the analogy required, to the character of the prefent narratives of the Evangelifts, but to the testimony on which thefe narratives have been fince received as authentic. But it is evident that thefe words were written at a time antecedent to the existence of any fuch evidence, for this fpecies of evidence neceffarily presupposes a written document. Can it be imagined that St. Paul intended prophetically to admonish Christians of every age not to attend to the external teftimony of the Gofpels, which the writers were then compofing, when he must at the same time impeach the testimony of the Corinthians themselves and all others, who were able to atteft, from perfonal knowledge, the authenticity of this Epiftle?

It is alfo affirmed, "that all the external "d evidence, which the cafe admits, is fo fcanty and defective, that it is not poffible 66 to prove the authenticity of any of the evangelical hiftories upon that ground only;"

d Evanson's Letter to Dr. Prieftley's Young Man, Pref. P. I.

C

and it is expected, " that the several objection“able paffages should be clearly reconciled, as "the Scriptures really exift, without recurring to any human authority, or to conjec "tures unwarranted by the Gospels them" felves." That the external teftimony is

66

fcanty and defective" is an affertion which is incorrect, in whatever way we explain it. It is incorrect, whether we understand that it implies, that the cafe did not from its nature admit fufficient evidence, or, that what was known to many, has been attefted by few. We have not indeed all the original evidence; for much, that was written, has perished. At prefent I shall only observe, that the Gospel was taught orally during a period of eight years. During this interval the number of witneffes of this teaching must have been increafing by the acceffion of new converts, and their families. The Gospels therefore were committed to writing, when their contents could be verified, not by determining the identity of autographs, but by comparing the preaching, to which the Chriftians had been habituated, with the written narrative. At this time also there must have been alive many believers at Jerufalem, contemporary with our Saviour, who must have remembered not only the latter