not unreasonably be supposed that the Mohawk Indians will for some time know nothing of the Scriptures but what they now possess, and that their views of Christianity will, in a great measurem, be those which are supposed by most persons to be taught by the Gospel of the beloved Apostle. Now suppose that ten or twenty years hence, a sensible Mohawk were to become familiar with the English language, and to learn that there is, in the English Bible, an account of the first preaching of the Gospel among those who were not Christians, written by a companion of one of the chief Apostles; let the common sense of the reader determine, whether he would not reasonably expect to find doctrines which he had been taught to consider as essential to salvation, (such as the divinity of our Saviour, and the infinite merit of his atoning blood,) frequently and clearly declared by the Apostles? and let any one, who has carefully read the Acts, say if he would not be completely disappointed? I think that his first impression would be, that the writer of the Acts must have been some one of the Socinians, whom he might have heard reprobated as denying the essential truths of the Gospel; and that he would be apt to throw down the book in disgust. It is not

Not that I think that the Gospel of John translated with tolerable accuracy, and left to make its own impression, would give persons of plain good sense a conviction of the divinity or pre-existence of Jesus, for cases have occurred to my knowledge proving the contrary; but that the Mohawks will probably have received the usual interpretations to as sist them in understanding this Gospel.

с

perhaps too much to assert, that no modern defender of orthodoxy would think himself justifiable, were he preaching the Gospel to heathens (for instance to the Hindoos,) if he were as silent as from Luke we learn that the first preachers of the Gospel were, concerning what are now generally regarded as the fundamental truths of the Gospel. I wish I may be wrong; and that those who are so laudably labouring among the heathen nations, may, in this respect as in zeal, follow the example of the Apostles. However these things may be, I consider it as indisputable, from the narrative of Luke, that the sum and substance of the Apostle's preaching relative to the doctrine, both to Jews and to Gentiles, was, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and the Christ, that God raised him from the dead, and appointed him to be the judge of all men, and that those who believe in him and turr from their sins, will receive forgiveness. And I consider it as farther indisputable, that there is nothing in the Acts which can justify the opinion that Luke knew of the supposed fact that our Saviour was "the very and eternal God"; or even that he pre-existed in a nature infinitely more excellent; or even that he existed at all before his human birthP: I think it also evident

It can hardly be necessary to mention, that it is next to certain that the common reading of Acts xx. 28, did not come from the pen of Luke, who wrote to feed the church of the Lord,' not to feed the church of God.'

·

o Second article of the Church of England,

Luke records an expression ch. ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16, which, as commonly translated and understood, implies that

from his account, that such opinions either were not known, or at least not believed, by the Apostles Peter and Paul, after they had received the holy spirit; and though we have not the same positive evidence respecting the belief of John and the other Apostles, yet as they certainly knew of the preaching of Peter to the Jews, and did not add any thing thereto, I think I am authorized in concluding that they also had the same "scanty" creed with Peter and Paul.-My inference, from these things is, that what the Apostles have said in their own writings cannot, in justice to Luke, be interpreted so as to speak a different language from that recorded in the Acts, if on comparing Scripture with Scripture it appear that their words can be justly interpreted agreeably thereto.

Now let us for a moment suppose, that the first three Gospels and the Acts had alone been preserved to us, inestimable as the Gospel of John and other parts of the New Testament appear to us, will any one venture to assert that, without them, the fundamental truths of Christianity would have been unknown, and that Matthew and Mark and Luke have not said enough to enable the disciple of Jesus to possess the faith which sanctifieth

the disciples of Jesus paid religious worship to their Lord. The words in the first passage are thus rendered in the Public Version, And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name'; and in like manner in the other instances. In Chap. VI. § 5, I hope to show, that this rendering is unnecessary, and that, at any rate, the interpretation of the expression is unfounded

and saveth? And yet this must be maintained, or the fundamental truths of the Gospel, and the faith required by the Gospel in order to enjoy its blessings, must be very different from what modern creeds, and modern evangelical preachers, teach them to be.

Evidence of PEter.

5. After examining the Acts, one is naturally led to turn to the Epistles of Peter and Paul, to ascertain whether their own statements accord with those of Luke respecting their preachings. The first Epistle of PETER obviously contains nothing which implies more than what is contained in the words of the Apostle when addressing the Jews", (viz. that Jesus was a man from God,) unless the very obscure passage in ch. iii. 18-20, be regarded as implying his pre-existence simply considered; that it does not I shall be led to shew in Chap. VII. As to the divinity of Jesus, still more as to his equality and consubstantiality with the Father, we have no reason whatever from this Epistle to infer that the Apostle Peter knew any thing of them. He speaks of God, as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ';" he speaks of Jesus as committing himself to him that judgeth righteously3, and refers his readers to Christ as setting an example of human virtues, innocence, truth, and pa- tience. It is well known to every critic, that the evidence for the genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter is very incomplete, and agreeably to the

Acts ii.. 22.

Ch. i. 3.

ii. 23.

opinion of Lardner this epistle should "not be alleged as affording alone sufficient proof of any doctrine;" however there is nothing in it in any way inconsistent with, or even additional to, the words of Peter before referred tot.

The silence of Peter respecting the divinity and pre-existence of our Saviour, and even the completely unqualified use of language which, in its plain and obvious sense, must lead to an opinion inconsistent with those doctrines, strikes me forcibly in this connexion. He had denied his Lord, and must have felt the greatest desire to serve his cause; he loved and reverenced him; he speaks of the glorious attestation of his claims which God enabled him to manifest and manifested in and by him". If the second epistle were written by him, speaking of the transfiguration of our Lord, he says that then they were eye-witnesses of his majesty, for he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". Now is it conceivable, that this ardent Apostle should omit to mention the infi

I have taken no notice in what I have said of Mr Sharp's rendering of 2 Peter i. 1, of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ,' because few, I imagine, lay any stress upon it. That as far as the Greek merely is concerned, it is a justifiable rendering is admitted; that it is a necessary rendering i absolutely denied; and if not necessary, it is totally inad missible till some unambiguous instance can be adduced of such phraseology.-The same remark will serve for the other renderings of Mr. Sharp. See Chap. V.