name.

But the FLESH and BLOOD of the Sacrifice, of which the Lord's fupper was a festive commemoration, not being then at hand, as Christ was not yet offered on the Cross, the Elements of Bread and Wine, fubftituted in their place. were, by an elegant and neceffary converfion, called the body and blood, as these elements only were declarative of the nature of the Rite, viz. a feast upon Sacrifice-To fupport this reatoning fill further. Another facred Rite, that of the impofition of hands, in procuring the defcent of the HOLY SPIRIT, is called the BAPTISM BY FIRE; in which, both the terms are figurative, as, in the Baptifm by Water, both are literal. And why this difference ? Because the Agent of Inftrument of this Baptifm by fire being Spiritual, there was need of figurative terms, taken from material things, to aid the groffness of our conceptions, concerning the manner of the operation. So that all the mystery in this affair (I mean, fo far forth as concerns the terms of the inftitution) is no more than this; when the things communicated are of a fpiritual natufe, as the gifts of the Holy Spirit; or of a material nature not yet in effe, as the flesh of a Sacrifice, not yet offered up, and therefore needing another body to be fubftituted in its place, there, the employing figurative terms becomes neceffary.

neceffary. But when the thing communicated is a material Subftance, at hand, and actually capable of being employed, as Water in Baptifm, it would rather confound, than aid our conceptions, to ufe improper, that is, figurative

terms.

P. 184. [I]. They had one common nature fo far as they really conveyed, or were foolishly imagined to convey, benefits to the Participants. But St. Paul joining to the Christian and the Jewish, the Gentile facrificial Feafts, he thought it logically neceffary to make a diftinction between the real and the imaginary benefits; which he does in this manner-What say I then? that an IDOL is any thing; or that which is offered to Idols is any thing? No, (fays he) both are nothing, i. e. are equally incapable of conveying benefits. That this must be his meaning, appears from his predicating the fame thing both of the Idol and the offering. Now, as the offering had a PHYSICAL existence, what hindered but that, in his opinion, the Idol might have a METAPHYSICAL? Though in an efficacious and MORAL fenfe, Both were nothing. This interpretation fhews that the Apostle was perfectly confiftent, when just before he calls these Idols NOTHING, and yet, prefently after, fays they were DEVILS, whom, we know, in his opi

nion, were SOMETHING. The calling these Idols, Devils, ferved to explain his meaning when he said Idols were nothing, to be this, that no benefit was to be expected from them. And to intimate yet further, that fo far from receive ing benefit from Idols, their Worfhippers, by this intercourse with them, were fubject to great harm and mifchief. In order to infinuate this latter affertion, the Apostle changes his firft idea of an Idol, which he used in common with the Gentiles, to this fecond, which he, and all the Chriftians of that time, had of them.-The Idols, to whom the Gentiles intentionally facri, ficed, were their national Gods, the celestial Bodies, their dead Ancestors; their Kings and Benefactors; all of them, long ago, engrafted into the public worship. From fuch, the Apostle owns, they could receive neither good nor harm; these being only IDOLS OF THE BRAIN. But SATAN or the DEVIL, as the Original Aur thor and ftill the fomenter of Idolatry, makes him properly and peculiarly the IDOL OF THE ALTAR. From fuch an Idol, they, to whom the Apoftle writes, muft readily confess, much harm would arife from communicating with him, in a Sacrificial or facramental feaft.

Of this capital Enemy of Mankind the Gentiles themselves had, fomehow or other, receiv

ed

ed an obfcure tradition; plentifully, indeed, contaminated with fable; which they ftill fur ther polluted with new-invented Superftitions. Yet these ftill preferving a few traces of refems blance to the Mofaic Hiftory, and occafioning fome conformity between the languages of error and revelation, have drawn unwary men into fome dangerous conclufions, as if the Founders of our holy Religion had taken advantage of Pagan follies to form a fyftem of DEMONOLO GY, agreeable to the preconceived fancies of their CONVERTS.-But of this more, in its place, The prefent occafion rather leads us to admire the Art by which the Sacred Writer has conducted his argument,

P. 229. [K]. It fhould feem moft probable that the miraculous powers were, in general, occafional and temporary. But a learned Writer, who has declared himfelf of this opinion, hath unwarily put the gift of tongues into the number." The Gift of Tongues upon the day of "Pentecoft (fays he) was not lafting, but instanta"neous and tranfitory; not beftowed upon them

for the conftant work of the Ministry, but as "an occafional fign only, that a perfon endowed with it was a chofen minifter of the Gospel: "which fign, as foon as it had ferved that par "ticular

i

"ticular purpose, seems to have ceased, and "totally to have vanished *."

Would reason, or the truth of things, fuffer us to be thus compliant, we might concede to Unbelievers all which they fancy the Learned Writer hath procured for them, "that the power "of tongues was temporary, and, like the power "of healing, poffeffed occafionally," without being alarmed at any confequence they will be able to deduce from it. For let it be granted, that the gift of tongues returned as often as they had occafion for its ufe, and it is no great matter where it refided in the interim.

But neither reafon, nor the truth of things, will fuffer us to be thus complaifant. The power of bealing the difeafed (to which Dr. M. compares the gift of tongues) is, during the whole course of its operation, one continued arrest or diverfion of the general laws of matter and motion; it was therefore very fitting that this power should be imparted occafionally. But the gift of tongues, when once it was conferred, became, from thenceforth, a natural power; juft as the free and perfect use of the members of the Body, after they had been restored, by miracle, to the exercise of their natural func

* Dr. Middleton's Effay on the Gift of Tongues, Vol. II. of his Works, p. 79.

3

tions.