ART. XLIII.

MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS. By the late reverend and learned Conyers Middleton, D. D. Never before published. To which are added, fome fcarce pieces of the fame author, that were printed in his life-time. 4to. 12 s. few'd. Manby and Cox.

Efides feveral fcarce pieces printed in dr. Middleton's

pofthumous tracts, which are as follows: Some curfory reflections on the diffention, which happened at Antioch, between the apostles Peter and Paul-Reflections on the variations, or inconfiftencies, which are found among the four evangelifts in their different accounts of the fame facts-An effay upon the gift of tongues, &c.-Some fhort remarks on a story told by the antients, concerning St. John the evangelift, and Cerinthus the heretic, &c.-An effay on the allegorical and Fteral interpretation of the creation and fall of man-De Latinarum literarum pronunciatione differtatio- A preface to an intended anfwer to all the objection made against the free enquiry.

Though our learned author's pofthumous pieces are written with all that acuteness, ciegance, and spirit, which appear in his other writings, and which have gained him fo great and fo juft a reputation in the learned world; yet there are fome things in them, which (we are forry to fay) cannot easily be reconciled with candour, or perhaps with truth.

His defign, in the two first tracts, is to correct the miftakes which commonly prevail with regard to infpiration, and to enquire how far the apostles and evangelifts appear to have been favoured with it, and to have acted under the immediate direction of an infallible fpirit. He introduces his reflections on the dispute at Antioch with the hiftory of it, as related by Paul himfelf, in his epiftle to the Galatians, chap. ii. 11, 12, 13, 14. and obferves, that, from the earliest ages of the church, it has been a conftant topic of raillery to the fceptics and unbelievers. Porphyry, the old enemy of our religion, takes occafion from it, he tells us, to charge Paul with affuming falfely to himself the merit of facts, which never really happened, in order to extol his own character, and deprefs Peter's, out of envy to his more eminent virtues: or allowing the fact, to accuse Paul of infolence and rafhnefs, in reproving his fuperior for a compliance, of which he himself was notoriously VOL. VI. A a guilty:

guilty or, laftly, to impute to both these great apoftles, a levity, inconftancy, and weaknefs of mind, which betrayed them into a conduct, unworthy of their facred character.

After fhewing that the interpretations, which have been invented by ancient and modern commentators to evade the force of thefe objections, are unnatural and abfurd, he proceeds as follows. • On the whole, we may obferve, how impoffible it is for men, even of the greatest learning and piety, to interpret fcripture with fuccefs, when they come to it prepoffeffed with fyftems, which they are lifted as it were to defend, as neceffary parts of the chriftian religion: for, instead of fearching candidly for the true meaning of the text, they come provided with fenfes, which they are obliged to ingraft upon it; till, by a practice and habit of wrefting the fcripture on all occafions, they acquire a dexterity of extracting what doctrines they pleafe out of it.

The cafe now before us affords a remarkable instance of it. There is not a fact in all the fcriptures more clearly, expressly and intelligibly delivered than this into which we are inquiring: and, if it were found in any other book but the bible, or told of any other perfons but the apostles, it would be underftood at once, without the poffibili.y of a mistake, by all even of the lowest capacity. Yet this plain ftory, related in a book which, above all others, is calculated for the univerfal inftruction and benefit of mankind, has puzzled both the Greeks, and the Latins of all ages, and been ftrained and tortured by the ableft doctors of the church, for the fake of fqueezing out of it every poffible fenfe, but the true one. For which no other caufe can be affigned but this; that, in the degeneracy of the primitive church, when, by the policy or fuperftition of its leaders, new rites and doctrines were introduced, which the text of fcripture difclaimed; then reafon and sense were of course difcarded, and no rule of interpreting admitted, but. what tallied with the fashionable fyftems, and ferved the views of those who introduced them.

I fhall proceed therefore, without any farther regard to the prejudices or interpretation either of the ancients or moderns, to fet forth the real ftate of this fact, as it is declared by St. Paul, and illuftrated by other paffages of the new teftament.

It is manifeft then, in the first place, that Peter, tho' more particularly the apoftle of the Jews, was clearly convinced, that the ceremonies of the law were fuperfeded and abolished

2

abolifhed by the difpenfation of the gofpel. For, on all occafions, we find him ftrongly afferting this doctrine, and declaring, that the yoke of Mofes ought not to be imposed on the necks of chriftians: yet with all this conviction, it is equally manifeft, that, through fear of the Jews, he was induced, as we have seen above, to change his conduct, diffemble his opinion, and join himself to thofe zealots of the law, who required the obfervance of its rites, as necessary ftill to all.

• Paul, on the other hand, the apoftle of the Gentiles, and, by that character, the more engaged to vindicate their liberty, knowing Peter's fentiments on this queftion to be really the fame with his own, was fo fcandalized at his diffimulation, that he could not abftain from reproaching him very feverely for it it in public: yet, when it came afterwards to his own turn to be alarmed with an apprehenfion of danger from the fame quarter, he was content to comply and diffemble too, and, in order to pacify the Jews, affected a zeal for their legal rites and obfervances, by the advice of Fames, who then prefided in the church of Ferufalem.

We may observe however by the way, that the conduct of Paul was not fo guarded and cautious as that of Peter, who feems to have better understood the true fpirit of his countrymen, and to what extravagance their enthufiaftic zeal would carry them, if provoked and pushed to extremity he recollected, that they had ftoned Stephen, for declaring, that Jefus came to change those customs, which Mofes had established; and he took care therefore, to give way to them in time, when his compliance was likely to prevent the danger, which he apprehended: whereas Paul had carried his zeal for chriftian liberty fo far, and declared himfelf every where fo roundly against the ceremonies of the law, both by preaching and writing, that, when he was driven afterwards to a change of conduct, his diffimuJation proved too late, and, inftead of pacifying the Jews, provoked them only the more; fo that they laid violent hands upon him in the temple, and would certainly have deftroyed him, if the chief captain had not come to his refcue with a band of foldiers. Acts xxi.

• This is the true ftate of the cafe, as it may clearly be collected from feveral paffages of the new teftament: and whatever ufe the enemies of religion can make of it, they must enjoy it, fince chriftianity cannot be defended, either by denying or concealing the truth. Let the difciples then A a 2

of

of Porphyry, after the example of their master, object to us if they pleafe, that thefe two apoftles, of whofe extraordinary gifts and miracles we read fo much, were left on many occafions, like all other frail and fallible men, to govern themselves by rules and maxims merely human, and were betrayed fometimes by their paffions, into compliances difhonourable to their character: for, fhould we grant them all this, it cannot be of any hurt or difcredit to christianty, unless they could fhew it to be one of its doctrines, that perfons extraordinarily illuminated and infpired on certain occafions, did on all occafions cease to be men: which will not be pretended in a religion, whofe facred monuments, both of the old and new teftament, furnifh many inftances of the fins and frailties of thofe who are there celebrated as the principal favourites of heaven.

It may be objected ftill farther, that, whatever notions we may entertain concerning the infpiration of the facred writings, it is evident from this very cafe, that the apofties and first preachers were not conftantly inspired by the holy ghoft, even in the execution of their miniftry, and the propagation of the gospel, in one of the principal cities of the east and this too muft neceffarily be granted, fince it is demonftrably proved by the fact into which we are enquiring: for, it Peter's conduct was really blameable, we muft neceffarily allow, that he was not at that time under the guidance of an unerring fpirit; or, if it was not blameable, then Paul's cenfure of him was rafh and unjuft, and could not be fuggested by the fame fpirit.'

Our author thinks that the fame conclufion may be drawn from many other paffages of the new teftament; from Paul's behaviour before the high prieft, where he was guilty of a rudeness and indecency, which he himself condemns; and from his contention with Barnabas, who had been joined in commiffion with him by the holy ghoft, and was extraordinarily infpired by the fame fpirit. He concludes this tract with the following words. In fhort, fays he, this notion of the univerfal infpiration of the apostles and facred writers, appears to have no other foundation, but in the miftaken fenfe of certain texts, fuggefted by the prejudices of pious men, who greedily embrace an hypothefis, which feems to advance the honour of religion, and furnishes, at the fame time, the fhorteft and eafieft method of filencing all objections to it, by the infallible authority of perfons infpired by God. But this fame queftion will be more clearly and largely illuftrated in my next enquiry.'

He

He introduces his reflections on the inconfiftencies which are found among the evangelifts, in their different accounts of the fame facts, with obferving, that the agreement which is found in the four gofpels, with regard to the principal tranfactions there recorded, tho' written by different perfons, at different times, and in different places, is so strong a proof of the truth of chriftianity, that its adverfaries have been endeavouring, in all ages, to fhake this foundation, without fuccefs. But the champions of the gofpel, fays he, not content with fimple victory, nor fatisfied with refuting the cavils of its enemies, refolved to carry their triumphs ftill farther, and to cut off even the poffibility of cavilling for the future, by maintaining, that the evangelifts were not only confiftent in their accounts of all the greater events, but could not poffibly contradict each other, even in the smallest, being all of them perpetually inspired by a divine and unerring fpirit.

The doctor examines this opinion with great freedom, produces a great number of inftances wherein the evangelifts are inconfiftent with each other in their relation of facts, fhews what has been advanced by antient and modern critics to make them appear confiftent, and concludes that many of the facts, recorded in the gospels, are related fo variously, that they cannot poffibly be reconciled by all the art and fubtlety of the most expert commentators. He is far from thinking, however, that the differences and inconfiftencies which are found in the gofpels reflect any difcredit on chriftianity: on the contrary, he is of opinion, that they are of real fervice towards illuftrating the truth of it, and that they tend to establish the authority of the evangelifts, tho' they overthrow the hypothesis which is commonly entertained concerning them, viz. that, in compiling their feveral gofpels, they were conftantly infpired and directed by an unerring fpirit.

The belief then, fays he, of the infpiration and abfolute infallibility of the evangelifts, feems to be more abfurd, than even of tranfubftantiation itself: for this, tho' repugnant to fenfe, is fupported by the exprefs words of fcripture; whereas the other, not lefs contrary to fenfe, is contrary at the fame time to the declarations of the evangelifts 、 themselves. Yet fuch is the force of prejudice, that the generality of expositors take great pains to feach out texts and arguments for the fupport of this favourite hypothefis; not confidering, that, if they were able to produce any, from which they could extort fuch an interpretation, it