__________________________________________________________________

Title: A DEMONSTRATION of the Gross and Fundamental Errors
Creator(s): Law, William (1686-1761)
Rights: Public Domain

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

A DEMONSTRATION of the Gross and Fundamental Errors

Of a late book,

called A Plain Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament

of the Lord’s Supper,

Wherein also the nature and extent

of the redemption of all mankind by Jesus Christ

is stated and explained; and the pretences of the Deists,

for a religion of natural reason instead of it,

are examined to the bottom. The whole humbly, earnestly,

and affectionately addressed to all orders of men,

and more especially to all the younger clergy.
__________________________________________________________________

[Dem-1] My design (worthy reader) is not to lay before you all the
errors and false reasonings of this author throughout his whole
treatise. This would lead you into too much wrangle, and the
multiplicity of things disputed, would take your eye from the chief
point in question, and so make the matter less edifying to you.

[Dem-2] Many therefore of his lesser mistakes I shall pass over, and
only endeavor to discover such gross and fundamental errors, as may
justly pass for an entire confutation of his whole book.

[Dem-3] The foundation on which he proceeds, and the principal matters
of his discourse, are not only notoriously against the truth of the
sacrament, but plainly destructive of the principal doctrines of the
Christian religion.

[Dem-4] And if this key of knowledge, put into your hands by this
author, is accepted by you, you will not only lose all the right
knowledge of this sacrament, but be rendered a blind, deaf, and even
dead reader of all the other doctrines of scripture. For the way he
points out to find the truth of the doctrine of the sacrament, is the
only way to lose the truth of all the most important parts of the
gospel.

[Dem-5] Who this nameless author is, neither concerns the truth, nor
you, nor me, and therefore I leave that matter as he has left it.

[Dem-6] He begins with giving us this account of the principles on
which he proceeds.

[Dem-6] I have endeavored to establish and explain the true nature,
end, and effect of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. And this in such
a manner, that all who are concerned may, I hope, be led into the right
way of judging about it. {Page 5} To this I have endeavored to guide
them, by directing and confining their attention to all that is said
about this duty, by those who alone had any authority to declare the
nature of it: Neither on the one hand diminishing, nor on the other
augmenting, what is declared by them to belong to it. If therefore the
manner in which I have chosen to treat this subject, should appear to
some to stand in need of any apology; this is the only one I can
persuade myself to make, that I have no authority to add to the words
of Christ and his apostles upon this subject; nor to put any meaning or
interpretation upon these words, but what is agreeable to the common
rules of speaking in like cases, and to the declared design of the
institution itself. {Page 6}–All who (in the apostle’s phrase) love
our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and who desire to be no wiser about
his appointments, than he himself was; and are content to expect no
more from his institution than he himself put into it, will join with
me at least in the one only method of examining into the nature and
extent of it. {Page 7}

[Dem-7] Here he has given us a short, but full account of the
principles upon which he proceeds, which I shall reduce into the
following propositions.

[Dem-8] First, that the nature, end, and effects of the holy sacrament
can only be so far known, and apprehended by us, as the bare words of
Christ in the institution of the sacrament, related by the apostles and
evangelists, have made them known to us.

[Dem-9] Secondly, that no other meaning or interpretation is to be put
upon these words, but what is agreeable to the common rules of speaking
on the like occasions.

[Dem-10] Thirdly, that this examination into the meaning of the words,
according to the common rules of speaking on the like occasions, is the
one only method of knowing what is meant by them.

[Dem-11] Fourthly, that this knowledge thus acquired from such a
consideration of the words, is all the knowledge that we can have of
the nature, end, and effects of this holy sacrament.

[Dem-12] Everyone must see that these propositions are fairly taken
from his own words, and that they are the foundation of his whole
discourse. He builds upon them as upon so many axioms, or first
principles; and all he says from the beginning to the end of his
treatise, is founded upon the supposed incontestable truth of them.

[Dem-13] Here therefore let me desire you to fix your eye, for here I
will place the merits of the cause with him: If this foundation cannot
be shaken, I will dispute nothing that he has built upon it.

[Dem-14] But then let it be observed, that if these propositions are
proved to be absolutely false, and most evidently repugnant to the
repeated letter, constant spirit, and whole tenor of scripture, then
all this whole treatise, from the beginning to the end, so far as he
proceeds upon his own avowed principles, is mere fiction and fable, a
castle in the air.

[Dem-15] I shall therefore in the plainest manner show the falseness of
these propositions, and that they are so far from being what he takes
them to be, viz., the only means of arriving at the fullness of
scripture truths, that whoever entertains them as truths, and abides by
them in his search after scripture truths, is, and must be, so long as
he continues in that sentiment and practice, stone-blind to all the
mysteries of the kingdom of God, as related in scripture.

[Dem-16] And that, if it were anyone’s desire to do exactly what our
blessed Lord charges upon the Pharisees and lawyer, “that they shut up
the kingdom of heaven, took away the key of knowledge, entered not in
themselves, and those that were entering in, they hindered”: were this
the deepest desire of anyone’s heart, the one only effectual way of
doing it, must be the way that this author has taken in this treatise.
For, it shall also be made appear, that these principles of his are
that very veil which the apostle says was upon the hearts of the Jews;
and that the scriptures have never been useless to, misunderstood, or
rejected by any people of any age, but for this reason, because their
hearts were blinded and hardened by this very method of knowing
scripture truths, which he proposes to us. All the characters of “stiff
-necked, hardened, blind, carnal, and uncircumcised in heart and
spirit,” which are in the scriptures given to unbelieving Jews, are
only so many various ways of describing that state of heart, which
these very principles had produced in them.

[Dem-17] Had they thought of any other method of knowing their messiah,
but that of the bare letter of scripture, interpreted according to the
common rules of speaking, the greatest occasion of their infidelity had
been removed.

[Dem-18] But to begin in my proposed method. The holy sacrament was
instituted in these words: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,
and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,
Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave it to them,
saying, Drink ye all of it: for this is my blood of the New Testament,
which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.” Matt. 26:28. In St.
Luke the words of institution are: “And he took the bread, and gave
thanks, and brake it, and gave it unto them, saying, This is my body
which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the
cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood,
which is shed for you.” Luke 22:19.

[Dem-19] Let us now apply the doctrine contained in the forementioned
propositions to these words of the institution of the sacrament.
According to the doctrine of those propositions, the one only method of
understanding what is meant by these words of the institution, is to
consider and interpret them “according to the common rules of speaking
in like cases.” But, pray sir, where must a man look for a like case?
Does the world afford us any case like it? Have the speaker, or the
things spoken, any things in common life that are alike to either of
them? How vain it is therefore to refer us to the common rules of
speaking on the like cases, when the whole world affords us neither any
person like him that spoke, nor any thing, or case, like the things and
case here spoken of.

[Dem-20] The scripture saith, “He spake the word, and they were made;
he commanded, and they were created.” {Psalm 148:5.} Has this way of
speaking any parallel in the language of men? Do human things and
transactions furnish us with anything like this?

[Dem-21] Now the Word which thus speaking created all things, is not
more extraordinary, more above the common rules of speaking, or more
without human example, than that Word which, in the institution of the
sacrament, spake, and it was done; commanded, and it was created. For
it is the same omnipotent Word that here speaketh, that spoke the
creation into being; and the effects of his speaking in the institution
of the sacrament, are as extraordinary, and as much above the effects
of human speaking, as when the same Word “spake, and they were made;
commanded, and they were created.” And it is impossible for anyone to
show, that there is less of divine power and greatness, less of mystery
and miracle implied in these words spoken by the eternal Word in the
institution of the sacrament, than when the same eternal Word said,
“Let there be light, and there was light.”

[Dem-22] All words have a meaning, a significancy and effect, according
to the nature of him, whose they are. The words of God are of the
nature of God, divine, living and powerful; the words of an angel are,
as that angel is in power and perfection; the words of a devil have
only his nature and power, and therefore they can only and solely tempt
to evil; the words of man are, as men are, weak, vain, earthly, and of
a poor and narrow signification. To direct us therefore to the common
rules of speaking amongst men, as the only means of truly knowing all
that the Son of God spoke, when he spoke of himself, and on such an
occasion, and in such circumstances as never did, nor ever can happen
or belong to anyone but himself, is surely no small mistake. The common
rules of speaking are like other things that are common amongst men,
viz., poor, empty, and superficial, hardly touching the outside of the
mere human things we talk about. If therefore what the Son of God said
of himself in the institution of this holy sacrament, must necessarily
be supposed to have no higher meaning or deeper sense, than such as is
according to the common rules of speaking amongst men; it must
necessarily follow, that he spoke as meanly, as imperfectly, and as
superficially in what he said of himself, and the matter he was upon,
as when men speak of themselves and human things. For if there were not
the same weak, empty, and superficial meaning in his words, as there is
in the common discourse of men; then the common rules of speaking
amongst men cannot be a proper, much less the only means of
understanding all the truth that is contained in them.

[Dem-23] This author seems to be in the same mistake concerning Jesus
Christ and his kingdom, as his disciples were in, before they had
received power from on high. They had till then heard him only with
their outward ears; conceived what he said, only according to the
common rules of speaking amongst men, and so continued perfect
strangers to all the mysteries and great truths of the gospel. But
after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them, their understandings
were opened, and they saw all things with new eyes, and in a new light;
they then fully apprehended what their Lord meant by these remarkable
words, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Which is the same thing as if
he had said, I speak not as a person of this world, and therefore the
things which I say, can neither be understood by a worldly mind, nor
according to the common ways of speaking amongst men. And had this
author sufficiently attended to the sense of these words, and felt the
truth of them in his own heart, it seems next to impossible for him to
have fallen into his present way of reasoning. For he that truly and
fully believes that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and
that therefore worldly powers and privileges are not a proper part of
it, can hardly be so inconsistent with himself, as to affirm, that
worldly language, spoken on worldly matters, is the only proper key to
the right understanding the truths and doctrines of this kingdom, that
is so out of, above, and contrary to this world.

[Dem-24] And if he has but one just and good argument to prove, that
worldly power is not the proper and only power that belongs to this
kingdom, the same argument will as fully prove, that worldly language
understood according to the common rules of speaking, cannot be the
proper and only means of rightly apprehending the truths of this
kingdom.

[Dem-25] To proceed; he refers and confines us to the bare words of the
institution, for the right and full understanding of all that is to be
understood of the nature, end, and effects of the holy sacrament.

[Dem-26] Here he throws an easy deception into the mind of his reader,
who because he may justly think he is right in declaring the words of
institution to be the only true and full account of the sacrament, as
to the outward form and matter of it, suspects him not to be wrong,
when he concludes from thence, that the words are also the only true
and full account of the nature, end and effects of the holy sacrament.
Whereas this is as false, as the other is true; for the nature, and
end, and effects of the holy sacrament, neither are, nor possibly can
be taught us (as shall be shown hereafter) from the bare words of the
institution, considered by themselves.

[Dem-27] Let us suppose that one of this author’s rational men, of
clear ideas, but an absolute stranger to the scriptures, and to our
savior’s doctrines, had been present only when he spoke the words of
the institution; would his knowledge of the meaning of words, according
to the common rules of speaking, have directed him to the true sense of
all that was implied by this sacrament and the observation of it? To
say that such a person thus qualified could have known the true nature,
end, and effects of the holy sacrament, is surely too absurd to be
imagined. And to say that he could not, is fully giving up this
author’s whole doctrine, namely, that the bare understanding the words
of the institution according to the common rules of speaking, is the
only way to understand all that is certain and true as the nature, end,
and effects of the sacrament. For if this were so, it would evidently
follow, that a perfect stranger to all the other doctrines and
institutions both of the Old and New Testament, would be as well
qualified to understand all that was implied in the words of the
institution, as he that had the fullest knowledge of everything that
ever had been revealed or appointed by God, either before or since the
birth of Christ.

[Dem-28] But if some knowledge of what God has revealed both in the Old
and New Testament be required, for a right understanding what is
implied in the words of the institution, then it is absolutely false,
and highly blamable, to say, that the bare words of the institution,
considered in themselves only, according to the common rules of
speaking, are the only means or method of understanding all that is
implied in them.

[Dem-29] Either this sacrament has some relation to some other
doctrines of the Old and New Testament, or it has not; if it has no
relation to them, then it must be said to have no agreement with any
other part of scripture: but if it has some relation to other doctrines
of scripture, then it demonstratively follows, that this institution
must be interpreted, not according to the bare meaning of the words in
the common ways of speaking, but according to that relation which it
has to some other doctrines of scripture. This, I think, is
incontestable, and entirely overthrows his only method of understanding
the nature of the sacrament.

[Dem-30] Again, another argument of still greater force against him may
be taken from the apostles themselves. He confines us to the bare words
of the institution related by the apostles and evangelists, as the only
means of knowing all that can be known of the nature, end, and effects
of the sacrament; and yet it is certain, beyond all doubt, that the
apostles and evangelists neither had, nor could possibly have this
design in relating and recording the words of the institution, namely,
that we might thereby have the one only means of knowing all that is to
be understood by it.

[Dem-31] For they very well knew, that they had received no such
knowledge themselves from the bare words of the institution, and
therefore they could not relate them as the only means of instruction
in that matter to others. They very well knew, that if they had
received no other light, besides that which those words conveyed, they
had died in a total ignorance of the whole matter.

[Dem-32] They very well knew, that though they had personally conversed
with Christ, had heard from his own mouth, mysteries preparatory to
their right knowledge of their savior, that notwithstanding all this,
when they heard and saw him institute the sacrament in its outward form
and matter, as they relate it, by the help of the bare words of the
institution, they then neither did, nor could rightly understand the
nature, end, and effects of the holy sacrament. And therefore it may be
said to be certain beyond all doubt, that they neither did nor could
relate and record these words of the institution, as the only means of
rightly understanding all that is implied in the sacrament, as to the
nature, end, and effects of it. And yet this author takes all this for
granted, and supposes that the apostles had all their knowledge of the
sacrament from the words of the institution, and that they have
recorded the institution for this end, and with this design, that we
might know all that they knew, and all that could be known concerning
it.

[Dem-33] That the apostles themselves did not comprehend the nature,
end, and effects of the sacrament from the words of the institution, is
plain; for they did not then know what person their savior was, or how
he was to save them or what their salvation in itself implied. They
knew nothing of the nature or merit of his sufferings, but thought all
to be lost, when he suffered death. They knew not how to believe in his
resurrection, and when they did believe it, they knew nothing of the
consequences of it; which is a plain proof that they did not at all see
into the meaning of the holy sacrament, for had they known what was
implied in it, they must have known their savior, and the nature of
their salvation. And yet (what is well to be observed) it is also
plain, that in this state of gross ignorance and infidelity, knowing
nothing of their salvation, they had all that knowledge of the holy
sacrament which this author is recommending to the Christian world, as
the only true knowledge of it. For they must have understood the words
according to the common rules of speaking, which is all that he allows
to be understood by them. For any other sense or meaning, that is not
literally expressed in the words taken according to the common rules of
speaking, is by him called a being wiser than Christ in his own
appointments, an adding to the institution, or a putting something into
it, which he has not put in. So that it is evidently plain, that this
purity of knowledge concerning the sacrament, which this author has
writ so large a volume in recommendation of, is that very knowledge of
the sacrament which the apostles had, when they had no faith in Christ
as their savior, nor any knowledge of the nature of Christian
salvation. Everyone must see that this charge is justly brought against
him, and that he cannot possibly avoid it. For if that is the only
right knowledge the nature, end, and effects of the holy sacrament,
which the bare words of the institution, understood according to the
common rules of speaking, declare; if every other sense and meaning is
to be rejected as a criminal adding, or putting something into Christ’s
institution, and a presuming to be wiser than he was; then it
undeniably follows, that that simple and pure knowledge of the
sacrament, which he lays so great claim to, and so much contends for,
is that very gross ignorance of it which the apostles were in, when
they had no light but from the bare words of the institution, and had
all the articles of the Christian faith to learn.

[Dem-34] Further, as the apostles did not, so they could not possibly
know the nature, end, and effects of the holy sacrament, from the bare
words of the institution, nor is it possible for anyone since their
time to know it by that help alone.

[Dem-35] The outward matter and form indeed, or that wherein the
positive institution consists (as I have already said) is sufficiently
plain and intelligible from the bare words of the institution, and is
by them made unalterable. This is the only plainness of the
institution. But what mysteries or doctrines of Christian faith are to
be acknowledged or confessed by the words, the form, and the matter of
it, and what are not, cannot be known from the bare words of the
institution, but are to be learnt by that light which brought the
apostles and the church after them into a true and full knowledge of
the fundamental articles of the Christian faith.

[Dem-36] Take the words of the institution alone as the apostles first
heard them, understood only according to the common rules of speaking,
and then there is nothing in them, but that poor conception which they
had of them at that time, and such as did them no good; and then also
we have that knowledge of this institution, which this author pleads
for. But, take the same words of institution, understood and
interpreted according to the articles of the Christian faith, and seen
in that light in which the apostles afterwards saw them, when they knew
their savior; and then everything that is great and adorable in the
redemption of mankind, everything that can delight, comfort and support
the heart of a Christian, is found to be centered in this holy
sacrament. There then wants nothing but the wedding garment to make
this holy supper the marriage feast of the Lamb: and it is this holy
solemnity, this author is taking so much pains to wrangle us out of, by
so many dry subtleties of a superficial logic.

[Dem-37] But I proceed to show, that neither the apostles, nor any
other persons since them, could possibly know the nature, end and
effects of the holy sacrament, from the bare words of the institution
considered only in themselves, according to the common rules of
speaking. And this may be demonstrated from every part of the
institution.

[Dem-38] I shall begin with these words, which are only a command to
observe the institution, “Do this in remembrance of me”: that is, let
this be done as your confession and acknowledgement of the salvation
that is received through me. Does not every common Christian, that has
any knowledge of scripture, know, that this is the plain meaning of
these words? And that as often as he does this, he does it in
remembrance of his savior, in acknowledgement and confession of that
salvation which mankind received through him? But now, that which is
thus plain and intelligible in the words of the institution to a common
Christian, knowing only the chief articles of his salvation, is
altogether unintelligible to any man that is left solely to the bare
words of the institution; for unless he was instructed in the other
parts of scripture, so as to know what he was to understand by the
words, they would signify no more to him than they would to a heathen,
who had by chance found a bit of paper in the fields with the same
words writ upon it.

[Dem-39] Now a heathen, ignorant of all divine revelation, if he found
such a paper, could not know what it related to, nor what any of the
words signified; he could not know when he was nearer, or when he was
further from a right understanding of them; the common rules of
speaking amongst men, would be of no use to teach him, whether there
was any truth in such a paper, or what kind of truths were declared by
it.

[Dem-40] Now this is exactly the case of him that renounces all other
means of knowing what is contained in the institution, but that of the
words themselves, understood only according to the common rules of
speaking amongst men. Such a one is only in the state of this heathen,
the words of the institution are as unintelligible and useless to him,
as if he had found them by chance; they relate to he knows not what,
they may be all fiction and invention for aught he knows, they cannot
possibly be understood as having any truth or reality in them, till he
that reads them, knows more than is related by them, till he knows the
chief articles of the Christian salvation. For the bare words of the
institution, considered by themselves, do not at all prove, justify, or
explain, even that which they literally express; they are all but
empty, unmeaning words, till the proof, the justification and
explication of them, is learned from some other parts of scripture.
They do not at all prove, justify, or explain, either that we want a
savior, or why we want him, or that a savior is given us, and how he
effects our salvation; and yet all these things are absolutely
necessary to a right understanding of this institution; and as soon as
these things are proved, justified and explained, as soon as we know
that we want a savior, and that one is given to us; as soon as we know
who this savior is, how he saves us, and the nature and manner of our
salvation, then, and not till then, all these words of the institution
become clearly intelligible after a new manner; then all the great
articles of our salvation appear to be finely remembered, acknowledged,
and set forth by them.

[Dem-41] The short of the matter is this; to understand these words
only by themselves, knowing no more in them or by them, than what the
common use of words teaches us, is to understand them only in such a
degree as a heathen may understand them, who knows nothing of the
scripture besides; and this is the knowledge, or rather the total
ignorance of the sacrament, that this author is contending for.

[Dem-42] But if these words are but a part of the Christian religion,
if they are to be understood according to that religion of which they
are a part, if the articles of our Christian salvation have any concern
in them, and we are to receive them as Christians in such a sense as
our Christianity requires of us; then it is undeniably certain, that
this author refers us to an absurdity, and impossibility, when he
refers and confines us to the bare words of the institution, understood
only according to the common rules of speaking, in order to have a
Christian knowledge of the holy sacrament.

[Dem-43] Again, “Do this in remembrance of me”: Now take these words in
what sense you please, is it not equally and absolutely necessary for
the right understanding of them, to know who and what kind of person
this ME is, who is here to be remembered? For if this is to be done in
remembrance of him, how can he be remembered, or acknowledged, unless
it be known what qualities and characters of him are to be remembered
and acknowledged?

[Dem-44] But this is not done in the words of the institution; the
state, nature, and characters of the person to be remembered are not
there declared, nor proved, and explained; therefore something of the
greatest importance to the words, and that must have the greatest
effect upon the sense of them, and that is absolutely necessary to the
right understanding of them, is necessarily to be learnt elsewhere; and
therefore it is again proved that he refers us to an absurdity and
impossibility, when he refers and confines us to the bare words of the
institution, to know all that a Christian can rightly know of them.

[Dem-45] For if all that is done in this sacrament, is to be done for
the sake of remembering and acknowledging him as our savior, then
surely it requires us to remember, and acknowledge him, according to
what he is, with regard to our salvation, and according to those
characters which are so plainly ascribed to him in scripture, and on
which our whole religion is founded; and therefore it is also
necessary, that we rightly know (what cannot possibly be known from the
bare words of the institution) in what respects and on how many
accounts he is our savior, before we can rightly make this remembrance
and acknowledgement of him as such.

[Dem-46] It was the want of this knowledge, that made the institution
of the sacrament useless to the apostles when they first heard it; but
when they had got this knowledge, and knew all the characters of their
savior, and in how many respects he stood as the mediator and redeemer
betwixt God and man, then the institution became highly intelligible to
them, and every part of it plainly declared the mystery that in a
certain sense was both concealed and expressed by it. Now the addition
of this knowledge of the nature, condition, and characters of the
person to be remembered and acknowledged by the institution, is adding
nothing to the institution, but the right use of it; it is bringing
nothing to it, but a mind capable of knowing and observing it.

[Dem-47] He that is to understand a proposition written in Hebrew,
cannot be charged with adding to that proposition, because he holds it
necessary to learn the Hebrew language before he pretends to understand
a proposition written in Hebrew.

[Dem-48] Now a scripture-Christian institution must as necessarily be
understood according to scripture and Christian doctrine, as an Hebrew
proposition must be understood according to the Hebrew language: and
the making use of scripture and Christian doctrine, in order to
understand a scripture and Christian institution, is no more an adding
of something to the institution, that need not, or ought not to be
done, than the interpreting an Hebrew proposition by the Hebrew
language, is an adding of something to it, that need not, or ought not
to be done.

[Dem-49] And, on the other hand, to confine us to the bare words of the
institution, as they are in themselves, as they sound only in common
language, in order to understand a scripture-Christian institution, is
exactly the same thing as to confine us to the bare words of a
proposition written in Hebrew, considered only according to the common
rules of speaking, and not according to that meaning they have in the
Hebrew language to which they belong, and of which they are a part.

[Dem-50] For a scripture-Christian institution must in the same manner
have its dependence upon, foundation in, and interpretation from
scripture and Christian doctrine, of which it is a part, and to which
it belongs, as an Hebrew proposition hath dependence upon, foundation
in, and interpretation from the Hebrew language, to which it belongs,
and of which it is a part.

[Dem-51] This scripture-Christian institution being thus interpreted,
according to the scripture and Christian doctrine, of which it is a
part, is, when thus interpreted, left and kept in that state, in which
Christ left it to be kept. Nay, the institution itself cannot even
literally be observed according to the bare words of it, unless it be
observed according to this knowledge and acknowledgement of all the
characters of Christ.

[Dem-52] For though the bare words of the institution do not express or
teach these characters, yet the bare words or letter of it requires
thus much: for since the letter of the institution requires us to do
this in remembrance and acknowledgement of Christ, the bare letter
requires us in doing this, to acknowledge and remember all the
characters of Christ; therefore he that in doing this does not remember
and acknowledge all the characters of Christ, must be said not to
observe the very letter of the institution. Hence therefore there
arises another plain demonstration against his doctrine, viz., that we
are to know no more of the nature or right observation of the
sacrament, than what is expressly taught us in the bare words of the
institution. For the very letter itself of the institution contradicts
this; and if he will not directly refuse what the bare words expressly
commmand, he must seek for something towards the right observation of
this sacrament, which is only required, but not taught in the words of
the institution. For by the letter of the institution you are commanded
to remember and acknowledge a person, whose characters, condition and
offices to be acknowledged, are not taught in the institution, but only
to be found in other parts of scripture; and therefore the bare letter
of the institution is grossly violated, if we look no further than to
the words of the institution for a right knowledge and observation of
the sacrament.

[Dem-53] Again, if the scriptures teach and prove Christ to be the
sacrifice, atonement and propitiation for our sins, as expressly as
they teach us the institution of the sacrament, does not the
remembrance and acknowledgement of him as the sacrifice, atonement and
propitiation for sin, become a necessary part of our right observation
of the sacrament? For if the sacrament is appointed for the remembrance
and acknowledgement of Christ as our savior, and if as our savior he is
the atonement, the sacrifice, and propitiation for our sins, is not the
remembrance and acknowledgement of him as our sacrifice and atonement,
essential to the remembrance of him as our savior? If these characters
were mentioned in the institution, I suppose they would be allowed to
be an essential part of it. But if the letter of the institution
directly points to, and calls for the acknowledgement of these
characters, then they are as essential to it, as if they were expressly
mentioned in it.

[Dem-54] Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the institution as our
savior, but I suppose it will not be denied that he is there by way of
necessary implication, since the person there to be remembered, is
declared by the scripture to be our savior. But if we may be allowed
thus to take our savior to be the person that is to be remembered and
acknowledged by the sacrament, if this may be done without adding
anything to the institution, if it must be done as absolutely essential
to it, then the addition of sacrifice, atonement, and propitiation for
our sins, may be added without adding anything to the institution, and
must be done as absolutely essential to it; because the scriptures
teach and prove, that Jesus Christ, as our savior, is the sacrifice,
atonement, and propitiation for our sins. Therefore if the remembrance
of him as our savior is essential to the sacrament, the remembrance and
acknowledgement of him as the sacrifice and atonement, and propitiation
for sin, is essential to the sacrament.

[Dem-55] And therefore it follows again, that the very words of the
institution direct us to a further knowledge of the sacrament, than
that which is expressly taught by them.

[Dem-56] To proceed: “Take, eat; this is my body.” Now what signifies
it what anyone can make of these words, understood according to the
common ways of speaking? For the way itself is singular and uncommon,
and has no certain meaning according to the common rules of speaking.
He may as well read a discourse upon truth, to know whether these words
have any truth in them, as consult the common forms of speaking, to
know what is meant by them. For if the things mentioned and expressed
in these words, were not made significant and important to us by
something not mentioned in the sacrament, if they were not asserted and
explained in other parts of scripture, it could never be known from the
words themselves, that they were of any significancy to us, or that
there was any truth and reality in them. The short of the matter is
this: either these words are only a great impropriety of speech, darkly
expressing only a common thing; or they are a figurative form of words,
which by the particularity of the expression are to raise the mind to a
faith and apprehension of such things, as cannot be plainly and nakedly
represented by human language. Now one of these two must necessarily be
true, that is, they must necessarily be either a dark form of words
with only a plain common meaning of an ordinary thing at the bottom, or
they must be a mysterious form of words signifying something more than
human. But now which of these two they are, cannot possibly be known
from the words of the institution. For the words in themselves prove
nothing at all of this; from aught that appears in the words
themselves, they may be mere fiction and impropriety about a trifle, or
the greatest and most important of all truths may be taught by them.
But this can no other possible way be known, but by other parts of
scripture. And if the scriptures were as silent about the truth,
nature, and extent of the things barely mentioned in the sacrament, as
the institution itself is, it must be the same useless, unintelligible
form of words to us, that it was to the apostles when they first heard
them, and had no knowledge of their savior.

[Dem-57] But, on the other hand, if the things barely mentioned in the
words of the institution, are openly asserted, and variously explained
in other parts of scripture; if we are often told what the body of
Christ is in several respects, of the necessity and possibility of
eating his flesh, and drinking his blood; if the scriptures abound with
instruction, showing us how we have our life in him and from him, how
we must be born again in him and through him, how he must be formed in
us, and we new creatures in him; then it follows, that to separate the
institution from these scriptures that variously unfold its nature, and
to confine us to the bare words of the institution itself, in order to
understand it fully, is the same absurdity, the same offense against
scripture and reason, as it would be to confine us to the bare words of
the first promise of a savior made in the third chapter of Genesis, in
order to know fully our Christian savior, and what our Christian
salvation is. For as that first promise of a seed of the woman that
should bruise the serpent’s head, contained the whole character of our
savior, and all that related to him as such, and yet contained nothing
of it intelligible enough, till further revelations, doctrines and
facts explained all that was short and figurative in that first
promise, and showed how every part of our salvation was promised by it;
so the institution of the sacrament contained everything relating to
Christ as our savior, and yet contained nothing of it intelligible
enough, till further revelations, new light, doctrines and facts
explained all that was short and figurative in it, and plainly showed
what it was in its real nature, how it stood in the heart of our
religion, fully attesting and representing the chief characters of
Christ, as he was our savior and redeemer.

[Dem-58] Therefore it is the same gross error to confine the words of
the institution to their own literal meaning, and to understand them
only according to the common rules of speaking, as it would be to
confine that first promise of a savior to the literal meaning of the
words in which it was expressed, understood only according to the
common rules of speaking. For as it was by the scriptures speaking a
language different from the expressions of the first promise of a seed
to bruise the serpent’s head, and giving further revelations concerning
the promised savior in other words, that the words of the first promise
itself came rightly to be understood and believed; so it is by the
scriptures speaking a language different from that of the sacrament,
and by revealing doctrines on which it is founded, that the sacrament
itself came rightly to be known and understood. And if the scripture
may and must be allowed to explain, confirm, and establish the true
meaning of the first promise of a seed to destroy the serpent’s head,
even where the words of it are not mentioned, or expressly said to be
explained; then the scriptures may and must be allowed to explain,
confirm, and establish the true nature of the sacrament, even where the
words of it are not mentioned, or expressly said to be explained.

[Dem-59] Yet this author poorly and vainly supposes, that the nature of
the sacrament, and the things meant by it, are nowhere to be looked for
in scripture, but where the sacramental words, or the manner of the
outward institution is repeated, or expressly said to be explained:
which is as just and solid, as if a Jew should from the same skill in
words suppose, that the explication of the first promise of a woman’s
seed to bruise the serpent’s head, was nowhere to be looked for in
scripture, but in such places as spoke strictly the language of the
first promise, and mentioned the express words, “seed,” and “bruise,”
and the “serpent’s head.”

[Dem-60] And indeed herein, in this poor literal exactness lay all the
infidelity of the Jews, the blindness and hardness of their hearts, and
their incapacity to receive their savior. Look at every folly,
grossness, and erroneous principle of the scribes and Pharisees; look
through the whole of their false religion, and you will find, that they
fell into it all, because they had this author’s method of finding the
truth. They placed all in the letter of scripture, as this author does;
they understood that letter only according to the common rules of
speaking amongst men, as this author does; they looked upon and
understood all the institutions of their religion, as this author looks
upon and understands the sacrament; they saw just so far into the Law,
as he does into the gospel; they had his degree of knowledge, and he
has their degree of ignorance. For take but away from the scribe and
Pharisee the letter of scripture, understood according to the common
rules of speaking, and you take away all their religion; they see no
more of an inward mystery, spirit, or doctrine in it, than this author
sees in the sacrament.

[Dem-61] Again, leave them but the letter of scripture, understood
according to the common rules of speaking, as this author would have
the sacrament left, and then you leave them all that they would have;
and the religion of the scribes and Pharisees is in its full
perfection, and has exactly the perfection of this author’s plain
account of the sacrament.

[Dem-62] This made me say above, that it would appear, that this
author’s method of understanding the scripture doctrine of the
sacrament, was that very veil which the apostle said was upon the
hearts of the Jews; and that he was laboring to draw skins over our
eyes, and to make our ears gross and dull of hearing, that the New
Testament might be as useless to us, as the Old Testament was to the
unbelieving letter- learned scribes and Pharisees. For his excellent
method of understanding the nature of the sacrament, is to a tittle
that very method which kept them totally ignorant of the nature of
their religion.

[Dem-63] Every prophecy of our savior, whether in the Law, or the
psalms, or the prophets, served only to keep him more out of their
knowledge; because looking only upon it, as this author looks upon the
words of the institution, they were under a necessity of understanding
it wrong, and so the more prophecies they had of him, the further they
were carried from the true knowledge of their promised savior.
Circumcision, sacrifices, washings, feasts and fasts, &c., which were
intended and appointed as so many school-masters or guides to Christ,
were by them turned into dead, carnal, earthly ordinances, that left
them in their sins, and incapable of acknowledging their savior, or so
much as feeling any want of one; for this very reason, because they saw
no further into their sacrifices, than this author sees into the
sacrament; but thought that the whole nature and end of a sacrifice was
fully observed, when they had slain an ox, and not changed it into the
cutting off of a dog’s head. This was their great point in sacrifice,
just as this author has found out the great point, as he calls it, of
the sacrament, which consists in a bare act of the memory, remembering
Christ as a teacher of religion at the instant you take the bread or
the cup, and not remembering Aristotle or Socinus, &c., as teachers of
logic and criticism.

[Dem-64] When you have by this sole act of your memory thus separated
and distinguished what is done in the sacrament, from that which is
done for food, or mirth, or in memory of your friends, then you have
secured the great point in the sacrament, and are to look for nothing
further as to the peculiar nature, end, and effects of it. Just as the
letter- learned Pharisee thought that the whole nature and end of the
sacrifice was fully observed when he had slain an ox, and not cut off a
dog’s head.

[Dem-65] And if you are for adding anything to the sacrament besides
this distinguishing act of the memory, you are as blamable in the sight
of this author, as the apostles were in the eyes of the unbelieving
Pharisee, when they taught that the blood of slain beasts was, as to
its nature and end, a type and application of the atonement of Christ’s
blood. Thus does this author stand in the very state and place of the
unbelieving Pharisee, teaching Christians the gospel, as he taught the
Jews the Law, and excluding the true knowledge of Christ from Christian
institutions, just as the Pharisee excluded it from the Jewish.

[Dem-66] And if you ask, or search ever so much into the true reason
why the religion of the scribes and Pharisees was so odious in the
sight of our blessed savior, why he cast so many reproaches upon it,
why he denounced so many woes against it; the one true genuine cause
was this, it was because they stood on the outside of the Law, just as
this author stands on the outside of the gospel, and were content with
such a plain account of their sacrifices and circumcision, as he has
given us of the sacrament; it was because they stuck to the bare letter
of scripture, only understood according to the common rules of speaking
amongst men; it was this fullness of a false, empty, and dead
knowledge, that made the scriptures useless to them, that fixed them in
a state of blind self -sufficiency, and made it harder for the
rational, letter-learned Pharisee, than for a gross sinner to see the
kingdom of God, or to acknowledge him that preached it.

[Dem-67] And here we may see the true and solid meaning of the apostle,
when he saith, God had “made them able ministers of the New Testament,
not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the
spirit giveth life.” {2 Cor. 3:6.}

[Dem-68] For the letter of scripture, understood only according to the
common rules of speaking, is the letter that killeth, the letter that
made the Jews unbelievers in Christ, that makes speculative Christians,
idealists, critics and grammarians fall into infidelity; but scripture,
interpreted not by lexicons and dictionaries, but by doctrines revealed
by God, and by an inward teaching and unction of the Holy Ghost, is
that spirit which giveth life.

[Dem-69] But this author, according to his own principles, is obliged
to own himself to be an anti-apostle, and to declare, that not God, but
logic, and much attention to human words and ways of reasoning, have
made him an able minister of the New Testament, not of the spirit, but
of the letter; and has convinced him, that it is the letter alone that
giveth life. For he cannot allow the smallest degree of sound doctrine
to be in the apostle’s words; had he but dropped an expression like it,
or made the least acknowledgement of a killing letter of scripture,
till the spirit gave life to it, it must have passed for a full
recantation of all his Plain Account.

[Dem-70] But to return to the further consideration of the words of the
institution: “This is my body, which is given for you; this is my
blood, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.” Who can know
what is right or wrong in these expressions, or in what sense they are
to be received, if he look only to the sound of the words according to
the common rules of speaking? Or supposing he could guess out some
tolerable meaning; yet if the scripture has doctrines concerning these
things, teaching, asserting, and explaining how, and in what sense his
body is given for us, and his blood the atonement for our sins, in a
way and manner above all human thought and conception; then it follows,
that no meaning of the words can be admitted, but that which is
according to the scripture explication of the things mentioned by them.

[Dem-71] Nothing therefore can be more unjustifiable and impracticable,
than this author’s only method of understanding the nature of the
sacrament from the words considered in themselves. For as this cannot
be the way of understanding the truth of any doctrines of scripture, so
least of all can it be the way of understanding the true meaning of the
words of the institution; for these words have a more than ordinary
relation to, and dependence upon all the scriptures. For as Christ is
in some respect or other represented, and made further known what he is
to us, in almost every page of scripture; so the sacrament, which is to
be done in remembrance and acknowledgement of what he is to us, must
have its relation to, and dependence upon all those places and
doctrines of scripture, which teach what he is to us, and what we are
to remember and acknowledge him to be. Therefore, all those passages of
scripture, which teach and explain the nature, office, and condition of
Christ, directly and immediately teach and explain what we are to do,
remember and acknowledge in the sacrament, and are in the same degree
true and proper comments upon the nature of the sacrament, in which
they are true accounts and descriptions of our savior. And that which
we are to believe of our savior according to the scriptures, that we
are to remember and acknowledge of him in the sacrament; and therefore
the scripture explication of the sacrament is not, as this author
extravagantly supposes, confined to those texts that mention expressly
the sacrament, or the words of the institution, but is as large and
extensive as the scripture explication of the nature, office, and
condition of Christ as our savior. Wherever we are taught anything
concerning him as such, there we are directly taught something of the
true nature and end of the sacrament, and what we are to remember and
acknowledge of him in the doing it.

[Dem-72] “Search the scriptures,” saith our blessed savior, “for they
are they which testify of me.” Is not this in the plainest manner
referring us to all the scriptures that speak of him as our savior, to
know what we are to remember and acknowledge of him in the sacrament?
For since he saith, Search the scriptures, for they are they that
testify of me; and in the sacrament, Do this in remembrance or
acknowledgement of me; is it not directly as full to the purpose, as if
he had said, Search the scriptures, for they are they which testify
what you are to remember and acknowledge concerning me in the
sacrament? For that which they testify of him, that they must testify
of the nature and end of the sacrament, which is to be done in
remembrance and acknowledgement of that which is so testified of him.
Since therefore every scripture that testifies anything concerning
Christ, as our savior, testifies so much of that which is to be
acknowledged of him in the sacrament, it plainly follows, that the
nature and end of the sacrament can only be so far known, as the
nature, character, office and condition of Christ is known; and that
all those scriptures which teach us the one, in the same degree teach
us the other, and are as necessary to teach us the nature of the
sacrament, as the nature of Christ; for this plain reason, because the
sacrament is to remember and acknowledge that which is taught us
concerning the nature of Christ.

[Dem-73] Hence again it appears with how little judgment and less truth
this author affirms, that the nature and end of the sacrament is only
to be known from the bare words of the institution, understood
according to the common rules of speaking.

[Dem-74] Again, another argument which will make the absurdity of this
same error still further apparent, may be taken from the following
passage of scripture. When our savior said in the 6th of St. John, that
his “flesh was meat indeed, and his blood was drink indeed”; and that
unless a “man did eat his flesh, and drink his blood, he had no life in
him; his disciples were astonished at his discourse, and said, How can
this man give us his flesh to eat?” To which, by way of answer, he
said, “The words that I say unto you, they are Spirit, and they are
life.” For if our savior had thought at all like this author, and had
intended to be understood according to the common rules of speaking, he
would have spoken only common language; and upon their not
understanding what he said, he must have directed them to the right
way, and have said, Consider my words only according to the common
rules of speaking, and then you will know all that is to be known by
them.

[Dem-75] Least of all could he have said, to help their understanding
of them in a common way, “The words that I speak unto you, they are
Spirit, and they are life”; for surely such a way of speaking could not
be directing them to the common rules of speaking amongst men. For if
he had intended to show them in the strongest manner, how much what he
said was different from, and superior to all the common meaning of
human words; how could he have done this in a higher degree, than by
saying as he did, “The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit and
they are life.”

[Dem-76] Now, the question put by his disciples, “How can this man give
us his flesh to eat?” comes as naturally in the case of the sacrament,
where we are to eat his body, and drink his blood, as in the
forementioned place of St. John; and as there is the same foundation
for the same question, so there is strictly the same foundation for the
same answer, viz., “The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit,
and they are life.”

[Dem-77] And it is absolutely impossible for anyone to show, that the
words of the institution are not as truly to be looked upon as Spirit
and life, as the other words about eating his flesh, and drinking his
blood. For surely, he that is obliged to own, that the words in St.
John, of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, are Spirit and life,
cannot have any proof that the words in the sacrament, of eating his
body and drinking his blood, have nothing of that Spirit and life in
them. For if it be asked, Why the words in St. John are Spirit and
life? The one only reason is this, because they speak of eating
Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood, which is such a spiritual,
living participation of the nature of Christ, or, in scripture words,
such a putting on of Christ, as cannot be understood or obtained by
outward and dead words. And yet if the words in the sacrament must be
said, not to be Spirit and life, the one only reason must be this,
because they only speak of eating Christ’s body, and drinking his
blood.

[Dem-78] But surely this is too great an absurdity for anyone to hold;
for it is saying, that the drinking his blood, when joined with eating
his body, is only an human expression, to be understood according to
the common rules of speaking; but that the drinking his blood, when
joined with eating his flesh, is so great a mystery, so above our
common way of conceiving, that the words expressing it, are said to be
Spirit and life.

[Dem-79] But now if the case be thus, if the words in the sacrament
must be allowed to be Spirit and life, for the same reason that the
words in St. John are said to be Spirit and life; then there is an end
of this author’s poor contrivance to enter into the whole truth
contained in the sacrament, by only considering the words according to
the common rules of speaking. It is a contrivance as unfit for the
purpose, as weakly and improperly thought of, as an iron key to open
the kingdom of heaven.

[Dem-80] Again, if a person hearing the words of our savior, as
recorded in St. John, had said to him, There is no more Spirit and life
in your words than in the words of anyone else, and they can mean no
more than our words according to the common rules of speaking, such a
person might have been reckoned amongst those that blasphemed the Son
of God.

[Dem-81] Now if this author will say the same thing concerning the
words of the institution, of eating his body and drinking his blood,
that they are no more Spirit and life, than the words of men speaking
of human things, and that nothing more is to be understood in them and
by them, than according to the common rules of speaking; I desire to
know, how this could be a lesser degree of blasphemy, or a smaller
offense against the Son of God, than in the former case? Or why it was
not as right and justifiable for a person to say, there was no Spirit
and life in the words of our savior, speaking of eating his flesh and
drinking his blood, as to say, there is no Spirit and life in his
words, speaking in the sacrament of eating his body and drinking his
blood?

[Dem-82] Lastly, either therefore this author must say with those that
blaspheme the Son of God, that the words of the institution are not the
words of him, whose words were Spirit and life, or he must give up his
only method of understanding the true meaning of them. For if they are
Spirit and life, then to seek for the sense of such words in the common
forms of speaking, is truly to seek the living amongst the dead.

[Dem-83] From what has been said of the words of the institution, of
their not being understood by the apostles, of the impossibility of
their being understood according to the sound of the words in the
common ways of speaking; of the impossibility of their being
understood, till the great doctrines and articles of the Christian
faith were first known, and so became the plain and visible explication
of them; from these things we may sufficiently see the falseness of
this author’s chief propositions concerning the sacrament.

[Dem-84] These propositions are printed in a pompous manner, with great
show of significancy, as so many pillars of truth. The four first are
the chief; if therefore they are removed, the others must go with them.

[Dem-85] I shall begin with the fourth proposition, because it is the
chief; both those that are before, and those that follow it, depend
entirely upon the truth of it; and yet it has already appeared, and
shall be made still more apparent, that there is not the least glimpse
of truth in it.

[Dem-86] Speaking of our savior’s instituting the sacrament, he says as
follows.

[Dem-86] Proposition IV. It cannot be doubted, that he himself
sufficiently declared to his first and immediate followers, the whole
of what he designed should be understood by it, or implied in it.

[Dem-87] And yet it has been fully shown to be out of all doubt, by a
variety of arguments, that the first followers of Christ, neither did,
nor possibly could understand the whole nature of the sacrament from
the words of the institution; which is all that our savior himself
declared to them about it, and also all that this author appeals to, as
a proof of his having sufficiently declared the whole matter to them.

[Dem-88] Further, what is asserted in this proposition, is as directly
contrary to truth, scripture, fact, and our savior’s own declarations;
as if it had been asserted, that our savior did that sufficiently
himself, which he declared he had not done sufficiently; and also
should not be done, till after his leaving the world. For at the time
that he was about to depart from them, he expressly says unto them, “I
have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now.
Howbeit, when he the Spirit of truth is come, he shall guide you into
all truth.”

[Dem-89] From this declaration of our savior, as well as from plain
facts recorded in the history of the apostles, it is out of all doubt,
that he left the apostles in great ignorance of the Christian religion,
and that it was not his intention to deliver them out of this ignorance
by his own personal instruction of them; but that they were to continue
in this ignorance till further revelations, new light, and certain
facts which were about to happen, should open to them a clear and full
view of the nature of the Christian religion.

[Dem-90] For first, here are many things that they were yet to be
taught, which they then had not been taught, and of which they were
then to continue ignorant; therefore it is plain, that they could not
sufficiently know all that they were to know, or all that our savior
designed they should know of any article or institution of the
Christian religion; that is, they were so far from knowing the whole
nature and end of the sacrament, that they knew the whole nature of
nothing else in the Christian religion, but knew everything that they
did know, in the most imperfect manner. For surely, if many things
relating to the Christian salvation were yet to be kept secret from
them, the Christian salvation was imperfectly made known unto them; and
therefore they could only have been taught in part, and had only seen
as it were some first sketches, or beginning lines of what they were
afterwards to see in its true fullness.

[Dem-91] And that these many things, of which they were kept thus
ignorant, were many things of the greatest importance and signification
to the right knowledge of the Christian salvation, is evident from the
reason given by our savior, why they were not then taught by him, viz.,
“But ye cannot bear them now.” For surely, if those many things were
then not taught them, for this reason, because they were not able to
bear them then; they must have been things of the greatest importance,
and most uncommon in their nature; such things as were the hardest to
be comprehended, the most difficult to be believed, and the most
contrary to the common conceptions of men, and consequently such as
were most necessary and essential to a right knowledge of the Christian
salvation.

[Dem-92] From this it also appears, how low a state of knowledge the
apostles were in at the time of the institution of the sacrament, since
they were not only ignorant of so many things of the greatest
importance to be known, but were in a state so contrary to this
knowledge, so full of dispositions contrary to it, that they were then
incapable of being taught it.

[Dem-93] And though all this be declared by our savior himself, at the
end of all his instructions, when he was upon the point of going from
them; yet this author, in direct and full contradiction to scripture
facts, and this express declaration of our savior, says, “It cannot be
doubted, that he sufficiently declared to his disciples the whole of
what he designed should be understood by it.”

[Dem-94] Whereas, the contrary to this is as plainly declared by our
savior himself, as if he had said in express words, I have instituted a
sacrament to be observed by you hereafter; but what is to be understood
by it, and implied in it, can only be known by you now, in that poor,
low, and ignorant manner, in which you know other things at present
concerning me. But when the many things which ye now cannot bear to be
taught, shall by my death, resurrection, and ascension, and the coming
of the Holy Ghost, be made truly intelligible to you, and become the
real light of your minds, then shall ye clearly see and know the whole
of that which I designed to be understood by, and implied in this
sacrament of my body and blood.

[Dem-95] For what our savior has said concerning the imperfection of
their knowledge then, and their unfitness to be instructed further, and
of their necessity of being taught in another manner, is as plain a
proof of this, as if it had in express words been applied to the
sacrament.

[Dem-96] For though it is too much for anyone to pretend to say exactly
what or how many these things were, that they were then not in a
condition and capacity to understand; yet this may with great assurance
be affirmed, that the doctrines concerning Christ’s death, the nature,
necessity, and merits of his sacrifice and atonement for the sins of
the world, the possibility and necessity of eating his flesh, and
drinking his blood, were certainly amongst those many things; and
therefore this holy sacrament, which hath its foundation in this
atonement for sins, and is itself instituted for the eating his flesh,
and drinking his blood must of all necessity be amongst those many
things, of which they were then greatly ignorant, because they were not
in a condition to receive a right and full knowledge of them. Therefore
there is the fullest proof that can be desired, that our savior did
not, and could not intend sufficiently to declare to them the whole of
what he intended should be understood and implied in the sacrament of
his body and blood.

[Dem-97] And for this reason also he saith unto them, “It is expedient
for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come. But if I depart, I will send him unto you.” Again, “These things
have I said, being yet present with you; but the Comforter, which is
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach
you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I
have said unto you.”

[Dem-98] As if he had said, “It is expedient for you that I go away,
because so long as I thus stay with you in the flesh, ye cannot know,
nor believe, nor enter into the true nature, end, merits and effects of
my death, resurrection and ascension; neither can the Holy Ghost come
upon you in my name, till my kingdom is thus set up, and these things
are accomplished in me. Therefore these things I have said, being yet
present with you; that is, I have spoken thus far of these things in a
way suited to your present state; not that they should be the matter of
your present knowledge, whilst you know nothing rightly, nor apply
anything that I say, to its proper object; but I have said these things
to you, that they may be laid up in your minds, then and then only to
be truly understood, rightly remembered in their proper place, and duly
applied to their proper objects, when the Holy Ghost shall come in my
name, that is, upon the foundation of my death, resurrection and
ascension, and shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

[Dem-99] From all these things it appears sufficiently, that this
author’s fourth and fundamental proposition is absolutely false, and
grossly contradictory to scripture, facts, and the express declaration
of our savior; and that our savior himself, in his own person, before
he left the world, did not, could not intend sufficiently to declare to
his disciples the whole of what he intended should be understood by,
and implied in the sacrament.

[Dem-100] And here I must observe to you, that the confutation of this
fourth proposition, is not to be considered as the discovery of a
single error in this author, but as a full detection of the general
falseness, and erroneous procedure of his whole book; for everything,
and every other proposition of any moment, throughout his whole book,
is founded upon the supposed truth of this fourth proposition. He
cannot take one step, in the way he is in, without it. He has not an
argument but what is built upon it. And all his treatise, from the
beginning to the end, is as idle and wandering as a sick man’s dream,
unless you grant him these two bulky errors; 1st, that our savior
himself, in the words of the institution, sufficiently declared to his
disciples the whole of what he intended should be understood by, and
implied in the sacrament. 2dly, that the only method of understanding
the whole of what he so sufficiently declared to them, is to interpret
the same bare words of the institution, according to the common rules
of speaking.

[Dem-101] But as both these positions have, as I think, been already
shown to be gross errors, directly contrary to reason, sense,
scripture, facts, and the express declaration of our savior himself, so
the whole of his treatise is already in the fullest manner confuted.

[Dem-102] But I shall now proceed to consider some poor, little
pretenses of argument, which this author brings in support of this
false proposition. Which are as follows: “For this being,” says he, “a
positive institution, depending entirely upon his will; and not
designed to contain anything in it, but what he himself should please
to affix to it, it must follow, that he declared his mind about it,
fully and plainly,” p. 4.

[Dem-103] This is his whole proof, that our savior himself sufficiently
taught his disciples the whole nature and meaning of the sacrament, and
they wholly understood it.

[Dem-104] The thing that he would here speak to, is very improperly
expressed, and ought to have proceeded thus: “This being a positive
institution, by his will and pleasure introduced into a religion, which
contains the means and method of the salvation of mankind by himself
the institutor, cannot be designed by him to be any ways understood, or
to have any other nature, meaning, and end in it, than such as is truly
and fully according to the doctrines of that religion into which he has
introduced it, and more especially according to that part of religion
in which he has placed it.”

[Dem-105] Whereas instead of this, this author poorly says, it was not
designed to contain anything in it, but he should please to affix to
it. For he put nothing to be contained in it, he affixed nothing to it,
but only placed it in the heart, or midst of a religion; which
religion, as soon as it was truly known by his disciples, would
sufficiently declare and explain to them the whole nature and end of
this positive institution. In consequence of what he had just now
erroneously said, he proceeds thus: “Because otherwise he must be
supposed to institute a duty, of which none could have any notion
without his institution; and at the same time not to instruct his
followers sufficiently what that duty was to be.” Whereas instead of
this, it ought to have been expressed thus: “Because otherwise, if he
had not so instituted this sacrament, as to have its nature, end, and
effects explained and determined by that religion, and chiefly by that
part of religion, in which it was placed, it could never have appeared
to any of his followers, what they were to do in it, or that there was
any reason in its institution, or any benefit to be had from the
observance of it.”

[Dem-106] As for instance; if the religion, of which the sacrament is a
part, did not teach us how his body is given and his blood shed for us,
if it did not teach us something concerning the eating his flesh, and
drinking his blood, what could the mentioning of these two strange
things in the sacrament signify to us, or how could we have any notion
of what was to be done or acknowledged by the sacrament? For if the
sacrament speaks of anything that the religion in which it is placed
speaks nothing of; if it represents anything that that religion has not
to be represented, then it can signify no more in that religion after
its institution, than it did before. But if to be a part of that
religion in which it is appointed, it must speak the language of that
religion; if the things that it represents, must be the things of that
religion, then it plainly follows, 1st, that our savior himself in
person, at the time, and by the words of the institution, did not,
could not fully and plainly declare the whole nature of the sacrament;
because the language which it spoke, and the things that it
represented, were the language and things of a religion, which was not,
and could not then be known by his disciples. 2dly, it follows also,
that our savior had fully and sufficiently provided for their right
knowledge of this sacrament, because it was so worded and so placed in
their religion, that the first true knowledge of their religion would
become the full and clear explication of it.

[Dem-107] This sacrament was instituted before the religion, of which
it was to be a part, was known; is it therefore any wonder in itself,
or any matter of accusation of our savior, that when he appointed this
institution, he left it to be then only understood, when the religion,
of which it was to be a part, should be known? And if he left his
disciples in the same ignorance of the sacrament, as of the nature,
merits, and end of his death, resurrection and ascension, is there any
more to find fault with in the one, than in the other?

[Dem-108] And this author might with the same show of argument prove,
that he did declare unto them, fully and plainly, the whole nature,
merits, and end of his death. For it may as well be said of that, as of
the sacrament, that he must have fully and plainly declared his mind
about it; otherwise he must be supposed to have instructed them of a
matter of faith, which, without his instruction, they could have no
notion of, and at the same time not to instruct them fully about it.

[Dem-109] Now if anything may be said in defense of what our savior did
to his disciples with regard to that imperfect state in which he left
them, as to the knowledge of the nature, merits, and end of his death;
if he might justly leave the true and full knowledge of it, to its only
proper time, and only proper manner of being fully known; namely, till
the consequences of his death, till his resurrection, ascension, and
coming of the Holy Ghost, should prove the nature, power, merits, and
end of it; then the same may and must be said in defense of our
savior’s leaving his disciples so ignorant of the nature, end, and
effects of the holy sacrament. It was not because he was deficient in
instructing them, but because he instructed them with the greatest
wisdom; not giving them verbal explications of thing which could not so
be understood by them, but leaving them to be informed in the one only
proper time, and the only proper manner; namely, when by the knowledge
of his death, resurrection, and ascension, and by the coming of the
Holy Ghost, they should truly and fully know the whole of that
religion, of which this sacrament was appointed to be a part.

[Dem-110] All therefore which this author saith of the necessity of
their knowing sufficiently at first from the words of the institution,
the whole nature of it, because it was a positive institution, and
could have no more in it than he intended should be in it, are mere
empty words; for it is granted on all sides, that the institution can
be only that which Christ intended it should be, and can imply no more
than he designed should be implied in it. But the question is, how we
are to know all that he designed should be understood by, and implied
in it.

[Dem-111] This author says, this can only be known from the bare words
of the institution considered in themselves, according to the common
rules of speaking. Therefore, according to this author, had Socrates
said the same things that Christ said, the institution had been just
the same thing as it is; it had had the same meaning, and there had
been neither more or less in it. This cannot be denied: for if the
words of the institution are only to be understood according to the
common meaning or sound of words in common life; then they must have
the same meaning, and signify neither more or less, whether they be
applied to Christ, or Socrates.

[Dem-112] On the other hand, we say, since Christ appointed this
institution to stand in a certain place, to be a certain part, and to
have relation to certain doctrines of a religion not known, when this
institution was appointed; that therefore what Christ meant by it, and
would have implied in it, can then only be fully known, and when that
religion in which it was to have a certain place, and of which it was
to be a certain part, and to whose doctrines it was to be related, came
to be fully known and understood. In short, that a Christian
institution, ingrafted into the Christian religion, and connected with
its chief doctrines, could then only be fully known, when the Christian
religion was fully known.

[Dem-113] Thus for instance: let it be supposed that at the time of
instituting the sacrament, the apostles had no other way of knowing
what was meant by it, but by considering the words in themselves,
according to the common sound of the words. Yet, if after the death,
and resurrection, and ascension of our savior, and the coming of the
Holy Ghost, they knew a religion, which they knew nothing of before,
and saw this sacrament to be a part of that religion; had they not then
got a new and sure way of understanding what our savior meant by it?
And had they not this very new means of understanding it from our
savior himself? Did not he teach them all that they were taught by his
death, resurrection, and ascension, and by the coming of the Holy
Ghost? And was not that which he thus taught them in this manner, to be
as sacred with them, and as much to be adhered to, as when he only
taught them the words, outward form, and matter of the sacrament? And
if he thus led them into the possession and knowledge of every truth
and doctrine upon which this sacrament was founded, and to which it was
related; is he not still the teacher of the sacrament, as well as he
was the teacher of it in the words of the institution?

[Dem-114] Vainly therefore doth this author thus further argue, that
seeing “no one can be a judge, but the institutor himself, of what he
designed should be contained in it; therefore, supposing him not to
have spoken his mind plainly about it, it is impossible that any other
person should make up the defect,” p. 5.

[Dem-115] Vainly, I say, is all this argued, because here is no defect
charged upon the words of the institution, nor any other person
appointed or appealed to, to make up the defect. The words of the
institution are allowed to be full and plain, as to all that is
positive in this institution, both as to the matter and form of the
sacrament: they were as plain at the first as they are now, or ever can
be. But that part which is not positive in this institution, which is
the greatest and chiefest part of it, namely, the truths signified and
represented, and acknowledged by the outward form and matter of the
sacrament; as the body of Christ given, and his blood shed for the sins
of the world, and the eating his flesh and drinking his blood were not
then, are not now, nor ever can be truly and rightly known from the
plainness of the words of the institution alone. Yet here is not the
smallest defect either in the institutor or the institution. For since
the institution was not an independent thing, made for itself, and on
its own account, nor to be practiced at the time it was appointed; it
was no defect in it, that it did not explain itself, or was not then
known, when it was not to be practiced. And seeing the institution was
appointed for the sake of a religion, that then was not, but soon
should be, it could be no defect in the institutor, that it was not
known sooner than it was wanted, or till the time came, that everything
else that was to be practiced with it, or for the sake of it, were
fully and truly known.

[Dem-116] It was no defect in our savior as a teacher of religion, that
his religion was not known nor understood, till after his ascension
into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Ghost; because his ascension,
and the coming of the Holy Ghost, were to be fundamental articles and
principal parts of his religion.

[Dem-117] So also it was no defect in him, as an institutor of the
sacrament, that the true nature and end of it was not known, when he
first instituted it, or from the bare words of the institution; or that
it was not to be known, till such things as were to be the principal
parts of it came to be known.

[Dem-118] And as that which was further and fully known of the
Christian religion, after our savior’s death, was not by anyone’s
making up the defect of his teaching, but was solely done by his own
power, and in his own name; so all that which was further and fully
known of the sacrament after the death of Christ, was not by anyone’s
making up the defect of his institution, but was his own further
teaching them by his death, resurrection, and ascension, and by the
coming of the Holy Ghost. For as he thus by his own power set up his
own kingdom, so all that which was plainly shown and declared by his
kingdom, was strictly shown and declared by himself.

[Dem-119] And as it necessarily followed, that they must know more of
Christ as their savior, and the manner of their salvation, after his
death, resurrection, and ascension, and mission of the Holy Ghost, than
they did before; so also it necessarily follows, that they must have
exactly the same increase of knowledge at that time, concerning the
nature of the sacrament, which they had concerning their savior;
because the sacrament is expressly appointed to do that which it does,
in remembrance and acknowledgement of that savior so made known. And
therefore the more they knew of him as their savior, the more they must
know of that which was to be remembered and acknowledged of him in the
holy sacrament.

[Dem-120] All therefore which this author says, of the making up the
defect, if Christ did not at first make the whole of the institution
plain, is of no significancy; for what they further knew rightly of it,
when they knew their religion, and saw how and in what manner it was
part of it; all this further true and real knowledge of it, came as
plainly and undeniably from him, as the words of the institution did;
and what they were taught by his death and resurrection, and the
consequences of them, was as truly from him, as what they were taught
by his birth and incarnation, and miraculous conversation with them.

[Dem-121] Having thus despatched this author’s fourth and chiefest
proposition, and his proof of it; I shall now go back to his first,
which stands thus.

[Dem-121] Proposition I. The partaking of the Lord’s Supper, is not a
duty of itself, or a duty apparent to us from the nature of the thing;
but a duty made such to Christians, by the positive institution of
Jesus Christ, p. 2.

[Dem-122] There is a great deal of error and deceit proposed to the
reader in this proposition. For it is to make him believe, that the
nature and end of the sacrament is wholly positive, and that all that
we are to mean, and intend, and do by it, is something that we are only
obliged to do by virtue of the institution: all which is absolutely
false.

[Dem-123] For the institution, as to its nature and end, is so far from
being wholly positive, that its nature and end hath nothing positive in
it. And all that which it is our duty to intend and do by the
sacrament, is to be intended and done for itself, on its own account;
and that which is positive in the sacrament, is only as a means, or
mark, or sign of our doing it. That which is positive in this
institution, and not to be done but because of the will of the
institutor, is something entirely distinct, and different from the
nature, end, and intent of the institution. And that in which the whole
reason, meaning, end and intent of this institution essentially
consists; is something that is to be done for itself, and does not take
its reason of being done from the institution.

[Dem-124] Now if all that is to be done, implied and intended by our
celebrating the Lord’s Supper, was, and is absolutely necessary to be
done, though the way of doing it by the sacrament had never been
instituted; then the meaning, end and intent of the sacrament cannot be
positive; and if our obligation to do all that is contained in this
meaning and intent of the sacrament, is an obligation arising from the
thing itself, then this is not a positive duty.

[Dem-125] Now the meaning, end and intent of the sacrament, is to
remember, acknowledge and profess Christ to be our savior, and the
manner in which he is our savior; but all this is to be done on its own
account, from the nature of the thing itself, and must have been done,
though the sacrament had not been instituted; therefore the meaning,
end and intent of the sacrament has nothing positive in it, and
contains only our natural duty to Christ, arising from the relation
between him and us. For to acknowledge and profess Christ to be our
savior, and in all the respects in which he is our savior, is no more a
positive duty, than it is a positive duty to acknowledge and profess
the goodness of God towards us; but is a duty of itself, of the same
nature, and of the same obligation, as faith and love, and adoration of
our creator and redeemer are.

[Dem-126] But to show still more plainly, that the nature, end and
intent of the sacrament, is not positive, but entirely distinct and
different from that which is positive in the sacrament; take the
following instance.

[Dem-127] Let it be supposed, that God by a positive command enjoined
the people of one age to build an altar for his honor and worship; the
people of another age to set up a tabernacle, a third to build a temple
for the same end and intent; namely, for his honor and worship.

[Dem-128] Now here are three positive appointments, and three positive
duties; and all that is positive in the one, is very different from
that which is positive in the other; yet the meaning, end and intent of
all three is the same, namely, the honor and worship of God; therefore
the meaning, end and intent of positive appointments, is something not
positive, but entirely different and distinct from that which is the
positive part of it.

[Dem-129] Now this is exactly the case of the sacrament: bread and wine
appointed to be used in acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as our savior,
is as the altar or tabernacle, appointed to be built for the honor and
worship of God. And as it was purely depending upon the will of God,
whether it should be an altar or a tabernacle, or a temple, that should
be built for his honor and worship; so it was solely depending upon the
will of Jesus Christ, whether it should be bread and wine, or any other
thing else that was to be used in remembrance and acknowledgement of
him. And as the honor and worship of God, which was the sole meaning,
end and intent of building either altar or tabernacle, was a natural
duty, founded in the relation between God and his creatures, and was
something that was to be done, though no altar or tabernacle had ever
been built; so the remembrance and acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as
our savior, which is the end and intent of our using bread and wine in
the sacrament, was a natural duty, founded in the relation between
Christ and us, and was something that was to be done for itself, though
the use of bread and wine in the sacrament had never been appointed. It
is therefore an unpardonable error in this author, to represent the
sacrament, as containing nothing in its meaning, end and intent, that
was a duty itself, or to be done upon its own account; but that
everything implied by it, was only a duty by virtue of the institution.
For the reverse of all this is the very truth; for all that is meant,
implied and intended by the sacrament, is as much our duty to do on its
own account, as it is our duty to believe in God; and the positive
part, the use of bread and wine in this sacrament, is only an appointed
way of our expressing, acknowledging and doing that, which it was our
duty to express, acknowledge and do, though we had never been taught to
use bread and wine for that end.

[Dem-130] And indeed this is the case of all positive appointments and
institutions of revealed religion; the meaning, end and intent of them,
was always something entirely different from that which was positive in
them; for the same reason, that an idea or sentiment is entirely
different from that English or Latin word by which you are to express
it, or to put yourself, or another person in mind of it. For the
positive part of an institution has much of the nature of language in
it, and is to express and teach something by symbols and outward
things, better than it could be expressed or taught by mere words; but
that which is meant, implied, and intended by the symbol, is as
different from it in its whole nature, as the idea of sentiment meant
and intended by an English or Latin word, is different from it in its
whole nature. To look therefore, as this author doth, for the whole
nature, end and intent of the sacrament, in the positive part of this
institution, is as absurd, as to look for the true knowledge of God and
the divine attributes from the English word, “God.” For the things
meant and intended by the sacrament, are as entirely and wholly
different from that use of bread and wine by which they are expressed,
as the divine nature is entirely and wholly different from that English
or Latin word which is to express or remind us of that divine nature.

[Dem-131] Great part of the Jewish religion consisted in positive
appointments and institutions; but the meaning, end and intent of them
was entirely of another nature, and consisted of such things as were
duties of themselves, and of the highest necessity to be done. For the
end and intent of their institutions were either to keep up and
exercise their faith and hope of a redeemer, or to set forth the
character and marks by which they should know him, or to represent to
them the nature and manner of their expected redemption, or to teach
them some inward dying unto sin, and inward living unto God, or some
other truth, doctrine or practice, that was to be acknowledged and done
for itself, though no positive institution had ever been made on its
account. And the one only reason why the greatest part of the Jews
lived in such a total ignorance of their religion, was, because they
had learned it in the same manner as this author has learned
Christianity; they would see nothing in their institutions but what a
heathen might as well have seen, nothing but what could be seen in the
outside of them; just as this author will see no more in the sacrament,
than what a heathen that knows only the words of institution may see in
it. They were too learned and rational to allow of any mysteries at the
bottom of their services, as this author is too sober a critic to allow
of any mystery in the institution of the sacrament. And as they,
through a blind zeal for the letter, and to show their fidelity to
them, lost all that which was truly meant and intended by them; so this
author, full of the same zeal for the letter and plainness of this
Christian institution, is doing all that he can to make us lose all
that is truly meant and intended by it.

[Dem-132] The sacrifices of the Jews were at the bottom, only so many
representations and applications of that great sacrifice for the sins
of the world, first promised to all mankind, in these words: “The seed
of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head”; but because this was not
expressly said in the institution of any of their sacrifices, this is
done in consequence of that first promise, or this is to show you how
and in what manner you are to seek and find your redeemer, because the
letter was not thus adapted to these carnal men, they contented
themselves with the religion of slaying beasts. Just as this author is
only a bare eater of bread and wine in the sacrament, because it is not
there expressly said, what great mysteries of Christ as our savior are
represented by it. The Jews had many passages in their scriptures that
called them to the spirituality of their religion, and showed them the
inward meaning, spirit and intent of all their institutions; but
because it was not expressly said, This is an explication of such an
ordinance, or this that is here said, relates to the true meaning and
intent of such an institution, all these passages of scripture were
neglected by them, and not applied to their proper objects. It is just
thus with this author; the New Testament abounds with passages that
prove, teach and explain the true meaning, end and intent of the holy
sacrament; but because those passages don’t expressly say, This is the
proof or explication of what is said in the institution, they are by
him overlooked and rejected, as having nothing to do with it. The
learned Pharisee, in order to know the meaning and intent of killing a
heifer in sacrifice, or of circumcising the flesh, would only look for
such places of scripture, as appoint the killing of an heifer, and the
circumcising of the flesh; just so this author, to know the true
meaning and intent of the institution of the sacrament, only searches
the scripture in the same manner. He seeks only such places as
expressly mention the institution, or repeat the words of it.

[Dem-133] The Jews neither expected nor allowed any benefits and merits
of Christ to be obtained by means of their sacrifices; because such
benefits were not literally mentioned in the institution of their
sacrifices; just so this author, neither expects nor allows the merits
and benefits of Christ’s passion to be applied to us by the holy
sacrament, because the application of such benefits and merits is not
expressly mentioned in the words of the institution. Thus was it that
the Jews never found their savior in the Old Testament; and thus it is,
that this author has lost him in the New.

[Dem-134] And indeed, upon his principles, it is impossible that anyone
should ever know anything of the real nature and truth of the Jewish or
Christian religion. For let anyone but search into the nature, meaning
and intent of the Jewish institutions, as this author doth into the
nature and intent of the sacrament; and he must, as I said above, be
rendered stone-blind to all the mysteries of the Old Testament as well
as of the New.

[Dem-135] For as Christ was the substance, the heart, and true meaning
of all their ordinances, though not mentioned expressly in the letter
of their positive institutions, they were obliged by this author’s
principles, not to acknowledge him to be in them, and to reject all
such interpretations as led to him; and to allow nothing to be meant by
their positive institutions, but that which the words of them
understood, according to the common rules of speaking, declared to be
in them: therefore every Jew that had this author’s principles, was
under a necessity of being stone-blind, or totally ignorant of the real
nature and truth of the Jewish religion.

[Dem-136] Again, the apostle saith, “He is not a Jew which is one
outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh;
but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the
heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.” {Rom.ii.28.}

[Dem-137] But according to this author’s principles, you are to
maintain, that he only is a Jew, which is one outwardly, and that only
is circumcision which is outward in the flesh; for to allow Judaism to
have anything inwardly more than is in the outward letter, or
circumcision to be anything else than that which is expressed in the
words of the institution, is a thing not lawful to be done upon this
author’s principles. This I think may sufficiently show you the truth
of what I said to you in the beginning, that if you accept of this
author’s key of knowledge, for the right understanding the nature of
the sacrament; you will not only lose all the right knowledge of the
sacrament, but be rendered a blind, deaf and dead reader of all the
other most important doctrines of scripture. For, according to his
principles, you are to see no more spirit, life, or mystery in any
other sayings of our savior, than in that of the sacrament; and low as
he had reduced that, it is full as high and mysterious, and deep in its
meaning, as anything in the whole nature of the Christian religion can
be allowed to be by this author.

[Dem-138] But to return; there are plainly two distinct and essential
parts of the sacrament, which constitute its whole nature. The first is
in these words, “This is my body which is given for you, this is my
blood which is shed for the remission of sins.”

[Dem-139] What is here said by our Lord Christ, we are to acknowledge
to be true; therefore we are to own and acknowledge this great truth,
that this bread and wine are made symbols and memorials of, viz., that
his body is given for us, and his blood shed for the remission of sins;
and consequently all that the scripture teaches concerning the truth,
reality and manner in which he is the sacrifice, atonement and
satisfaction for our sins, is in this sacrament to be of all necessity
acknowledged and confessed by us. And we cannot perform this sacrament
according to what it is, unless we see and own all that to be in it,
which Christ saw and owned to be in it; unless we present it to him in
the same meaning, as he presented it to his disciples. For if Christ
has declared this nature and meaning to be in it, we cannot perform
this sacrament according to Christ’s declaration, unless we also in our
performance of it, declare that same nature and meaning to be in it.
Therefore the acknowledgement of Christ’s being the atonement and
satisfaction for our sins, is an essential and important part of the
sacrament. If we were to mistake or neglect something in the right use
of bread and wine in the sacrament, such mistake would only relate to
the outward positive part of this institution, which has no obligation
upon us but from divine appointment; but if we refuse to own and
confess Christ to be the atonement and satisfaction for our sins, we
sin against God and the nature of things, as those atheists do, who
refuse to own that it was the goodness of God that created them.

[Dem-140] Secondly, the other essential, and no less important part of
the sacrament is, the eating the body, and drinking the blood of
Christ. This is plainly another essential part of the sacrament,
entirely distinct from the other. The one respects Christ, as he is the
atonement and satisfaction for our sins; the other shows that he is to
be owned and received as a principle of life to us.

[Dem-141] The other words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” relate
equally to both parts, and are only as if our savior had said after the
institution; Let this, which I have thus appointed to be done, be your
acknowledgement of that salvation which is received through me, both as
I am the atonement and satisfaction for sin, and a principle of life to
all that lay hold of me.

[Dem-142] You cannot help seeing that all this is plain, easy and
natural in this explication of the words of the institution, and that I
have used no art or force to come at it, and that no one can find any
fault with it; but he that is unwilling to own these two great truths
of scripture, that Christ as our savior is the atonement and
satisfaction for our sins, and a principle of life to us. The short of
the matter is this; the scriptures are full of proofs of these two
great and fundamental characters, that he is in one respect the
atonement and satisfaction for our sins, and in another, a principle of
a new life to us; if therefore these two essential characters of our
savior, which contain all that is said of him as such, are not to be
acknowledged by us in the sacrament; then the sacrament must be said to
be instituted for the denial of Christ; and the words, “Do this in
remembrance of me,” must have this meaning, “Do this in denial of me”:
then he is not to be remembered and acknowledged as he is, and
therefore in the strictest sense is to be denied.

[Dem-143] Hence it appears, that this author’s Plain Account can have
no truth or reasonableness in it, but upon this supposition, that
Christ Jesus is not a real atonement and satisfaction for our sins, nor
a real principle of life to us. For if these things were true of Christ
as our savior, then the sacrament, which is done in acknowledgement of
him, as such, must also of necessity acknowledge these truths.
Therefore this author’s Plain Account, which does not acknowledge these
things of Christ, can have no truth or reasonableness in it, but upon
this supposition, that these things are not true of Christ.

[Dem-144] For if these things were real doctrines of scripture, it must
follow, that they were to be acknowledged in the sacrament, even though
they were not expressly mentioned or pointed at in the words of the
institution. For since the sacrament is to be done in remembrance and
acknowledgement of Christ, it necessarily follows, that that which the
scriptures teach us concerning the nature and character of Christ, is
to be remembered and acknowledged of him in and by the sacrament,
because the sacrament is appointed for that end. And therefore, since
this author will not allow our savior to be thus acknowledged in the
sacrament, he must deny that he is thus described in scripture.

[Dem-145] Now deny either of these characters of our savior, and you
deny all the Christian religion; the words, “savior,” “salvation,”
“redemption,” and such like, have no proper meaning, truth or reality
in them.

[Dem-146] But if you allow these characters of our savior, that he
really is, what he said he was, and what all the scriptures affirm of
him; namely, the atonement for sins, and a principle of a new life to
us; then the sacrament, which is the representation and acknowledgement
of these two great truths, has all that is great, mysterious, and
adorable in the Christian religion, centered in it. And had this author
believed these two great doctrines concerning our savior, it had been
as impossible for him to have his present poor notion of the sacrament,
as it was impossible for St. John, who knew that the Word was God, and
that the same Word was made flesh, to have had so poor a notion of
Jesus Christ, as those Jews had, who took him to be only the
carpenter’s son.

[Dem-147] Hence also it plainly appears, that seeing these two great
truths are the essential parts of the sacrament, and that it is
appointed to express our faith of them; that the nature and end of the
sacrament is not, as this author teaches, to turn an act of our memory
upon Christ; but that it is to exercise our faith in Christ, and to be
our open profession of these two great truths; and also that our faith
is thereby exercised in this twofold manner; 1st, in believing Christ
to be the true atonement for our sins, and a real principle of life to
us; 2dly, in believing that this atonement, and his being a principle
of life to us, is made certain and confirmed to us, by taking the bread
and wine to be the true significations of them.

[Dem-148] For when our savior says, Do this, it is the same thing as if
he had said, Do these two things appointed in the sacrament, as your
act of faith, that I am both the atonement for your sins, and a
principle of life to you. Don’t say bare and empty outward words, when
you say, “This is my body which is given for you, and this is my blood
which is shed for the remission of sins”; but let faith say them, and
acknowledge the truth of them: when you eat my body, and drink my
blood, don’t let your mouth only eat, or perform the outward action;
but let faith, which is the true mouth of the inward man, believe that
it really partakes of me, and that I enter in by faith; and when you
thus by faith perform these two essential parts of the sacrament, then,
and then only may what you do be said to be done in remembrance of me,
and of what I am to you. For nothing remembers me but faith, nothing
acknowledges me but faith, nothing finds me, nothing knows me but
faith.

[Dem-149] I appeal to the most ordinary understanding for the truth of
all this; for it is so plain and visible, that nothing but art or
prejudice can avoid it. For since our savior says, This is my body
which is given for you, this is my blood which is shed for the
remission of sins, what he says, that we are to say; and what we say,
is an act or exercise of faith. And since in these words he says two
things, the one, that he is the atonement for our sins; the other, that
this bread and this wine are the signification or application of that
atonement, or that which we are to take for it; therefore we in doing
this, are by faith to say and believe these two things; and therefore
all that we here do, is faith, and faith manifested in this twofold
manner.

[Dem-150] Again, seeing our savior commands us to eat his body, and
drink his blood, we are to say and believe, that his body and blood are
there signified and exhibited to us; and that his body and blood may be
eaten and drank, as a principle of life to us; and therefore faith is
all, or all is faith in this other essential part of the sacrament; and
we cannot possibly do that which our savior commands us to do, unless
it be done by faith.

[Dem-151] But now this author, in his Plain Account, takes no more
notice of these two great essential parts of the sacrament, than if
there was not one word about them: and yet they are so much there, that
in the whole institution, there is not a word about anything else. For
the words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” are as entirely distinct
from the institution, as a command to do a thing, is distinct from the
thing that is to be done. They enter no more into the nature of the
institution, nor any more teach us what is to be done in it, than if
Christ had only said, “Do this as your duty to me.” Had he said thus,
it would easily have been seen, that the institution must be entirely
distinct from such a command to observe it. And yet his saying, “Do
this in remembrance of me,” has neither more nor less in it, than if he
had said, “Do this as your duty to me.”

[Dem-152] The plain truth is this; the institution consists of those
two essential parts just mentioned; that is, in offering, presenting,
and pleading before God, by faith, the atonement of Christ’s body and
blood, and in owning him to be a principle of life to us, by our eating
his body and blood: this is the entire, whole institution. The words,
“Do this in remembrance of me,” are only the command to observe the
institution. Do this, is a command to do all that had been mentioned in
the institution; and the words, in remembrance of me, don’t show what
the institution is, or what is to be done in it, but only the reason,
why such an institution, whatever it is, was commanded to be observed.

[Dem-153] The words therefore, in remembrance of me, are not a part of
the institution, but are only a part of the command to observe the
institution, and only show the reason why such an institution is
commanded to be observed.

[Dem-154] And yet this poor man (for so I must call one so miserably
insensible of the greatness of the subject he is upon) can find nothing
in the institution, but, first, bread and wine, not placed and offered
before God, as first signifying and pleading the atonement of his Son’s
body and blood, and then eaten and drank in signfication of having our
life from him; but bread and wine set upon a table, to put the people,
that see it, in mind, that by and by they are to exercise an act of
memory. And then, secondly, this same bread and wine afterwards brought
to everyone in particular, not for them to know, or believe that they
are receiving anything of Christ, or partaking of anything from him;
but only to let them know, that the very instant they take the bread
and wine into their mouth, is the very time for them actually to excite
that act of memory, for the exciting of which, bread and wine had been
before set upon a table.

[Dem-155] This is the author’s great point in the observance of the
sacrament, and what he calls the peculiar nature of this duty. And this
he teaches, not because the church, or saint, or father of any age
since Christ, has taught him so; but because being a serious man, and
of great exactness in weighing of words, he has found out, that the
words, in remembrance of me, which are only a part of the command to
observe the institution, are the whole of the institution itself; and
that therefore nothing is to be admitted into it but an act of the
memory, and bread and wine taken into the mouth to excite that act of
the memory; because remembrance which is the whole of this duty,
neither is nor can be anything else but an act of the memory.

[Dem-156] Thus by making first the words, in remembrance of me, the
whole essence of the institution, when they are as distinct from it, as
they are from these words, “This is my body which is given for you”;
and teach us only the reason why we are commanded to do that which is
to be done in the institution:

[Dem-157] And then, 2dly, by limiting the word “remembrance,” and
allowing nothing to be meant by it, but an act of the memory: by the
help of these two equally false and shameful steps, this author has
stripped the institution of every mystery of our salvation, which the
words of Christ show to be in it, and which every Christian that has
any true faith, though but as a grain of mustard seed, is sure of
finding in it.

[Dem-158] God, we know, made a certain great promise to Abraham; now
let it be supposed, that God, after the making of this promise to him,
had enjoined him to come frequently to that place where the promise was
made to him in remembrance of it: could it be supposed, that the
remembrance here spoken of, could signify anything else, but an
exercise of his faith in that promise; and as an outward sign of his
declaring to God his full belief in it? Or could anything be more
extravagant, than to say that God here only required of Abraham an act
of his memory, because the word remembrance relates only to the memory?

[Dem-159] Now this is strictly the case of the sacrament. In the
institution our savior has said, “This is my body and blood, which is
given and shed for you, for the remission of sins”; in the institution
he has bidden us to eat his body, and drink his blood. All this is
proposed to our faith, just as the promise was proposed to Abraham’s
faith. When therefore he bids us to do this, that is, do these two
things in remembrance of him; can it be supposed, that the remembrance
of him can be anything else but an act of faith in him, believing and
owning all that concerning him, which we say and do in and by the
sacrament? For nothing but faith can see, or hear, or understand, or do
that which is to be done in the sacrament: nothing but faith can say,
that this his body and blood are the atonement of our sins: nothing but
faith can say, that the bread and wine are his body and blood: nothing
but faith can eat his body, and drink his blood: nothing but faith can
say, that his body and blood are a principle of life to us: therefore
the command to do these things, is a command to exercise so many acts
of faith; because the things commanded can only be done by faith; and
the person, in remembrance of whom these things are to be done, can
only be remembered by faith. For to remember him, neither is nor can be
anything else, but to have faith in him.

[Dem-160] And therefore it is out of all doubt, that when he said, “Do
this in remembrance of me,” nothing more nor less can possibly be meant
by it, than if he had said, Do all this, as your act of faith in me.

[Dem-161] Since therefore this is so plainly the nature of the
institution, which is solely appointed to express our faith in these
two great characters of our savior, both as he is the atonement for our
sins, and a principle of life to us; you may well ask how it was
possible for this author, with his eyes open, and the scriptures before
him, to give us so false and so poor an account of it.

[Dem-162] Now the one only reason why the scriptures are thus useless
to him, and why he is forced to find out a doctrine that is not in
them, is this, it is because he is blinded with a philosophy, and
science falsely so-called, which will not allow him to believe, that
Jesus Christ was truly and essentially God, as well as a perfect man:
for the foundation and possibility of Christ’s being a real atonement
and satisfaction for our sins, and a real principle of life to us, was
his divine nature; but as this author cannot be suspected to believe
this great foundation doctrine, that Christ was truly and essentially
God, very God of very God, so he could not believe him to be a true and
real atonement for sins, or a true and real principle of life to us,
and therefore could admit nothing of these truths into his account of
the sacrament.

[Dem-163] The way therefore that this author came by his Plain Account
of the sacrament, was not, as he would have you believe, from a bare
impartial consideration of the words of the institution, but from his
wrong knowledge of the Christian faith. He had first lost and renounced
all the right and true knowledge of our savior in the scriptures, and
therefore was obliged not to find it in the sacrament. And because it
would be openly confessing to the world, that he was in the sense of
the scripture an anti-Christ, if he should plainly have told you, that
he did not believe Christ to be truly and essentially God, or the
atonement and satisfaction for our sins, or a principle of life to us;
therefore he only tells you, that he has been led into this account of
the sacrament, by a bare consideration of the words of the institution,
according to the common rules of speaking.

[Dem-164] Now if this author will declare, that he sincerely believes
Jesus Christ to be truly and really God by nature, and the true real
atonement and satisfaction for our sins, and a true and real principle
of life to us; I shall be glad, and he ought to be glad, that I have
been the occasion of his declaring things so important to himself, and
to the matter in hand. But this I may still say, that he could not have
had this faith, when he wrote his Plain Account, unless he may be
supposed to have had it, but would not write of the sacrament
conformably to it.

[Dem-165] And, secondly, if he will now declare, that without any
equivocation or mental reserve, he fully believes these great truths,
no further recantation of his whole book need to be desired.

[Dem-166] For if these things are true and undeniable characters of our
savior; then it follows, that the nature and end of the sacrament must
be essentially concerned with them, since it is the confessed nature
and end of the sacrament, to remember and acknowledge Christ to be that
which the scriptures testify him to be.

[Dem-167] The short of the matter is this; either this author will
plainly own a sincere belief of these doctrines, or he will not: if he
will not own the belief of them, you have no reason to consider him as
a Christian writer upon this subject; and so ought no more to learn
from him, than from a Jew, the nature of the sacrament. But if he will
declare his full belief of these doctrines, then you have the fullest
assurance from himself, that his Plain Account cannot be Christian:
because if these things are true of Christ, they must be remembered and
acknowledged in that sacrament, which is appointed for the remembrance
and acknowledgement of him.

[Dem-168] Now these two essential parts of the sacrament, relating to
this twofold character of our savior, as he is the atonement and
satisfaction for our sins, and as he is a principle of life to us,
contain the whole nature, end, and effects of the sacrament. You are to
look nowhere, nor in anything else, for the right knowledge of this
sacrament, but in the right faith and knowledge of these two great
points. And everything that they teach you, and everything that
scripture teaches you of these two great points, is the only true
doctrine of the sacrament.

[Dem-169] All that you know of Christ, as the atonement for our sins,
all that you know of him, as a principle of life to us, is neither more
nor less than that which you are to know, and confess, and appeal to,
in and by the use of the sacrament. And indeed these two great points
do so plainly show themselves, at first sight, to be in the words of
the institution, that any man upon the bare reading of them, without
any further knowledge, might justly say, If Christ is not an atonement
for our sins, why is his body said to be given, and his blood shed for
our sins? If he is not a food to our souls, or a principle of life to
us, why are we commanded to eat his body, and drink his blood?

[Dem-170] So that though a man could not say, that these things were
certainly true, or in what sense they were true, merely from the
mention of them in the sacrament, yet he might justly say, that the
words of the institution pointed at such truths, and could have no
foundation, unless these things barely mentioned in it, were in the
scriptures proved and declared to be true doctrines of the Christian
religion.

[Dem-171] And as these two great points are so visibly plain in the
sacrament, and constitute its whole nature; so as soon as we rightly
understand what the scripture has taught concerning these points, they
make known to us, in the shortest and plainest way, all the merit,
dignity, and value of this sacrament, all the blessings and advantages
derived to us from it, and all the pious dispositions with which we are
to approach it. Hence it was that the apostles, after the day of
Pentecost, when they had all their ignorance dispelled, yet gave us no
further or particular explications of the nature of the sacrament;
because as soon as it was known, that Christ was a real atonement and
satisfaction for sins, and a real principle of life to us; as soon as
these two great doctrines were known, the sacrament had all the
explication it could possibly have.

[Dem-172] For no more can be known of the sacrament, than is signified
by them. All that is great, mysterious, and adorable in these
doctrines, as found in the scriptures, is equally great, mysterious and
adorable in them as they are found in the sacrament.

[Dem-173] Needless therefore would all books be upon the nature of the
sacrament, and the right preparation for it, did we but truly know and
believe Christ to be the atonement and satisfaction for our sins, and a
principle of life to us; for the belief of these things in the
sacrament, would like the unction, spoken of by St. John, teach us all
things concerning it; and we should have no need of other teaching.

[Dem-174] No one need then, as this author vainly does, enquire for
some promise of scripture annexing a benefit to this sacrament, to know
what good we are to receive by it. For the knowledge of these two great
parts of the sacrament, would sufficiently show us the inestimable
benefit that we receive by it.

[Dem-175] For if this sacrament is appointed by Jesus Christ, as the
acknowledgement of his being the atonement of our sins, and a principle
of life to us; if it is appointed to stand between him and us, as a
declared proof on his side, that he is thus our atonement and life; and
as a declared proof on our side, that we own, seek, and apply to him as
such; and if this is not set as a mark once for all, but as a proof
that is to be repeated continually, and that is to be made good to us,
not by our once having done it, or he once owned it, but to be
perpetually owned and done, both on his side and ours, can we want any
other assurance of the benefit and advantage of observing this
sacrament, than the thing itself by its own nature declares?

[Dem-176] For if we are in covenant with Christ, and have an interest
in him, as our atonement and life; not because he once said, that this
was his body and blood, given and shed for our sins, or because we once
owned it, and pleaded it before him; but because he continues to say
the same thing in the sacrament, and to present himself there to us as
our atonement and life, and because we continue to own and apply to him
as such; it necessarily follows, that the sacrament rightly used, is
the highest means of finishing our salvation, and puts us in the
fullest possession of all the benefits of our savior, both as he is our
atonement and life, that we are then at that time capable of.

[Dem-177] For if the atonement of our sins by Christ, and that life
which he communicates to us, is not to be considered as a transient
matter, as something that is done and past, but as something that on
the side of Christ is always doing, and never will be done, till the
consummation of all things; if our applying to, and receiving Christ as
our atonement and life, is not to be considered as a transient act, as
something that is done and past, but as something that is always doing,
and never will be done, till we depart out of a state of trial; then it
follows, that that which is the appointed means or proof of Christ’s
continuing to communicate himself to us, as our atonement and life, and
of our continuing to apply to, and receive him as such, is in its own
nature, unless hindered by us, a certain means and instrument of
conveying and imparting to us all the benefits of Christ, both as he is
our atonement and life. To ask therefore for a particular promise
annexed to this institution, which in its nature communicates to us all
that ever was promised to us in a savior, is highly absurd.

[Dem-178] But after all, it can be truly said, that the scriptures are
very full and particular in setting forth the benefits and advantages
of the holy communion, to all those that have eyes that see, and ears
that hear. For do not the scriptures plainly enough tell us of the
benefit of believing, seeking, and applying to Christ as the atonement
for our sins? And is not the benefit of this faith the benefit of the
sacrament, if Christ is there believed, sought and applied to as our
atonement?

[Dem-179] And is it not the sole end of the sacrament to continue,
confirm and exercise this faith, to which all the blessings of our
salvation are annexed? Therefore, all that the scriptures say of the
riches and blessings, and treasures, which faith in Christ as our
redeemer, can procure to us, all that they say of the benefit of that
faith, which is absolutely required and exercised by this sacrament.

[Dem-180] Again, do not the scriptures plainly and frequently enough
tell us of the benefit of the new birth in Christ, of the putting on
Christ, of having Christ formed in us, of Christ’s being our life, of
our having life in him, of his being that bread from heaven, that bread
of life, of which the manna was only a type; of his flesh being meat
indeed, and his blood drink indeed; of our eating his flesh, and
drinking his blood, and that without it we have no life in us; and are
not all these things so many plain and open declarations of that which
we seek and obtain, by eating the body and blood of Christ?

[Dem-181] For we eat the sacramental body and blood of Christ, to show
that we want and desire, and by faith lay hold of the real, spiritual
nature and being of Christ; to show that we want and desire, the
progress of the new birth in Christ; to put on Christ, to have Christ
formed and revealed in us, to have him our life, to partake of him our
second Adam, in the same fullness and reality, as we partake of the
nature of the first Adam: and therefore all that the scripture says of
the benefits and blessings are sought and obtained by the eating the
body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. For to eat the body and
blood of Christ, is neither more nor less than to put on Christ, to
receive birth and life, and nourishment and growth from him; as the
branch receives its being and life, and nourishment and growth from the
vine. And because Christ is that to us, which the vine is to the
branches, therefore there is a strict truth and reality in these
expressions; and the same truth and reality, whether it be expressed,
by saying, that we eat the flesh and blood of Christ, or that we put on
Christ, or that Christ is formed, manifested or revealed in us.

[Dem-182] For if you could bid the branch to eat the substance and
juice of the vine, the same must be intended, as if you had said, that
the vine must be formed in the branch, or must manifest itself in the
branch. So when it is said, that we must eat the flesh and blood of
Christ, it is the same thing as saying, that Christ must be formed in
us, or manifested in us.

[Dem-183] But you will perhaps say, How does it appear, that these
expressions of putting on Christ, of Christ’s being formed in us, of
his being our life, the bread of life, and his flesh meat indeed, and
his blood drink indeed; how does it appear, that these and the like
places of scripture are to be understood sacramentally?

[Dem-184] I answer, it does not appear. And the question itself is as
absurd, as if it was asked, How does it appear, that the scriptures are
to be understood sacramentally? Whereas, if the question began at the
right end, it should proceed thus, How does it appear, that the
sacrament is to be understood scripturally, or according to the plain
doctrines of scripture? Was the question thus put, as it ought to be,
it would fall of itself. For surely it need not be proved, that the
things spoken of Christ in the sacrament, are to be understood
according to that which is spoken of Christ in the scripture. When our
savior said in the sixth of St. John, “that his flesh was meat indeed,
and his blood drink indeed, and that except a man eat his flesh, and
drink his blood, he hath no life in him; and that he who eateth his
flesh, and drinketh his blood, dwelleth in him, and he in him”; he did
not speak of the sacrament, nor could possibly speak of it, for this
plain reason, because he spoke of the truth, the reality, and the thing
itself; for the sake of which, and for the application of which to
ourselves, he afterwards instituted the sacrament.

[Dem-185] But if the sacrament was instituted for the sake of that
truth and reality, of which he then spake; then the sacrament must be
essentially related to that which he then said, and must have its
meaning and end according to it.

[Dem-186] And if what he then said, was that truth and reality of the
thing itself, and the sacrament was instituted as an outward sign,
proof or declaration of it; then what he said in St. John, he spoke not
of the sacrament; and yet what he instituted in the sacrament, has all
its meaning according to that which he said in St. John.

[Dem-187] To ask, whether our savior meant the sacramental bread and
wine, when he said, my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed, is as absurd as to ask, whether he did not mean the flesh and
blood of some other person, when he said, my flesh and my blood?

[Dem-188] And, on the other hand, to ask, whether the sacramental bread
and wine does not signify to us that flesh and blood which is our meat
indeed, and drink indeed, is as absurd, as to ask, whether the
appointed sign of a thing, does not signify that which it is appointed
to signify?

[Dem-189] These two things therefore are evidently plain: First, that
our savior in the sixth of St. John did not, could not possibly speak
of his sacramental body and blood, or bread and wine, because he spoke
of himself, of his real, natural, and true life, of which we must
partake: Secondly, that what he calls his body and blood in the
sacrament, or has appointed to be the signs of his body and blood, must
be understood according to that which he has said in St. John, of his
flesh which is meat indeed, and his blood which is drink indeed; for
this plain reason, because the appointed sign of a thing must signify
that which it is appointed to signify.

[Dem-190] Therefore in St. John there is nothing said of the sacrament;
and yet what is said in the sacrament, is to be necessarily understood
of that very thing which is said in St. John. And the reason is plain;
for the thing is essentially different from that which is appointed to
be a sign of it; therefore, he that speaks of the thing, cannot in
speaking of that, speak of the sign. But the sign, as such, has all its
nature from the thing that it is to signify; and therefore the thing
itself must be meant by that which the sign speaks of.

[Dem-191] To say, as some do, that our savior could not speak of that
in St. John, which is intended by the sacrament, because the sacrament
was not then instituted, is very weak and unreasonable; for it is
saying, that he could not then speak of a thing or doctrine, because he
afterwards appointed something to be a sign or outward declaration of
it. For if he had appointed an institution, or positive rite, which
related to nothing that he had before taught, it must have been very
unaccountable. Thus to command us to eat his body and blood in the
sacrament, if he had not beforehand taught that we had our life from
him, and that his flesh was our meat indeed, and his blood our drink
indeed, had been very unaccountable. But seeing he had in the openest,
plainest manner declared, that he was the life of men, and that except
we eat his flesh and drink his blood we have no life in us; the command
to eat bread and wine as his body and blood, is plain and intelligible;
and we have the fullest assurance of the meaning of it, for this
reason, because Christ had often, and long beforehand taught that
truth, of which he afterwards appointed the sacrament to be an outward
sign, and an outward means of our owning, confessing, and embracing it.
Thus all the controversy about this place in St. John, and other like
passages of scripture, is at an end, and has the most plain and
satisfactory solution; such passages do not speak of the sacrament,
because they speak of the thing itself, of which the sacrament is an
appointed outward signification; but the sacrament directly speaks of,
and points to those passages, because they contain that truth and
reality which the sacrament is appointed to signify.

[Dem-192] For were not Christ our real life, there had not been any
outward figure or declaration of it appointed; was there not a real
eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, was there not a true
substantial putting on of Christ, or partaking of the nature of Christ,
the sacramental eating and drinking of his body and blood, had not been
appointed; there could have been no foundation for it; or if appointed,
it could have had no meaning suitable to the words. But since that
which is sacramentally figured or signified, by the eating and drinking
the sacramental body and blood of Christ, is in the scriptures declared
to be a real truth, since its reality is taught, declared and explained
by various ways and manners of speech, it is undeniable, that the
sacrament, which is an appointed figure, must be explained and asserted
according to that truth and reality, of which it is the appointed
figure.

[Dem-193] When our savior said, “he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him”: when he said, “I am the life”;
and again, “I am the true vine, and ye are the branches,” &c., he spake
as much strict and real truth, and as much according to the letter, as
when he said of himself, he came down from heaven, or that he is in the
Father, and the Father in him. What is there said, is no more to be
considered as a metaphor, or figure of speech, than when it is said,
that God is our Father, or that in God we live, move, and have our
being.

[Dem-194] For what is said of Christ, as our life, is as strictly true,
as when it is said, that in God we live, and move, and have our being;
and what is said of Christ’s being the true vine, has the same real
truth in it, as when God is said to be our Father.

[Dem-195] Had Christ indeed said, This vine is me, and these branches
are ye, what he said must then have been as figurative, as when he said
of the bread, “This is my body”; and his speaking so of a vine, must
have been only a sign to us, that he was in truth and reality that to
us, which the vine is in a poor, earthly, perishable manner to its
branches. But seeing he does not speak of a vine, but speaks directly
of himself, and says, that I am the true vine; it is as if he had said,
I am the vine in truth and reality, as God is the Father of you all in
truth and reality, because I am that in a true and real, and living
manner to you, which the vine is in a poor, earthly, perishable manner
to its branches.

[Dem-196] Therefore all that is here said, is the real truth, as far as
human words can set it forth; and when it is said, that we must put on
Christ, or that Christ must be formed in us, or that he is the true
vine, and we are the branches, there is the same literal, real,
immutable and eternal truth in these expressions, as when it is said,
that “in God we live and move, and have our being,” or that God is our
Father, and we are his children.

[Dem-197] Now to deny that Christ is thus our life, is as great a
denial of him, as to deny him to be the eternal Word, or the Son of
God, or the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
And to deny that we receive our life from him, or eat his flesh and
blood in the same reality as the branch eateth of the substance and
juice of the vine, and receiveth what it hath from it, is as great a
denial of him, as if we deny that he came from heaven, and was in
heaven, even when he was upon earth.

[Dem-198] But if we own these great truths, which are the very heart
and substance of Christianity, if we know and acknowledge that we are
thus of him, and by him, that our inward man, which is all that is
Christian within us, has all its birth, life, and growth from Christ,
as its principle, eating, drinking, and drawing in life from him, as
the branch eats, drinks, and draws its life and substance from the
vine; then we cannot be at a loss either to know what is meant by the
sacrament, and the benefits we receive thereby, or to know what parts
of scripture explain those benefits to us. Since it must appear to us
beyond all doubt, that all that which the scriptures speak to us of
Christ, as the atonement for our sins, and our peace with God, and all
that they speak to us of our life in Christ, of his forming and
manifesting himself in the birth and growth of our inward new man; is
that which it speaks to us of the meaning and benefits of this holy
sacrament, which is solely appointed as the figure of all this, as the
application of all this to us, and as an established means of
exercising, increasing and strengthening our faith in him, as he is all
this to us.

[Dem-199] Here therefore is full room for all our devotion, and at the
same time a full security against all delusion. For whilst we believe
nothing of the sacrament, seek nothing in it, nor plead anything by it,
but such scripture truths and benefits as we are obliged to believe,
own and plead, though the sacrament had not been appointed, all the
devotion which the sacrament thus raises in us, is as secure from
delusion, has as much the stamp of truth upon it, and is as proper an
exercise of solid piety, as when any thing or occasion excites us to an
act of loving God with all our mind, and heart, and strength. For as we
cannot too much esteem, love and adore our savior, both as he is the
atonement for our sins, and a principle of life to us; so if the use of
the sacrament quickens, nourishes, keeps up, and increases this esteem,
love and adoration of him, as such, it cannot do this too much.

[Dem-200] For as we do nothing in the sacrament, but what is our
natural duty, and good and right in itself; as we seek to Christ, trust
in Christ, rely upon his merits, desire to have life in and from him,
only in such a manner as we ought to do, though we were not assisted in
it by the sacrament; so all this faith and hope, and love and desire,
and devotion which we practice by means of the sacrament, has
everything in it, that can prove to be right, and just, and good. And
the want of this faith, hope, love, desire, adoration and devotion, is
more blamable in the use of the sacrament than anywhere else, because
it is there more properly required, and has the most proper object and
occasion to excite it.

[Dem-201] You must therefore consider the sacrament purely as an object
of your devotion, that is to exercise all your faith, that is to raise,
exercise, and inflame every holy ardor of your soul that tends to God.
It is an abstract, or sum of all the mysteries that have been revealed
concerning our savior, from the first promise of a seed of the woman to
bruise the serpent’s head, to the day of Pentecost.

[Dem-202] As you can receive or believe nothing higher of our savior,
than that he is the atonement for our sins, and a real principle of
life to us; so every height and depth of devotion, faith, love, and
adoration, which is due to God as your creator, is due to God as your
redeemer.

[Dem-203] Jacob’s ladder that reached from earth to heaven, and was
filled with angels ascending and descending between heaven and earth,
is but a small signification of that communion between God and man,
which this holy sacrament is the means and instrument of.

[Dem-204] Now here it may be proper for you to observe, that whatever
names or titles this institution is signified to you by, whether it be
called a sacrifice propitiatory, or commemorative; whether it be called
an holy oblation, the eucharist, the sacrament of the body and blood of
Christ, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the heavenly banquet, the
food of immortality, or the holy communion, and the like, matters not
much. For all these words or names are right and good, and there is
nothing wrong in them, but the striving and contention about them.

[Dem-205] For they all express something that is true of the sacrament,
and therefore are every one of them, in a good sense, rightly
applicable to it; but all of them are far short of expressing the whole
nature of the sacrament, and therefore the help of all of them is
wanted.

[Dem-206] He therefore that contends for one name, as the only proper
one in exclusion of the rest, is in the same mistake, as he that should
contend for one name and character of our savior, as the only proper
one, in exclusion of all the rest. For as all the names and titles by
which Christ is described, from the seed of the woman in Genesis, to
the Alpha and Omega in the last chapter of the Revelation, are only to
help us to know, believe, and experience more of him as our savior,
than can be expressed by all these different characters of him: so all
the various names and titles given to the sacrament, are only to teach
us to know, believe, and find more of our redemption and salvation in
the sacrament, than can be pointed out to us by any or all these
expressions.

[Dem-207] If you have yet known Christ in any true degree, what must
you think of him, who should contend that the Lamb of God was the only
proper character of our savior, and that therefore those other names,
seed of the woman, root of David, bright and morning star, bread of
life, tree of life, son of man, first-born of all creatures, Word of
God, could not belong to him as our savior, because of the disagreement
there is between a lamb, and the bread of life, or a tree of life?

[Dem-208] Now this is the learning this author is full of; from this
scrupulous attention to words, and the ideas annexed to them, he
rejects almost all the names by which the sacrament has ever been
expressed.

[Dem-209] He is able to prove, that the sacrament is not a
commemorative sacrifice, because it is the Supper of the Lord; just as
another by the same skill in words, might prove, that the Lamb of God
is not the tree of life, or the bread that came down from heaven,
because of the great difference there is between a tree, bread, and a
lamb.

[Dem-210] Now the reason why our savior is described under this vast
variety of characters, is this, because no one phrase or particular
form of expression can truly describe him to us; therefore that is to
be done as well as it can, by different and seemingly contrary
characters.

[Dem-211] Thus he is called the seed of the woman that was to bruise
the serpent’s head, in another aspect the Lamb of God, in another the
desire of all nations, in another the son of man, in another the
brightness of his Father’s glory, in another the bread that came down
from heaven, in another the tree of life, the Alpha and Omega. Now it
is the exceeding difference, and even literal contrariety of these
expressions, that makes them proper and useful to us; and we have the
more true knowledge of our savior because of these characters, which,
considered in themselves, seem to have no agreement with each other.

[Dem-212] Thus the Lamb of God, and the bread of life, are characters
of our savior, that have no connection with each other, and yet they
teach us the greatest truths concerning our savior, because they are
thus without connection, and so unrelated to each other.

[Dem-213] It is just thus with the sacrament; the different and
seemingly incoherent characters and expressions by which it is
signified to us, help us to know more truth of it, merely because of
their difference, than could be taught us by such expressions as had a
literal agreement and connection with each other.

[Dem-214] Do you therefore reject this author’s wisdom of words which
he proposes to you, and be content to be devout without it. Be glad to
know, that as the nature, office, and condition of our savior could not
be made known to us, but by a variety of different names and titles
ascribed to him; so the nature and end and effects of this holy
sacrament could not be made known to us, but by a variety of different
names and titles ascribed to it; that in one respect it is a
propitiatory sacrifice, in another a commemorative sacrifice; in one
respect it is the seal and renewal of the covenant between God and man,
in another the food of immortality, the life of the soul, the bread
that came down from heaven, the tree of life; that in one respect it is
the holy eucharist, in another the holy communion.

[Dem-215] And be assured, that he who tries to set these expressions at
variance with each other, and would persuade you that if one is a true
account of the sacrament, the others cannot be so, is as vain a
disputer of this world, as he that would persuade you, that if our
savior be the seed of the woman, he cannot be essentially the Son of
God; or if he be the Lamb of God, he cannot be the bread of life.

[Dem-216] The reason why this sacrament is said in one respect to be a
propitiatory, or commemorative sacrifice, is only this, because you
there offer, present, and plead before God, such things as are by
Christ himself said to be his body and blood given for you: but if that
which is thus offered, presented, and pleaded before God, is offered,
presented, and pleaded before him only for this reason, because it
signifies and represents both to God, and angels, and men, the great
sacrifice for all the world, is there not sufficient reason to consider
this service as truly a sacrifice? Or even supposing, that the calling
the service a sacrifice, is no more according to a certain literal
exactness of some critics, that when our savior says of himself, “I am
the resurrection”; or that a quibbler in words may be able to object as
much against it, as against our savior’s saying of himself, “I am the
resurrection and the life,” have you any reason to dislike it on that
account, or to wish that such little critics might find more of their
empty, superficial, worthless niceties in the language of the church,
than in the language of scripture?

[Dem-217] The miserable use which this author makes of this kind of
learning may be sufficiently seen by the following instances: “To say,”
says he, “that this communion is the actual partaking of all the
benefits of Christ’s body broken and blood shed for us, or of his
living and dying for our good, has this peculiar absurdity in it, that
in this rite, which was instituted for the remembrance of Christ, it
destroys that very notion of remembrance, which is the essence of it.
The great design of this institution is to call to mind the remembrance
of Christ, and to commemorate the benefits accruing to Christians from
it. To make it therefore the actual partaking of these benefits, is
altering the nature of it, as much as actual partaking of anything is
different from remembering it.” {Page 158.} Many other passages like
this are to be found in this author.

[Dem-218] Now to see the truth and sense of this doctrine in its proper
light: Let it be supposed, that our savior, after the institution, had
thus added, “Observe well what it is that I have taught you to
understand and do by this rite: I have indeed said, This is my body
which is given for you; but the meaning of my institution does not lie
in these words, nor are you to think that I am any way present in that
which I call my body, or that you are to present, and show, and plead
it before God as my body, which is given for you; for this is not my
intent, though I thus speak. I have also said, This is my blood which
is shed for the remission of sins, and have ordered you to say so of it
before God, and angels, and men in the church; but what I have taught
has nothing to do with this institution, nor is it to be any part of
it; there is no remission of sins to be thought of in it, or pleaded by
it. I have also bid you to eat that which I have declared to be my
body, and to drink that which I have declared to be my blood; but you
must not therefore imagine, that you receive anything of me, or of my
nature, into yourselves, or that I am a principle of life to you. For
though I thus speak so fully and plainly of eating my very body and
blood, yet nothing is meant of any real partaking of anything from me.
For this is no part of my institution, nor is it appointed for you to
receive anything from me, nor for me to communicate anything to you.
And to prevent your apprehension of anything of this kind, and to
secure you from the dangerous error of supposing that any benefits and
blessings are received by your receiving my body and blood; I have
added, Do this in remembrance of me; which words sufficiently show,
that neither me, nor the benefits of me, as your savior, can here be
received, because that which is appointed here to be remembered,
cannot, without great absurdity, be supposed to be present. Had I
indeed said, Do this in acknowledgement of me, or of that salvation
which is received through me; or had I said, Do this as an act of faith
in me as your savior, then indeed you must have believed that there
were great benefits and blessings presented to you by this institution;
for ye could not by faith appeal to this my body and blood, without the
actual partaking of my benefits and blessings, both as I am the
atonement for your sins, and a principle of life to you: but as I have
chosen the word remembrance, you must see that it is only an act of
your memory that is required of you; for this is the great point in
this institution, perform but this and you have performed all that the
nature and end of this institution requires of you. Take care therefore
that you keep strictly to this bare act of the memory, and that you
don’t add anything to it; for the essence of this institution consists
in this simple act of the memory. But above all, take heed of such
faith, devotion, and desire of me, as may lead you to hope or believe
that you partake of my benefits by the partaking of this holy rite; for
such a faith and hope are so inconsistent with this institution, that
they would destroy the very nature and essence of it, which is to be
the remembrance of my benefits, and therefore cannot possibly be the
actual partaking of them. Nor can you think of partaking of them by
this holy institution, but by making it an institution of your own,
directly contrary to that which I designed it to be.”

[Dem-219] Everyone, I believe, must at first sight perceive, that to
put this paraphrase upon the sacrament into the mouth of our savior,
would be profaneness and blasphemy; and yet everyone must plainly see,
that profane and blasphemous as it would be, there is not a thought or
word in it, but what is strictly according to this author’s doctrine.

[Dem-220] Secondly, let it be supposed that instead of “Do this in
remembrance of me,” our savior had said, Do this as a means of
partaking of all my benefits to mankind: this author’s criticism would
prove it absurd to make the sacrament even than an actual partaking of
those benefits. For he must say, that the great design of it, was to be
a means of partaking of those benefits. To make it therefore the actual
partaking of those benefits, is altering the nature of it, as much as
actual partaking of anything is different from the means of partaking
of it. Such is his wisdom of words!

[Dem-221] Thirdly, if it were true, that the actual partaking of
Christ’s benefits was not only not intended by, but also inconsistent
with the right observance of this institution, so as to destroy its
essence, and alter its nature, if such actual partaking was thought of
by it; then it would follow, that no good Christian ought to observe
this institution, or act according to the nature and intent of it.

[Dem-222] For it is as unlawful and even atheistical for any Christian
to think himself not an actual partaker of the benefits and blessings
of Christ, as to think himself not an actual partaker of the benefits
and blessings of a God and providence. “Without me,” says our blessed
Lord, “ye can do nothing.” {John 15:5.} But, according to this author,
we not only can, but must do all that is done in this sacrament without
him, and must look upon the sacrament as instituted for this very end,
to keep up a sense and belief of our being without him, and to assure
us, that we are not actual partakers of him, that he is not present
with us, nor acting in us. Again, saith our blessed Lord, “Abide in me,
and I in you; as the branch cannot bear fruit, except it abide in the
vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.”

[Dem-223] But, according to this author, he that would rightly perform
this institution, must, every time he performs it, come out of Christ
as perfectly as he can, and make himself as separate from Christ, as
the withered branch that is separated from the vine; that having no
actual possession of the benefits and blessings of Christ, he may be
qualified to do this in remembrance of them.

[Dem-224] Further, no one can believe in Christ, love Christ, adore
him, and hope and trust in him, without being an actual partaker of the
benefits of Christ by so doing; if therefore to the due observation of
the sacrament, and to preserve its nature and essence, there must be no
actual partaking of the benefits of Christ allowed in it, or by it;
then it must be performed without faith or love of Christ, and without
any devotion towards him, or adoration of him; for if these accompany
that which we do in the sacrament, and attend our reception of it, the
benefits of Christ must be actually received by it.

[Dem-225] Fourthly, to see still more of the absurdity and impiety of
this author’s observation on the remembrance in the sacrament, we need
only apply it to this parallel text of scripture, “Remember thy creator
in the days of thy youth.” {Eccles.xii.1.} For, according to our
author, he that would not alter and destroy the nature and essence of
this duty of remembering God, must not pretend, or hope, or believe,
that by the observance of this duty, he is made an actual partaker or
sharer of the goodness, perfections, and attributes of his creator, or
of anything that belongs to his creator, or that can be remembered of
him: because so long as he keeps strictly to the true nature of this
duty, and continues to remember his creator, so long every thing, or
attribute, or perfection that belongs to his creator, must be
considered as at a distance from him, as unenjoyed and unpossessed by
him, because that which is to be remembered, cannot be present. And
therefore the command to remember our creator, is, according to this
doctrine, a command to look upon our creator as at a distance and far
from us, and is inconsistent with our believing, that “in him we live,
move, and have our being”; because we cannot remember a creator so
present with us, and of whose perfections we are actual partakers.

[Dem-226] If therefore this author has found out the right way of
remembering God as our redeemer, he ought to have told us, that the
same way of remembering God as our creator was wrong, and tended to
atheism. For to remember God as absent, is but a very little way from
atheism.

[Dem-227] Lastly, if, as this author teaches, the actual partaking of
the benefits of Christ’s living and dying for us, by means of this
sacrament, is an absurdity that cannot be supposed, without destroying
the nature and essence of the sacrament, for this reason, because that
which is possessed as present, and actually partaken of, cannot be
remembered; then it follows, that no man can fully perform this duty,
that is, make it a remembrance of all the benefits of Christ, but he
that is actually dispossessed of all of them. Because he cannot
remember all, if any of them are then present with him, and enjoyed by
him.

[Dem-228] Secondly, it follows, that he who daily grows in the gifts
and graces of Christ, and in whom Christ is every day more and more
formed, must, in proportion as the strength, and spirit, and power of
Christ is revealed in him, daily be less qualified to do perfectly that
which is to be done in the sacrament; because being daily more and more
possessed of the benefits and blessings of Christ, he has every day
less and less to commemorate in and by the sacrament.

[Dem-229] Thirdly, it follows, that he who falls from his state of
grace in Christ, who becomes every day more and more empty and
destitute of his gifts and graces, who daily loses something of the
sense and taste of the heavenly gifts, and the powers of the world to
come, and finds himself less animated, assisted and strengthened by the
power and spirit of Christ, must in proportion, as he becomes every day
more earthly, sensual, carnal, blind and weak, and wretched, and dead,
and fallen from Christ, be more and more qualified to do that which,
according to this author, is to be done in the sacrament; for losing
every day something of the benefits of Christ, and being daily less a
partaker of them, he is daily qualified to commemorate more of them,
and so to perform that which is to be performed in this sacrament in a
more perfect manner.

[Dem-230] Again, the apostle saith, “Know ye not that Christ Jesus is
in you, except ye be reprobates- {2 Cor.xiii.5.} But this author must
say, Know ye not that Christ Jesus is not in you, nor can be in you, if
the sacrament is to be observed in remembrance of him? For how can ye
without absurdity commemorate that which is not absent from you?

[Dem-231] Lastly, he who can say with the apostle, “the life that I now
live is not mine, but Christ that liveth in me,” is utterly incapable
of remembering Christ in the sacrament; for he cannot commemorate an
absent Christ, and therefore cannot commemorate him, till Christ has
done living in him.

[Dem-232] But there is no end of exposing all the impious consequences
of this author’s learned account of the word remembrance. Which,
monstrous as it is, is only founded upon a little criticism, that the
word remembrance can only signify an act of the memory upon something
that is absent. And yet it is certain that it does not, cannot signify
so, when you are to remember your creator, and therefore need not
signify so, when you are to remember your redeemer. And if you do but
suppose it possible, that “Do this in remembrance of me,” may only
signify, do this in regard of me, as your act of faith in me; then all
this extraordinary doctrine of the impossibility and absurdity of
partaking of the benefits of Christ by partaking of the sacrament, has
not so much as one of his quibbles to support it.

[Dem-233] Further, this author’s absurd interpretation of the word
remembrance in the sacrament is founded on this gross error, that the
things to be remembered, are things done and past, and therefore only
capable of being remembered by an act of the memory. This he expressly
says in many places. Thus, “They,” says he, “could not do the actions
here named, in remembrance of anything which was not done and past.”
{Page 30.} And in other places, that the “benefits cannot be present
that are to be commemorated.”

[Dem-234] And therefore the whole support of this arguing is founded on
this error, that the things to be remembered, are done and past. Which
is an error, that he could not have fallen into, if he had but
moderately understood the nature either of the Jewish or Christian
religion.

[Dem-235] Now that which is to be remembered in the sacrament is
Christ, or the benefits and blessings of Christ as the savior of
mankind; but neither Christ, nor his benefits and blessings have the
nature of things done, or gone, and past, but are always present,
always in being, always doing, and never done.

[Dem-236] “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and for ever,”
always was, now is, and ever will be present as the savior of the
world. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, and
therefore equally present in and through all from the beginning to the
end. “Behold,” saith he, “I stand at the door, and knock; if any man
hear my voice, and open the door, I will come into him, and will sup
with him.” {Rev.iii.20.} Thus he stood at the door of Adam’s heart, as
near as he stood to the apostles’; and thus he stands, and will stand
knocking at the door of every man’s heart, till time shall be no more.
Happy he that does not consider this Christ as absent, and is only for
such a Supper of the Lord, as will not admit of his presence.

[Dem-237] The benefits and blessings of Christ as the savior of
mankind, began with the first promise of a seed of the woman to bruise
the serpent’s head; they have continued with this promise, they are the
benefits of every age, they will never be at an end, till all that was
implied in the promise shall have its full completion in the utter
destruction of the serpent. Jesus Christ was the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world; and the first sacrifice of the first man, and
every sacrifice since, that hath been accepted of God, has been made
solely acceptable through the benefits and blessings of Christ.

[Dem-238] All the shadows and types, sacrifices and ceremonies of the
Jewish religion were only so many ways of applying the benefits of
Jesus Christ to that people. “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today,
and for ever,” is the same in and through all ages; he was the savior
of Adam, the patriarchs, and the Jews, just as he is our savior. His
body and blood, offered in their sacrifices, was their atonement, as it
is ours, offered upon the cross. His flesh and blood was meat and
drink, or a principle of life to them, as it is to us.

[Dem-239] Jesus Christ was theirs, as he is ours; he was the life, and
substance, and spirit of the Law, as he is the life, and substance, and
spirit of the gospel; only with this difference, that then Christ was
covered, and received under more outward figures and ceremonies than he
is now; we do that more openly, which was then done more covertly by
the Israel of God.

[Dem-240] His atonement for our sins is not a transitory thing, that
began and ended with his passion and death, but it began with the Lamb
that was slain from the foundation of the world; for he was the Lamb of
God slain in all their types and sacrifices through every age, till he
became the real expiatory sacrifice on the cross for the sins of the
world.

[Dem-241] When he died upon the cross, his atonement did not then
become a thing that was over, or past, and done, that was only to be
remembered by an act of the memory, but continued increasing in its
power and virtue.

[Dem-242] As Christ by his death put an end to nothing in religion but
types and prefiguration; so by his death he put an end to nothing of
his atonement, but that which was typical and prefigurative of it. And
as he arose from the grave with greater power and strength, and became
instead of a meek and suffering Lamb, a powerful conqueror over death,
a royal priest over the house of God, so his atonement went on
increasing in strength and virtue.

[Dem-243] His atonement was so far from being a thing done and past,
when his blood was shed upon the cross, that it was shed for this very
end, that he might for ever do that in the reality, which the high
priest did in the type, when with the blood of the sacrifice he entered
once a year into the holiest of all, to make the highest atonement for
the people.

[Dem-244] Thus Christ, to perform, and to continue for ever the most
powerful way of atoning for us, by his own blood he entered once into
the holy place–now to appear in the presence of God for us.
{Heb.ix.24.} Where he continueth for ever, and hath an unchangeable
priesthood; {Heb.vii.24} and therefore our atonement is never done and
past, but is just as perpetual and unchangeable as his priesthood. For
he can be no longer a priest, than while he maketh an atonement and
intercession for us. And from this his unchangeable priesthood, the
apostle thus argues, “wherefore he is able also to save them to the
uttermost, who come unto God by him, {Heb.vii.25} seeing he ever liveth
to make intercession for us.”

[Dem-245] But if he is “able to save them to the uttermost, who come
unto God by him”; then his atonement is not something done and past,
but always in being, always present, always doing, and always
presenting itself everywhere, and to every man; and if he is ever
living to make intercession for us, then we have a propitiation that
never ceases, that is as near to us as it was to the apostles, and will
be as present to those that shall be born two thousand years after
Christ, as it was to those who stood by his cross when he died.
Agreeable to this, St. John saith, “We have an advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our
sins.” He does not say, we have had an advocate with the Father, nor
that Christ was our propitiation some time ago, but that he is the
propitiation for our sins.

[Dem-246] And indeed Jesus Christ is the atonement for our sins, in
that same unlimited universal and omnipresent manner, in which he is
the life and light of the world. And as he is the light which lighteth
every man that cometh into the world, and is not an actual present
light to some, and a distant unpossessed light to others, only to be
remembered by an act of their memory; so he is the atonement for every
man that cometh into the world, and is not an actual, present atonement
to some, and a distant atonement to others, only to be remembered by an
act of their memory; but is an atonement actually and really present to
all, as he is a light actually and really present to all, and every man
that cometh into the world.

[Dem-247] Therefore this author’s account of the remembrance in the
sacrament, has not only those absurdities in it demonstrated above, but
is also solely founded upon this grossest of all errors, that the
benefits and blessings of Christ, as the savior of mankind, are
something done and past; which is an error that no one could have
fallen into, that had but a common knowledge of the first and plainest
principles either of the Jewish or Christian religion. For both these
religions are founded upon this great truth, and suppose it in every
part, that the benefits and blessings of Christ were always in being,
always doing, always present in and to every age, as well before as
since the incarnation and death of Christ.

[Dem-248] And as this author has been forced to assent, they were
things absent, done, and past, in order to make the sacrament to
consist of an action of the memory upon those absent things; so seeing
it is an undeniable truth, that they are not things absent, done, and
past, but are as actually present, as ever they were, or ever could be,
it follows, according to his own principles, that the remembrance
spoken of in the sacrament, cannot possibly signify only an action of
the memory, but must necessarily signify such faith and acknowledgement
of Christ, as when we are bid to remember our creator, or believe in
God.

[Dem-249] Further, this author proceeds thus: “To say that the
communion is the actual partaking of all the benefits of Christ’s
living and dying for us, is to put that upon one single act of
obedience, which is by our blessed Lord made to depend upon the whole
system of all virtues united.” {Page 58.} And again, “Such a doctrine
as this would, in my opinion, be not only inconsistent with the
plainest declarations of the gospel, but directly contradictory and
destructive to the main design of it.” {Page 144.}

[Dem-250] What this author calls here a single act, and a single
instance of obedience, is true only of his own sacrament, which
consists only of a single action of the memory cast upon Christ at a
certain instant of time, and to which single action, this author
expressly says, that no prayer is necessary, {Page 160.} not even
necessary to attend upon it, either as going before, or following after
it. That in its own proper and peculiar nature, it has nothing to do
with prayer or devotion of any kind, can have no perfection from it,
nor be in any degree imperfect as to its nature and essence, for want
of any prayer, because its essence is entirely distinct from prayer.

[Dem-251] And therefore all prayers, thanksgivings and devotions, are
to be considered as things distinct from this sacrament, that have no
relation to the peculiar nature and proper essence of it. {Page 173.}

[Dem-252] Hence it is plain, that we do not overcharge this author,
when we say, that he places the whole nature of the sacrament in a bare
single action of the memory. For if, as he says, no kind of prayer,
devotion or thanksgiving, is of the essence of this sacrament, or can
be an essential part of it; then it has all its perfection within
itself, as it is a bare act of the memory, and cannot, as to its own
proper nature or essence, have anything added to it by prayer, or taken
from it by the want of prayer. Hence it is also undeniable, that this
author’s sacrament is not so much as a bare act of religion, nor can
have any more religion in it, than if it was the act of a parrot. For
no act can be a religious act, but so far, and in such degree, as it is
an act of faith, and love, and devotion to God. But this author’s
sacrament will not, as it is a sacrament, allow faith, or love, or
devotion to be any part of it, therefore it cannot be so much as a bare
act of religion.

[Dem-253] Nay, it may and must be said, that the right observation of
this author’s sacrament is directly an act of atheism. For if it is an
act, that in its own nature, and according to its peculiar essence,
cannot be performed according to what it is, unless it be done without
faith, and love, and devotion towards God; then it is directly an act
of atheism, because atheism is nothing else but a cessation of faith,
love and devotion towards God. But the essence of this author’s
sacrament cannot be preserved, unless you keep prayer, devotion and
thanksgiving out of it. Therefore to perform it rightly according to
what it is, is to perform an act of atheism.

[Dem-254] And if at the taking of the bread and wine, you should suffer
faith, or love, or adoration of God, or thanksgiving, to take up your
mind, you might as well have let the sacrament alone, for you have
neglected all that in which its whole nature consists; and have only
been in such a state of devotion, as has nothing to do with it, nor can
possibly be a part of it. And therefore, if you will perform this
sacrament rightly according to this author, you must perform it
atheistically; you must excite such a remembrance as excludes faith,
love, devotion and thanksgiving, from being a part of it. And your
remembrance is not performed, unless it be such a remembrance as these
things cannot be a part of.

[Dem-255] The devils are said to believe a God; but why is it that
their faith is no religious act, nor of any benefit to them? It is
because their faith is only a bare act of believing, just as this
author’s sacrament has only a bare act of remembering; and that which
is the perfection of his sacrament, is their wretchedness.

[Dem-256] If you ask this author, why faith, and prayer, and adoration
and thanksgiving, are not of the essence, or cannot be essential parts
of the sacrament: all he has to say is this, that the “duty of prayer
is a duty absolutely distinct from the participation of the Lord’s
Supper.” {Page 160.}

[Dem-257] It may and must be granted, that prayer, humility, faith,
hope, charity, &c., are absolutely distinct from each other; that
humility is not prayer, nor faith in its proper idea prayer, and so of
the rest. Yet notwithstanding this distinction between them, they are
all of them essential to each other. Faith is of the essence of prayer,
hope is of the essence of faith, and all of them are essential parts of
prayer. Therefore when this author asserts that prayer is not an
essential part of the communion, he is just as much in the right, and
has as much truth on his side, as he who says, that humility, faith and
hope are not essential to prayer, because prayer is distinct from
humility, faith and hope.

[Dem-258] What this author saith of the sacrament, that it is one
single act, or one single instance of obedience, is only true of his
own fiction of a sacrament, which he makes to consist in a single act
of the memory; and indeed it would be highly inconsistent with the
gospel, to make such a sacrament a means of obtaining the benefits of
Christ. But this is not the sacrament of Christ, nor the sacrament
which the church of Christ observes.

[Dem-259] For all that relates to our salvation, either on the part of
Christ, or on our own part, is plainly united in that sacrament which
Christ has instituted. All that relates to our salvation on the part of
Christ, is in the sacrament, because he has said that his body and
blood are there for the remission of our sins, and that his body and
blood are there to be eaten and drank, as the food and life of our
souls, therefore Christ as our savior is wholly there.

[Dem-260] And all that relates to our salvation on our own part, is
there; because we cannot come to Christ, or find him to be there, as he
has said he is, unless we come to him with all those qualities and
pious dispositions that correspond to him, as he is an atonement for
our sins, and a principle of life to us; therefore all that relates to
our salvation, either on the part of Christ, or on our own part, is
plainly united in the sacrament. And to call such a communion one
single act of obedience, is just the same absurdity, as to say, that
the baptism of a heathen converted to Christianity, is but one single
instance of obedience. For everything that is implied in such a
conversion and baptism, whether it be on the part of Christ, or on the
part of the person baptized, is implied in this communion.

[Dem-261] And as the baptism of such a person contains all in it that
relates to his salvation, either on the part of Christ, or on his own
part, and therefore cannot without great ignorance be called a single
instance or act of obedience: so it is with the sacrament, it is all
that to the pious communicant, both on the part of Christ, and on his
own part, that baptism is to the true converted heathen; and he is made
an actual partaker of all the benefits of Christ by it, as the convert
is made so by baptism; and therefore it is the same absurdity to call
it a single act, or instance of obedience.

[Dem-262] And as it would be vain and groundless to say, that it was
inconsistent with the main design of the gospel, to make such baptism
the actual partaking of all the benefits of Christ; so it is equally,
if not more so, to say the same thing of communion; because every pious
and holy disposition is to be supposed to be in an higher state, in the
pious communicant, than in the pious desirer of baptism; and therefore,
it cannot without much absurdity be supposed, that the sacrament is not
as beneficial to the pious communicant, as baptism is to the pious
convert.

[Dem-263] For if Christ has appointed this institution, to assure us,
that he is there, both as the atonement for our sins, and a principle
of life to us, and we come to it with such pious dispositions as
correspond and answer to him in both these respects, and make us
capable of him; it must be great absurdity to say, that we find him not
there as our atonement, nor receive him as a principle of life to us,
nor are made partakers of these benefits of him.

[Dem-264] If we stand before this atonement, without such dispositions
as correspond to it, we are as absent from the sacrament of Christ, as
they are that refuse to come to it; if we eat that which is before us
in the sacrament, without such faith and purity as qualify us to
receive the flesh and blood of Christ, we are only eating that, which
might have been the bread of life to our souls.

[Dem-265] But if we, according to the condition of our humanity, are
that which these two essential parts of the sacrament require us to be,
then we may and ought as firmly to believe, that we are by this
sacrament made actual partakers of all the benefits of Christ, as that
we are saved through Christ, and not by ourselves.

[Dem-266] This author makes great complaint of ascribing these benefits
to the reception of the communion, because it is, as he says, to put
that upon a single instance of obedience, which our blessed Lord has
made to depend upon the whole system of all virtues united in us: that
is, Christ has made the system of all virtues united in us, to be the
only qualification for the actual partaking of his benefits; which is
not only utterly inconsistent with the gospel, but nonsensical in
itself; for it is saying that we are then only qualified for the
benefits of our savior, when we have no need of them; for if all
virtues were so united in us, all that our savior could do for us,
would be done beforehand.

[Dem-267] But let us take an instance or two from our savior’s own
words, and then we shall best see how truly this author has said, that
he has made the actual partaking of his benefits, to depend upon the
whole system of all virtues united. When our blessed Lord stood by
Jacob’s well, talking with the woman of Samaria, he said to her, “If
thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, give me
to drink, thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee
living water; a water which shall be in him that drinketh it, a well of
water springing up into everlasting life.” {John 4:10.}

[Dem-268] Here, I suppose, are offered to this poor woman all the
benefits of the savior of mankind. Our Lord does not say to her, If
thou hadst the whole system of all virtues united in thee, then thou
mightest be made a partaker of all my benefits; I could make the water
of eternal life perpetually spring up within thee.

[Dem-269] No, there is no such jargon as this in the gospel: but as he
came as a compassionate savior, to make the blind to see, the deaf to
hear, and the dumb to speak, and the dead to awake; as he came as a
good shepherd to seek that which was lost, and as a physician to heal
the sick; so he only says to the woman, if she had asked, that is, if
she had felt the want of a savior, as the blind feel the want of sight,
and her heart had only desired this gift of God, he would then have
bestowed this greatest of all gifts upon her.

[Dem-270] But surely, if this desire in the woman would have made her
thus capable of all the benefits of our savior, it cannot be
inconsistent with the gospel, to make the same desire as beneficial to
a true and pious Christian, as it would have been to an unbaptized
Samaritan.

[Dem-271] Again, our Lord saith, “All things whatsoever ye shall ask in
prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” {Matt. 21:22.} Here you see, all
things, and therefore all the benefits of Christ, are ascribed to
faith, and we have everything that we can desire or pray for, by virtue
of it. Does not our Lord here ascribe as much benefit to faith, as ever
anyone ascribed to the holy communion? Or who ever said that of the
power, or benefit, or efficacy of the sacrament, which our Lord here
says of the benefit of faith in prayer?

[Dem-272] Is not this as inconsistent with the gospel, as the actual
partaking of Christ’s benefits, by the single duty of receiving the
sacrament? Is not this benefit of the prayer of faith as contrary to
this author’s whole system of virtues united in us, as that other
benefit of the sacrament? Is it not as just to say, that this prayer of
faith is only a single instance of obedience, as to say so of the
sacrament? And is not the main design of the gospel as much destroyed
by making faith to be thus beneficial, as by making the communion to be
so beneficial?

[Dem-273] Or can it be supposed, that when our Lord, who ascribes thus
much to the prayer of faith, when it is alone, would think it too much
to be ascribed ot it, when the holy sacrament is united with it? Or
must it be supposed, that this prayer of faith loses its virtue and
power, is deprived of its excellent effects, only then, when it is a
part of the communion of Christ’s body and blood.

[Dem-274] Again, our Lord saith, “Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.”
Must not this author have as much to complain of in this doctrine, that
ascribes so much to prayer in the name of Christ, as in that doctrine,
that ascribes so much to the sacrament? Must he not say, that the
praying in the name of Christ, is but one single instance of obedience;
and that to say, we are thereby made partakers of all the benefits of
Christ, is putting that upon one single act of obedience, which our
blessed Lord has made to depend upon the whole system of all virtues
united in us? Must he not say, that this account of the power and
efficacy of prayer in Christ’s name, is a doctrine destructive of the
main design of the gospel?

[Dem-275] For everything that this author objects against this doctrine
of the sacrament, must with the same strength be objected against
these, and many other the like express declarations of our savior.

[Dem-276] Everyone must know that it would be very easy to produce
various passages of the gospel, that teach the same doctrine, as these
do that I have quoted; and that when this author said, our savior made
the partaking of his benefits to depend upon the whole system of all
virtues united in us, he had just the same reason and authority from
the gospel to say so, as he has to say, that Christ declared he came to
seek that which was not lost, to heal those which were not sick, and
save those who stood in no need of a savior.

[Dem-277] But now, seeing this is the nature, power, and efficacy of
the prayer of faith, and of prayer in the name of Christ; seeing he
himself has assured us, that they make us actual partakers of
everything that we can ask of the Father, or that he through Christ can
give us, we have the fullest assurance, that if we do that which the
sacrament requires to be done; if we don’t separate faith and prayer in
the name of Christ from it, but perform it in this faith and prayer, or
make it as it ought to be, a real exercise of this faith and prayer,
then we receive in and by it all the benefits of our savior.

[Dem-278] But because this author seems entirely out of his element,
when speaking of the benefits of Jesus Christ, and not to be able to
speak an intelligible word about it, as to the true grounds and nature
of it, but only to puzzle himself and the reader with an empty
superficial way of arguing from the sound of words: I shall therefore,
in a word or two, endeavor to lay before you the true grounds of the
benefits of Jesus Christ, as he is the savior of all mankind.

[Dem-279] It is the fundamental doctrine, or rather the known
foundation of all revealed religion, and the known foundation of all
natural piety and goodness, that Jesus Christ is the second Adam: that
he is a common head, or parent, or person to all mankind, in the same
manner as Adam is the common head, or parent, or person to all mankind.

[Dem-280] That a real birth, life, nature, and true man, is in the same
truth and reality derived to us from this our second Adam, as a real
birth, and life, and nature is derived to us from our first Adam. And
that as without any figure or metaphor of speech we are all said to be
born of Adam, and descended from him; so we are all in the same
dependence upon our second Adam, really and not figuratively born of
him, and have our descent from him; spirit of his spirit, life of his
life, in the same truth and reality, as every man has the nature of the
first Adam.

[Dem-281] And herein is seen the infinite depth of divine love and
goodness to mankind, who though they were by the condition of their
creation to be derived from one head or parent, and to take his state
of perfection or imperfection; yet were by the goodness and care of God
for them, provided from the very beginning with a second parent, or
common head, who after the fall of the first, and the fallen state that
he had brought upon his posterity, should be a common restorer, and put
it in every man’s power to have the same choice of life and death, as
the first man had; that so, they who were lost before they were born,
and were made inheritors of a miserable nature without their choice,
might have a divine life restored to them in a second parent, which
should not be in the power of anyone to lose for them, but should
depend entirely upon their own will and desire of it, upon their own
faith, and hope, and hungering after it.

[Dem-282] This eternal and immutable truth, worthy of being written in
capital letters of gold, is the foundation of all revealed and natural
religion: and a standing monument of God’s universal goodness and love
to all mankind, and such as is sufficient to make all men rejoice and
give praise to God.

[Dem-283] For by this truth, all that seems hard and cruel to human
reason, that the posterity of Adam should be involved in the
consequences of their first Father’s fall, (yet how could it be
otherwise?) all this, I say, is made a wonderful scene of love, as soon
as we consider, that all mankind were redeemed as soon as they were
lost, and that their redemption was as early, as universal, and as
extensive in its effects, as the fall was. And that no son of Adam is
left to inherit a poor, earthy, perishable, corrupt nature from him,
without having it in his choice to be born again of a second Adam, and
restored, with advantage, to all the riches, and treasures, and
blessings of a divine and paradisiacal nature, which were lost without
his consent.

[Dem-284] There is something so amazingly loving and merciful in this
conduct of divine providence over mankind, that I cannot help thinking,
no one can calmly consider it in the quiet of his mind, without having
all his infidelity melted down by it. And that such an act of general
pardon, as early as the first sin, and a new parent provided for us, to
be our parent by choice and faith, as soon as our first parent had
undone us without our consent: such an act of pardon being the
beginning and foundation of all revealed religion, and of everything
that is afterwards revealed in it, has surely enough in it, if once
known, to make revealed religion the joy, and comfort, and desire of
every man’s heart. What would I give that I could but dart one ray of
this truth into every unbeliever’s heart; for the smallest ray of it
would do to everyone as the light that fell from heaven did to St.
Paul, it would make as it were scales fall from his eyes: and he would
find that all books and systems of infidelity were as unreasonable in
themselves, and as hurtful to him, as those commissions were which Paul
had from the high priest to bind all that called on the name of Christ.

[Dem-285] But to proceed: that Jesus Christ is thus the savior and
universal redeemer of all mankind, that he is this second Adam or
parent, giving a new birth and life to all that which was extinguished
and lost by Adam; restoring Adam himself, and in him all mankind to a
possibility of being born again, by their own will, choice, faith, and
desire; and that revealed religion began with the declaration of this
redemption, and has revealed nothing but for the sake and support of
it, is a truth sufficiently attested by scripture.

[Dem-286] The declaration which God made to Adam immediately after his
fall, of a seed of the woman to bruise the serpent’s head, was a
declaration of pardon and redemption to Adam, and in him to all
mankind; for what he said to Adam, that he said to all that were in the
loins of Adam; who, as they fell in his fall before they were born,
without the possibility of any one man’s being exempted from it; so
were they all put into his state of pardon and redemption before they
were born, without the possibility of any one man’s being excluded, or
left out of it.

[Dem-287] Thus revealed religion begins with an offer of a second Adam,
and upon the foot of an universal pardon and redemption to all mankind.
Every son of Adam is in the same covenant with God that Adam was, and
has the same bruiser of the serpent as near to him, as he was to Adam,
and declared to be his redeemer, in the same degree as he was declared
to be the redeemer of Adam.

[Dem-288] And who would seek for arguments against such a savior? Or
who would cavil at a revealed religion, that has no other beginning or
end, but to reveal an universal redemption? Or who can enough call upon
all creation, heaven and earth, angels and men, and everything that
hath breath, to praise the Lord for such salvation? You must forgive
these little digressions; for I want so much to touch the heart of my
reader, and make him in love with God, and his own salvation in Christ
Jesus, that I know not how to content myself with bare argument.

[Dem-289] Now this declaration of God to Adam, of his pardon and
redemption by the seed of the woman, is not to be considered, as we
consider the declaration of a pardon made by some great prince to an
offending subject, which is only a declaration of words, that are heard
only with our outward ears, and of a person that is entirely distinct
from us.

[Dem-290] God’s pardoning a sinner, or redeeming fallen man, has
nothing like this in it. If this offending subject had his life, and
breath, and being in and from this great prince, or could be said to
live, and move, and have his being in him; it would be easy, nay,
necessary to believe, that his declaration of pardon to him, must be
something very different from a pardon of words, and must signify some
inward light, or change, or new state of existence in his prince.

[Dem-291] Now this declaration of God’s pardon and reconciliation to
Adam, and in him to all mankind, is not the declaration of a being that
is out of, or separate from us, but of a God in whom we live, and move,
and have our being; who is the center of that which is most central in
us, the life of our life, the spirit of our spirit: his declaration
therefore of pardon is not a declaration of words, or of a being that
is separate from us; but must signify some inward change, or new state
of our existence in him, or that he is to us, and in us, that which he
was not before he pardoned us. For his words are power, and what he
speaks he acts; and what he acts, he acts not out of us, but in the
inmost essence of our being, because so we exist in him, and he in us.

[Dem-292] If God at the fall had said, Let us save man, the same had
been effected, as when he said, “Let us make man.” When therefore God
said to Adam and Eve, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of
the serpent,” what was said, was done; and it was the same thing, had
the same meaning and effect, as if he had said, “Be ye henceforth in a
state of salvation, and let the redeeming, conquering seed of the woman
from this time begin to have power in you, and to be in you a strength
and might against the serpent.” And what he said was done, as when he
said, “Let there be light, and there was light.”

[Dem-293] Thus this declaration of pardon and redemption made by God to
Adam, and, in him, to all his posterity, was not solely a promise of
something to come, or of a pardon that was at a distance, no more than
it was the promise of a God that was at a distance from him; but the
declaration of something then inwardly done and given, by a God
inwardly present in him, and signified no less than God’s seeking and
manifesting himself again to a creature, that had lost him as his God
and only good.

[Dem-294] For how can the anger of that being, “in whom we live, and
move, and have our being,” be only an anger of words, or made known to
us only by words? Or how can it be anything else, but some inward loss
of that which is our good in him?

[Dem-295] Or how can his pardon be only a pardon of words, or something
heard only with our ears? Or how can it be anything else, but his
restoring that to us, or his reviving that in us, which makes us again
capable of finding him our God and only good?

[Dem-296] Therefore God’s declaration of pardon to Adam, was not barely
a promise of something to come, but the pardon itself; and was the real
communication of something to Adam, which made him capable of enjoying
God as his good, which he had not when he wanted to be pardoned, and
which he could not have, if God was in a state of anger with him.

[Dem-297] Now had not God spoken this pardon and reconciliation to Adam
after his fall, he had been in the condition of the deep, when it was
said, darkness was upon the face of the deep.

[Dem-298] Nay, it had been much worse with him; for had not God made
this declaration of pardon and redemption to him at that time, that is,
had he not done inwardly in the depth of his soul, something like that
which he did to the darkness of the deep, when he spoke light into it,
Adam and Eve, and all their posterity, had been inwardly mere devils,
and outwardly mere beasts, a motley mixture of both, till the beast
fell into the earth, and the soul to the state of devils.

[Dem-299] For had not God thus in the beginning of the fall, before any
man was born into the world of Adam and Eve, had he not spoke pardon
and redemption unto Adam and Eve; neither they, nor any of their
posterity had been capable of any faith, or hope, or desire of God, but
had lived as much without all conscience, or instinct of goodness, as
the beasts of the earth and devils do.

[Dem-300] Therefore God redeemed man, that is, restored to him a power
of being again his creature, or a power of knowing and finding him to
be his God, when he said, the “seed of the woman shall bruise the
serpent’s head.” He redeemed him by communicating to him a sense, a
feeling, and a desire of God, by communicating to him a capacity to
enjoy him as his only good, by sowing into him a seed of the woman, a
spark of life, an instinct of goodness, a taste of heaven, a principle
of holiness, a touch of love, the pearl of the gospel, the pledge of
immortality, the hidden kingdom of God.

[Dem-301] For all these expressions of a seed, a spark, an instinct, a
principle, a pearl and kingdom, are insufficient to express that inward
treasure of the soul, and fund of everlasting happiness, which God in
the beginning of redemption, or as his act of redemption, communicated
to man.

[Dem-302] Now in this degree of redemption is every creature that is
born of Adam; he has this kingdom of God in his soul, as a grain of
mustard seed, as a spark of life, as a pledge of immortality, as his
attraction to God: if he tramples this pearl under his feet, if he will
choke this Word, if he will put out this spark, if he will resist this
attraction, then his destruction is from himself; and when the carcass
of flesh and blood falls off from him, he must find himself in his own
hell, and must have the misery of a darkened, anxious, fiery, self-
tormented nature for ever, that would not suffer itself to be redeemed.

[Dem-303] But if he will consent to his redemption, and cooperate with
that inward redeemer which God has put into his soul; if he will suffer
his spark to kindle, his instinct of goodness to spread itself, the
light of the life to arise in him, the voice of God to be heard in him;
then will the divine life, the inward man, be brought forth in him; and
when his body breaks off, heaven will be made manifest in his soul, and
he will fall into all the fullness of God. The Son of God will be his
light, the Holy Spirit will breathe in him, and the power and
omnipotency of the Father will be life and strength in him; and thus,
in the completest sense of the words, shall he ever live, and move, and
have his being in God.

[Dem-304] And now, my dear reader, what shall I say to you? How shall I
do that, which I most of all desire to do, touch your heart? Or how can
your heart be untouched with this affecting view of the mercies of God
in Christ Jesus, and of the riches and treasures which lie hid in your
own soul, wanting nothing but your own consent and good wishes to be
manifested in you?

[Dem-305] But it may be, modern infidelity has stolen into your heart,
and so you lie starving in the midst of plenty, choosing rather to
famish on the dry husks of reason, dispute, and infidelity, than to
have this divine life, this riches of your own soul, discovered to you
on the terms of the gospel. It may be you have buried this spark of
life, this inward man, and have heaped all the earth upon him that you
can get, that you have sealed the stone of his sepulcher, and have set
your greatest enemy, a reasoning infidelity, upon the watch, to
dispute, wrangle, and deny every doctrine of scripture, that as a good
angel would roll away the stone of the sepulcher, and let your inward
redeemer arise in you.

[Dem-306] If this is your case, if you have let a reasoning infidelity
into your heart, you know not what mischief you have let into it; for
the denial of the gospel reaches much further, and is more extensive
than you imagine.

[Dem-307] For to deny Jesus Christ, is to deny your share in the first
pardon of God to man; it is returning into the first state of the fall,
and refusing to be a partner with Adam in his state of forgiveness; it
is going over to the side of the serpent, and declaring that you will
not enter into peace with God on the terms of bruising his head; for
Jesus Christ that calls upon you in the gospel, is that same Christ
which became Adam’s pardon; and if you reject him in the gospel, it is
rejecting him from the beginning: and is saying, that you will have no
share in that salvation which was granted to Adam, and in him to all
mankind. Nay, what is still more, if you reject the savior offered to
you in the gospel, you reject all that which makes you differ from a
devil; for that savior which speaks to you in the gospel, is that very
same inward light of your mind, which makes you differ from a devil;
for had you nothing of that Jesus Christ in you, whom you reject in the
gospel, you would be in the same dark malignity, and self-tormenting
wretchedness, in which every diabolical nature is.

[Dem-308] To refuse him that speaketh to you in the gospel, is not
barely to renounce a certain particular religion revealed by God at a
certain time, it is not barely to reject Christ as come in the flesh;
but it is rejecting all that God has ever transacted with man, it is
renouncing all that is divine and good within you, all that God
inwardly speaks and teaches in the depth of your soul; it is saying
that you will have no benefit from the good workings or motions of your
own heart, or the instincts of goodness that are stirring in it; for
Jesus Christ that calls you to repentance in the gospel, is the very
same blessed savior, that warns, reproves, and preaches repentance in
the inmost essence of your spirit. For it is a deceit of the grossest
kind, to think that Christ came only as our savior, when he came in the
flesh, or that he only speaks to us that which is outwardly spoken in
the gospel; for he always was that in every man that saved him from
being entirely a diabolical nature, and was as really the teacher and
mover of all that is good within you, as he was the teacher of the
gospel. Therefore to reject him as your savior, to refuse him as such,
and to desire to be without him, is in reality to desire to be in hell,
to have the darkness and distress of diabolical beings; it is desiring
to be without any light of God upon your mind, or any instincts of
goodness stirring in your heart.

[Dem-309] And if this is not the immediate effect of your infidelity,
if you don’t immediately find that the denial of Christ is putting out
all the light within you; ’tis because Christ is love, and will be so
good towards you, as to continue his inward light to you, though you
reject his outward light of the gospel.

[Dem-310] But, my friend, be wise in time, for this goodness will
continue but a time; don’t let a poor worthless infidelity beguile you
to eat the dust of the earth with the serpent, when God has provided
for you the bread of life. For this time of goodness and forbearance
will soon be over; and if the end of it finds you in your infidelity,
rejecting the benefits of Christ, you will then see the whole of all
you desired, you will be without Christ, you will find that all is gone
with him, and that you will have nothing left, but that nature which is
the torment of hell.

[Dem-311] You now think, that because you can frame ideas of virtue,
and exert some acts of goodness, though you reject all faith in Christ,
that therefore he is not necessary to your virtue and happiness; but
your miserable mistake lies here, that you think Christ is only he that
preached the gospel, and that it is not him that speaks and moves every
good thought or word that is spoken in you, but that you have a light
and goodness of your own. But when this time is over, and you have
spent your hour of grace, Christ will no longer stand knocking at the
door of your heart; and then you will find, that you are as empty of
all inward light, as you are of the gospel, and that by rejecting him
as your savior, you have rejected all that was divine and good within
you.

[Dem-312] Infidelity therefore is a much deeper evil than you may
imagine, it denies and rejects more than you think of; you may intend
by it only to change the light of the gospel for the light of reason,
but Christ will not be divided by your intention; he is the one only
light of men, the same in the heart that he is in the gospel; and
though you may now think that you have two teachers, because he teaches
in two places, and therefore may adhere to one, and reject the other;
yet this is a deceit that can last no longer than the disputings of
this world last with you.

[Dem-313] When the veil of flesh and blood is pulled off, and you must
stand in the nakedness of your soul before God; then you will know,
that these two lights are only one, and that neither of them can be
rejected by itself. These lights appear now as two, only because God is
so good as to leave no part of you untried, but presses the kingdom of
heaven upon you, both from within, and from without.

[Dem-314] The eternal Word, the Son of God, took human nature upon him,
worked all his miracles, taught all his doctrines, underwent all his
sufferings, to make that light of the mind, which every man that cometh
into the world had received from him, effectual to their salvation;
therefore the light of the gospel, and the light of the mind, are one,
as Christ is one, whether he speaks to you inwardly or outwardly. If
therefore you reject Christ in the utmost efforts of his goodness to
save you, you will find that the renouncing of Christ, is renouncing
all that you have from him, and that all the good light of your mind,
call it what you will, as it was his, is all rejected with him, and
that nothing is left in that soul, where he is not, but mere darkness.

[Dem-315] But to return to my subject; what I have said above of God’s
covenant with Adam, and the redemption granted to him, is God’s
covenant with all mankind, and therefore thus far all mankind are the
redeemed of Jesus. There is no partiality in God, no election of one
people to salvation, and dereliction of another to their own misery. As
all fell and died in Adam, so all were restored in his restoration.

[Dem-316] Thus says the apostle, “As by the offense of one, judgment
came upon all to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” {Rom.v.18.}

[Dem-317] But you will perhaps say, how does it appear, that this first
covenant of God with mankind, or redemption of all men in the
redemption of Adam, is the redemption in and by Jesus Christ.

[Dem-318] I may better ask you, Where you can have the smallest reason
even to suspect the contrary? For is not the seed of the woman, Jesus
Christ? And if our salvation then began, when God made declaration of
the saving power of this seed, it is plain, that Christ’s redemption
then began in mankind, that he was thenceforward in every man as a
spark of life, that as a secret power, should bruise the serpent, and
support us against him, till he, in the fullness of time, should, in
the fullness of the promise, become such a seed of the woman, as should
openly triumph over death and hell, and all the kingdom of the serpent.
For if it were Christ that became the ransom and life of his soul; then
all the sons of Adam, from the first to the last, are in Adam’s state
of covenant with God through Jesus Christ, and have the seed of the
woman doing all that for them, which it did for Adam.

[Dem-319] Again, does not the gospel expressly say, that Jesus Christ
is the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world?
Therefore Jesus Christ is in every man that cometh into the world, and
every son of Adam is in a state of redemption in and by Jesus Christ,
and every son of Adam has received that same from Jesus Christ, which
Adam received from him, viz., an inward light of life, a beginning of
his salvation, an actual power or strength to resist the serpent;
therefore Jesus Christ, as he is the light and life of men, as he is
the bruiser of the serpent, as he is the power of salvation, is and
ever was the free gift of God unto all men.

[Dem-320] Again, does not the scripture teach us, that God is as well
the God of the gentiles, as the God of the Jews? But if he is their
God, then they are his people. And as we know that God is not the
creator of any beings, but in and by Jesus Christ, by whom everything
was made, that was made; so he is not the God of any people, but in and
by Jesus Christ, who is the reconciler of all things unto God, by whom
alone all things and persons are made acceptable to him; therefore if
he is the God and Father of the gentiles, then the gentiles have an
interest in Jesus Christ, have all their access to God, as their Father
and creator, in and by the benefits and merits of Jesus Christ; or, in
other words, are actual partakers of the benefits of Jesus Christ, as
he is the savior of mankind.

[Dem-321] Which is a privilege or blessing that this author will not
allow Christians to have, even when eating the flesh and drinking the
blood of Christ; so little does he know what he speaks of, when he
speaks of the partaking of the benefits of Christ.

[Dem-322] But you will perhaps further ask, how can the gentiles have
an interest in the benefits of Jesus Christ, since they know him not,
nor ask anything in his name. May you not as well ask me, how they can
be said to live, and move, and have their being in God, who know not
what it is to have life, and motion, and being in him, nor ever
confessed it in a true manner, or under a right sense of it? For if
they can have the benefit of a life in God, and be blessed by it, who
are either totally, or much ignorant of it; then Christ, as he is the
atonement and life of Adam and his posterity, may be a benefit and
blessing to those who are totally ignorant of it, or at least know
nothing of him, as he is Christ, or the Son of God manifest in the
flesh.

[Dem-323] Again, the scripture says of Jesus Christ, that he came unto
his own, and his own received him not, that is, they knew him not: now
if he could come unto his own, though they knew him not, then it is
plain, that they may be his, who know him not, that is, they may have
some interest in him, be purchased by him, have received much from him,
be greatly related to him, who yet are insensible of it.

[Dem-324] Lastly, you might much better ask me, how can they, who never
knew anything of Christ, as their mediator and atonement, be judged by
him at the last day? For if they were altogether strangers to Christ,
had no relation to him, had received nothing from him, or by means of
him, he could not be their judge. For Jesus Christ cannot do anything
as a judge, till he has done everything as a savior; nor be anywhere a
judge, but where he has first appeared as a savior.

[Dem-325] Therefore, it is an evident truth, that had not all nations,
and every individual man, received a certain means of salvation through
him, he could not be the judge of all.

[Dem-326] Heathens, Jews, and Christians differ not thus, that the one
have a savior and are in a redeemed state, and the other are not; or
that the one have one savior, and the other have another; for the one
judge of all, is the one savior of all: but they only differ in this,
that one and the same savior is differently made known to them, and
differently to be obtained by them. The heathens knew him not as he was
in the numerous types of the Jewish Law, they knew him not as he is
gloriously manifested in the gospel; but they knew him as he was the
God of their hearts, manifesting himself by a light of the mind, by
instincts of goodness, by a sensibility of guilt, by awakenings and
warnings of conscience; and this was their gospel, which they received
as truly and really in, and by, and through Jesus Christ as the Law and
gospel were received through him.

[Dem-327] Therefore it is a great and glorious truth, enough to turn
every voice into a trumpet, and make heaven and earth ring with praises
and hallelujahs to God, that Jesus Christ is the savior of all the
world, and of every man of every nation, kindred and language.
Therefore saith St. John, “They sung a new song, saying, Thou art
worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast
slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred,
and tongue, and people, and nation.” {Rev.vi.9.} And again, “After this
I beheld,” says he, “and lo, a great multitude, which no man could
number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood
before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and
with palms in their hands, and cried with a loud voice, saying,
Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”
{Rev.vii.9,10.}

[Dem-328] I must, before I proceed further, put in here a word of
caution to two sorts of readers. If you are in such a state, as I
supposed one to be above, touched with modern infidelity, having your
reason set upon the watch to guard you against the gospel, it may here
do its office, and will perhaps tell you, that what I have here said in
favor of the general light, or seed of life that is in all men, is much
the same thing that you say in defense of natural reason, or religion,
only with this difference, that I mention it as coming from Christ, and
you consider it as the bare light of nature.

[Dem-329] Now if this were all the difference, is not this enough to
show you, that my opinion is the very denial of yours; for if I proved
that what you called the natural light of men, was wholly derived from
the divine revelation, would not that be a sufficient proof that I
denied and disproved your religion of natural reason? And have I not
done the same thing, if I have asserted the light of men to be a light
derived from Christ? And how can such an assertion be made in the least
favorable to your opinion, that such a light is natural?

[Dem-330] But to prevent all misapprehensions, I now declare to you,
and will show you in the most explicit manner, that that which I call
the light of men, or the seed of life sown into all men by Jesus
Christ, is as wholly different from that which you call natural reason,
as light is different from darkness; and that they stand in that same
state of contrariety to each other, both as to their original, their
nature and qualities, as our savior and Pontius Pilate did.

[Dem-331] I must therefore assure you, that as I fear God, and wish
your salvation, so I can no more say a word in favor of what is now
called the religion of natural reason, than I would recommend to you
the ancient idolatry of heathens. And yet at the same time, I am no
more an enemy to reason, than I am an enemy to the light of the sun,
and as freely wish you all the benefits of the one, as of the other.

[Dem-332] But if you do by reason, as they did by the sun, who thought
it to be divine, fell down before it, and expected all from it; then I
must speak as plainly to you of the inability of reason to do you this
good, as I must have spoken of the inability of the sun to such
idolaters of it.

[Dem-333] And if I should have told them, that the sun was no more
their God, than the poorest worm upon earth, and that it could no more
make those to be divine that worshipped it, than a storm of hail could
make those to be divine that it fell upon, I should have told them a
great truth. So if I say to you, that reason, or the faculty of
reasoning, is no more the religion of man, than the faculty of doubting
or erring is; and that it can no more make those to be divine who place
their trust in it, than a great error can make those to be divine who
abide by it, I should tell you a great and useful truth.

[Dem-334] For reason, or a faculty of reasoning upon the moral
habitudes and relations of things and persons, or upon the moral
proportion of actions, has no more of the nature and power of religion
in it, than so much reasoning upon the relations of squares and
triangles. And if a man had this religion of reason only when he was
dreaming in sleep, it would be the same good thing to him, as it is to
those who make it their religion when they are awake.

[Dem-335] For the good of religion, is like the good of food and drink
to an hungry and thirsty creature; and if instead of giving such a one
bread and wine, or water, you should teach him to seek for relief, by
attending to clear ideas of the nature of bread, of different ways of
making it, and the relation it hath to water; he would be left to die
in the want of sustenance, just as your religion of reasoning leaves
the soul to perish in the want of religion. And as such a man would
have no more benefit from such reasoning about the relation that bread
had to water, whether it was the reasoning of a dream, or the reasoning
of a man awake, because either way he was kept under the same want of
that which was to preserve his life; so whether a man has your religion
of reasoning only when he is asleep, or when he is awake, is the same
thing; because either way he is kept under the same want of that which
can alone preserve the life of the soul. For the good that is in
religion, or the good that we want to receive by it, is no more within
the reach of our reason, or to be communicated to us by it, than the
good of food is in the reach of our reason, or can be communicated to
us by it. And yet as a man may have the good of food much assisted and
secured to him, by the right use of his reason, though reason has not
the good of food in it; so a man may have the good of religion much
assisted and secured to him by the right use of reason, though reason
has not the good of religion in it.

[Dem-336] And as a man ought not to be accused as an enemy to the true
use of reasoning about food, because he declares that reason is not
food, nor can supply the place of it; so a man ought not to be accused
as an enemy to the use of reasoning in religion, because he declares
that reason is not religion, nor can supply the place of it.

[Dem-337] But to show you the bottom of this whole matter, pray
consider with me as follows: We have no want of religion, but so far as
we want to better our state in God, or so far as we are unpossessed of
God, or less possessed of him than we might be. This is the true ground
of religion, to alter our state of existence in God, and to have more
of the divine nature or perfections communicated to us. Nothing
therefore is our good in religion, but that which alters our state of
existence in God for the better, and puts us in possession of something
of God, or makes us partakers of the divine nature in such a manner and
degree as we wanted it.

[Dem-338] Everything that is in life, has its degree of life in and
from God, it lives, and moves, and has its being in God. This is as
true of devils themselves, as of the highest and most perfect angels.
Therefore all the happiness or misery of all creatures consists only in
this, as they are more or less possessed of God, or as they differently
partake of the divine nature, according to their different state of
existence in God.

[Dem-339] But if this be the truth of the matter, (and who can deny
it?) then we have the certainty of demonstration, that nothing can be
our good in religion, but that which communicates to us something of
God, or the divine nature, or that which betters our state and manner
of existence in God.

[Dem-340] For if devils are what they are, because of their state and
manner of existence in God; if blessed angels are what they are,
because of their state and manner of existence in God; then it
undeniably follows, that all that is betwixt angels and devils, all
beings from the happiness of the one to the misery of the other, must
and can have no other happiness or misery, but according to their state
and manner of existence in God, or according as they have more or less
of the state of angels, or the state of devils in them. Therefore
nothing can be our good in religion, but that which alters our state
and manner of existence in God, and renders us possessed of him in a
different and better manner.

[Dem-341] Now if you were to send to the fallen spirits of darkness,
all the systems of your religion of reason, that have been published
here, to let them know that they have the power of their own
restoration and happiness within themselves, that they need seek to
nothing, but their own natural reason and understanding, and the
strength and activity of their own powers, to raise them to all the
happiness they are capable of; such a religion would be so far from
altering or mending their state of existence in God, or doing them any
good, that it would add strength to all their chains; and the more
firmly they believed and relied upon it, the more would they be
confirmed and fixed in their separation from God.

[Dem-342] And yet, a religion that must necessarily keep them in hell,
is the only religion that you will have to carry you to heaven. May God
deliver you from this error!

[Dem-343] On the other hand, if you could infuse into those dark
spirits a glimpse of that light of the mind, or instinct of goodness,
which I have said all mankind have received from Jesus Christ, as their
second Adam, their salvation would be so far begun, and hell would
become a state of trial for their redemption. Therefore that light of
the mind, or instinct of goodness, which I have spoken of, has the
utmost contrariety to your religion of reason, that can possibly be
imagined.

[Dem-344] The one is the beginning of the new birth in Christ, and the
foundation of heaven; the other is the growth of death, and the very
essence of hell in the soul. Now that here is no aggravation of the
matter, but plain and naked truth, you may easily see from a
consideration of the articles of your religion of reason. Your religion
of reason, is a religion of natural strength and power, that rejects
the necessity of a savior, that feels no want of him, that rejects the
necessity of divine grace, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and feels
no want of it; these are the essential parts of your religion of
reason, which are in truth and reality the religion of hell, or that
very state of mind which reigns and governs there.

[Dem-345] For could those miserable spirits renounce these articles of
your religion, their chains of darkness would break off from them.
Could they cast themselves down before God, humbly confessing, that of
themselves they are not able to save themselves, or even to think a
good thought: could they in humility and penitence beg of the mercy of
God, to do something in them and for them, which they cannot do for
themselves: could they acknowledge the want of a savior, ask God to
find one for them: could they feel and own the want of his Holy Spirit,
and humbly beg of God to be assisted by it, a door of salvation would
be opened to them. And yet you see that nothing opens this door, but
the plain and full renunciation of every part of your religion of
reason.

[Dem-346] And if it be asked, why they cannot be saved? no other reason
can be given, but because they will not; they cannot renounce your
religion of reason, that is, they cannot humbly acknowledge their own
inability to do themselves good; they will not admit the thought of a
savior, they will not be assisted by the Spirit of God, or own the want
of his life in them, and therefore they are and must be what they are,
prisoners in chains of darkness.

[Dem-347] Awake therefore, my dear friend, and cast away this religion
from you, with more earnestness than you would cast burning coals out
of your bosom: for could it only destroy your body, I should have been
less earnest in giving you notice of it. But as I have the fullest
conviction, that it is the death and darkness of your soul, and is
bringing the essence of hell secretly and invisibly into it; you must
forgive me, if I use all the expressions and descriptions I can think
of, to prevent your giving into it. Had I a superficial charity for
you, or a slight view of the hurt you are doing to yourself, I should
speak to you accordingly; but the depth and earnestness of my desire to
do you good, must have expressions suitable to it. Study not therefore
how to find fault with me, or to dislike the words, or manner of my
style, for it is the style of love and zeal for your salvation; and if
you condemn anything but love in it, you condemn something that is not
there.

[Dem-348] I have shown you, that the religion of reason is the very
state of hellish minds, and that they are what they are, because they
will do all for themselves, place all in their own strength, because
they cannot be humble, cannot own the want of a savior; and have only
appealed to this instance of the nature and power of your religion of
reason, to show you in the most undeniable manner, that it must, and
can have no other effect upon you, than it has upon them; that it must
produce the same hell in your soul, the same separation from God, and
cannot possibly be any more the way of salvation for you, than it is
for them.

[Dem-349] What is the reason that the faith of the devils, or their
belief of a God, does them no good? It is because there is nothing in
it but their own act, a mere product of their own; it is because it is
an act of your religion of reason, that will have no virtue but by its
own strength, and of its own growth. But if they could have so much of
the religion of the gospel, as to say in the language of it, “Lord,
help our unbelief,” their faith would be changed, and be beneficial to
them, only for this reason, because they had renounced your religion of
doing good to themselves by their own natural powers.

[Dem-350] Hence it sufficiently appears, that your way of natural
reason cannot be the way of salvation; 1st, because the want of
salvation is nothing else, but the wanting to have our state, or manner
of existence in God, altered for the better; or to have something of
God communicated to us, which we want and are capable of receiving. But
if this is the nature of salvation, then no religion can save us, can
do us our proper good, or supply our proper want, but that which has
power to alter our state of existence in God, or to communicate to us
that of God which we want, and are capable of. Therefore it follows,
that nothing but that same God which created us, which gave us our
state and manner of existence in him, and communicated to us that which
we possess of him; nothing but that same God can redeem us, or help us
to that state or manner of existence in him, which we have lost, or are
in want of.

[Dem-351] But if God alone can redeem us, and for the same reason that
he alone can create; if creation and redemption necessarily require the
same power, and must for the same reason be necessarily appropriated to
God, because each of them equally imply the communication of something
of God to us; then I suppose it may be granted, that the religion of
reason, which is for saving ourselves by our own natural powers, is the
greatest of all absurdities; as absurd as to suppose, that we can
create by our own natural powers, because creation and redemption both
of them equally imply a communication of something of the divine
nature; and therefore he that cannot do the one, cannot do the other.

[Dem-352] And if a man was to ask himself, why he cannot be the savior
of other people, as well as of himself? He could say nothing against
the one, but what must for the same reason be said against the other.
For if salvation is a communication of something of God to the person
saved, then it is plain, that a man can no more do this for himself,
than he can do it for another.

[Dem-353] There never could have been any dispute about the possibility
of saving ourselves, nor any pretense to save ourselves by our own
natural faculties, had not men lost all true knowledge both of God and
themselves. For this dispute cannot happen, till men suppose that God
is some outward being, that our relation to him is an outward relation,
that religion is an outward thing that passes between God and us, like
terms of behavior between man and man; that sin hurts and separates us
from God, only as a misdemeanor hurts and separates us from our prince;
that an offended or angry God either gives or refuses pardon to us, as
an angry prince does to his subjects; and that what he gives us, or
forgives us, is something as distinct and different from himself, as
when a prince sitting upon his throne gives or forgives something to an
offender, that is an hundred miles from him.

[Dem-354] Now all this is the same total ignorance of God, of what he
is, of the relation we have to him, and the manner of his being our
good, as when the old idolaters took men to be gods. And yet nothing is
more plain, than that your religion of reason is wholly founded upon
these gross and false notions of God. You have not an argument in its
defense, but what supposes all these errors just mentioned; that our
relation to God is an outward relation, like that of subjects to their
prince, and that what we do to, and for God, as our service to him, is
and must be done by our own power, as that which we do to, and for our
prince, must be by our own power. And here lies the foundation of all
your religion of reason and natural power, that if it was not
sufficient to obtain for us all that we want of God, he must be less
good than a good earthly prince, who requires no more of us, than that
which we have a natural strength to do, or can do by our own power.

[Dem-355] And yet this error appears to have all the grossness of
idolatry, as soon as you suppose, that God is no outward separate
being, but that we are what we are, have what we have, can do that
which we can do, because he has brought us to this state of life, power
and existence in himself, because he has made us, so far as we are made
partakers or possessors of his own nature, and has communicated to us
so much of himself; or, in the words of scripture, because in him we
live, move, and have our being, and consequently have no life, motion
or being out of him. For from this state of our existence in God, it
necessarily follows, first, that by the nature of our creation we are
only put into a capacity of receiving good: a creature as such, can be
in no other state; it is as impossible for him to enrich himself, or
communicate more good to himself, as it was to create himself. 2dly,
that nothing but God himself can do us any good. 3dly, that God cannot
do us good, but by the communication of himself in some manner to us.

[Dem-356] For hence it evidently follows, that your religion of reason,
which supposes that we have natural powers that can put us in
possession of that, which we want to be possessed of in God, or that we
need no more divine assistance to recover what we have lost of God,
than to obtain a pardon from a prince; or that God need communicate no
more of himself to us in our salvation, than a prince communicates of
himself to his pardoned subject, has all the mistakes, error and
ignorance of God that is in idolatry, when it takes God to be something
that he is not; and has all the false devotion that is in idolatry,
when it puts the same trust in, and expects the same help from its own
powers and faculties, which idolaters did in and from their idols.

[Dem-357] Therefore your religion of reason, which you esteem as the
modern refinement of an human mind, and more excellent and rational
than the faith and humility of the gospel, has all the dregs of the
heathen idolatry in it, and has changed nothing in idolatry, but the
idol; but has the same mistakes of the nature of God, and of the manner
in which he is our God, and our good, as those idolaters had; and only
differs from them in such a degree of philosophy, as the religion of
worshipping the sun differs from the religion of worshipping an onion.

[Dem-358] And if you expect that divine assistance from your reason,
which one did from the sun, and another from an onion; ye are all
equally idolaters, though ye may not be equally philosophers.

[Dem-359] For as soon as it is known and confessed, that God is all in
all, that in him we live, move, and have our being; that we can have
nothing separately or out of him, but everything in him; that we can
have no being, nor any degree of being, nor any degree of good but in
him; and that he can give us nothing but himself, nor any degree of
salvation, but in such a degree as he communicates something more of
himself; as soon as this is known, then it is known with the utmost
evidence, that to put our trust in the sun, an onion, or our own
reason, if not equally absurd, is yet equally idolatrous, and equally
prejudicial to our salvation.

[Dem-360] This I think, my friend, may sufficiently show you both the
nature and danger of your religion of reason; and that it can no more
supply the needs and necessities of your soul, than an idol can save
them that worshipped it; that in this respect it has the insignificancy
of an idol, the vanity of an idol, and the sin of an idol; that it is
that same self-confidence, self-acquiescence, that same refusal of a
savior and all divine assistance, that keeps lost spirits the prisoners
of hell. Could they touch the spirit of the gospel, their freedom would
be begun; and because they will not, cannot depart in the smallest
tittle from your religion of natural strength, their chains are
unmovable.

[Dem-361] For no soul can be lost, that can truly humble itself before
God, and apply to his mercy to be helped, saved, and redeemed in such a
manner as it shall please him. Let it be hid, or buried, or imprisoned
where it will, hell and earth, death and darkness, and everything must
give way to the soul thus converted to God, that has no confidence in
itself, that sees nothing of its own but sin, and that desires and
calls upon God to save it by some miracle of his own mercy and
goodness. By this sensibility of the want of a savior, and by this
humble conversion and application to God for him, all chains are broken
off, all wounds are healed, and the soul must infallibly find, if it
thus continues to seek, its salvation in the unknown depths and riches
of the divine mercy.

[Dem-362] On the other hand, no soul, however refined and speculative,
however lofty and aspiring in its imaginations, spiritual in its
conceptions, or deep in its penetration, can possibly be saved, that
trusts in its own strength and ability, and will have no other savior
or redeemer, but its own natural reason and faculties.

[Dem-363] The whole universe has not two truths of greater certainty
than these. And yet if they are truths, and truths of the utmost
certainty, then the absolute necessity of the gospel salvation, and
utter impossibility of being saved by your religion of reason, has its
final decision.

[Dem-364] Further, that principle of life, or light of the mind, which
I have said that every man receives from Jesus Christ, as the beginning
of his salvation, is entirely different from your magnified light of
reason, as that signifies a faculty of viewing the relations of the
ideas of things, and drawing consequences from them. For that light I
speak of, is goodness itself, a seed or degree of so much of the
heavenly life in the soul; but this faculty of speculating and
reasoning has nothing of the nature of goodness or religion; it has not
so much as the shadow of it, and is in its own nature as foreign from
religion, when it is speculating upon it, as when it is speculating
upon anything else. Just as our faculty of seeing has no more of
goodness, or the nature of an angel in it, when it sees the picture of
an angel, than when it sees the picture of a beast.

[Dem-365] And as a blind man has no more light in him, when he reasons
about light and colors, than when he discourses about weights and
measures; so this ratiocination, or reasoning of the mind, has no more
of religion in it, when it speculates its ideas of God, goodness and
morality, than when it speculates its ideas of trees and houses.

[Dem-366] And the reason is plain, because this faculty of speculating
and arguing, is only the activity of the mind upon its own images and
ideas, and is only the same bare activity, whatever the images be that
exercise it; it has nothing of the nature of the images that it views,
nor gets the nature of them, because it views them; as it does not
become dark when it considers the nature, causes, and effects of
darkness, nor becomes light when it reasons about it; so neither is it
religion, nor gets anything of the nature of religion, when it is
wholly taken up in making descriptions and definitions of it.

[Dem-367] If the needle touched with the loadstone was an intelligent
being, it could reason and make definitions of itself, of attraction,
and of the loadstone; but it would be easy to see, that the attraction
of the needle, or the virtue of the loadstone that was left in it, was
something in its whole nature really different from this reasoning
about it; and that this reasoning and defining had no relation to this
attraction, nor would ever be the more like it, for its reasoning upon
it, though it continued ever so long, or improved ever so much in its
descriptions of it, but would always be at the same distance from it,
and could have nothing of its nature in it. But now if this reasoning
faculty in the needle should pretend, that the needle need not be drawn
by an inward attraction, that it need not be unfixed, or delivered from
any outward impediments of its turning to the loadstone, because this
reasoning faculty was its true and proper attraction, being full of
ideas and definitions of it; you would then have a plain example of
your practice, in taking natural reason to be true religion, and to
have the nature and power of something that carries the soul to God.

[Dem-368] For this instance is a clear explication of the whole matter;
for that which I have called the first redemption of Christ in the
soul, a seed of life, an instinct of good, a stirring of conscience, an
attraction to God, is that to the soul, which attraction is to the
needle that is touched, and is as different from your religion of
reason, as a reasoning faculty in the needle would be different from
its attraction, and never could be attraction, or have the nature of
it.

[Dem-369] If the needle loses its attraction, its communication with
the loadstone is at an end; and though it reasons never so long about
it, it is still at the same distance from it. So if the soul loses its
instinct of goodness, its seed of a divine life, its attraction to God,
all its reasonings and definitions about God and goodness are of no use
to carry it to God, but it must lie in an absolute state of separation
from him, if its attraction, its inward tendency to God, is lost.

[Dem-370] And let me tell you, my dear friend, for so I must call you
and think of you, that there is much more in this instance than you
imagine. For all is magnetism, all is sentiment, instinct, and
attraction, and the freedom of the will has the government of it. There
is nothing in the universe but magnetism, and the impediments of it.
For as all things come from God, and all things have something of God
and goodness in them, so all things have magnetical effects and
instincts both towards God and one another. This is the life, the
force, the power, the nature of everything, and hence everything has
all that is really good or evil in it; reason stands only as a
busybody, as an idle spectator of all this, and has only an imaginary
power over it.

[Dem-371] We discover this magnetism in some things, where it breaks
out sensibly; but it is everywhere, for the same reason that it is
anywhere, though we are too busy with the fictions of our own minds to
see it, or too much employed in such things as resist and suppress its
force.

[Dem-372] But because this magnetism is a secret life, that wants to
increase its strength before it can sensibly show its power; and
because we have an activity of reason within us, that is soon in
action, and concerns itself with everything, and takes all upon it, as
if it did all; because it can look at all, and dispute about all,
therefore it is, that this magnetism, or instinct towards God and
goodness, has much difficulty to show itself sufficiently, and only
stirs now and then within us, or when sickness, distress, or some great
outward shock has so dashed in pieces all images of reason, and stopped
the activity of our minds, that this secret power of the soul has
liberty to awake in it.

[Dem-373] This is that trumpet of God which will raise and separate the
dead, and then all impediments being removed, everything will take its
place not according to the images and ideas it has here played with,
but according to the inward tendency and attraction of its nature, and
heaven and hell will each take its own.

[Dem-374] And even whilst we are in this life, this magnetism is the
mark within us, to what part we belong; and that which has its
attraction in us, has the right to us, and power over us, though for a
while flesh and blood, and the nature of our temporal state, hinders
this from being visibly and sensibly known.

[Dem-375] Nothing however is more plain, than that our goodness bears
no proportion to our intellectual abilities of reason; everyone sees
this, and yet no more than this need be seen, to give us the fullest
demonstration, that natural reason has no connection with virtue and
goodness, and therefore surely can have no connection with our
salvation, or be the proper cause of it.

[Dem-376] Hence we see, that learned, acute, rational philosophers are
often atheists; and those that can demonstrate the foundation of
virtue, and paint every office of it, are rakes and debauchees, and
will sell every appearance of practical virtue for a salary of so much
a year; whilst those that seem to have little of intellectual
accomplishments, are virtuous and honest, have a taste and relish for
every practical virtue.

[Dem-377] The natural love or affection of relations, bears no
proportion to our rational abilities to speak or write of them. A
parent that is of too refined an understanding to content himself with
the morals of the gospel, or its low way of making men good, and that
wants to be entertained with a virtue of more mathematical exactness,
is often content with the demonstration, and so remains deficient in
the plainest duties of domestic affection: when the poor laborer or
mechanic, that knows not what you mean by a definition, has all the
solid love and affection that becomes a good relation. All this, and
much more, which you and everyone may think for himself of the same
kind, is something entirely distinct from our natural faculties of
reason and speculation.

[Dem-378] And therefore, when you place the power of your salvation in
your intellectual light, or the strength of your own reason, you place
it in your weakest part, in the poorest, most trifling and
insignificant thing that belongs to you, and upon that which has the
least effect in human life.

[Dem-379] The only good that reason can do to you, is to remove the
impediments of virtue, and to give room to that inward instinct or
attraction to God and goodness to display itself; that the inmost
spirit of your mind may receive its strength and assistance from the
Spirit of God, from which, as the needle from the loadstone, it has all
its instinct of goodness and tendency towards God.

[Dem-380] For this inward instinct of goodness, or life of God in the
soul, is all the real and living goodness that is in you, and is as
different and distinct from natural reason, as the light, and heat, and
power and virtue of the sun, is different from a picture of it upon a
piece of canvas, and has as different effects upon the mind.

[Dem-381] For this light of bare reason, or the reasoning faculty of
the mind, has no contrariety to the vices of the heart, it neither
kills them, nor is killed by them. As pride, vanity, hypocrisy, envy or
malice, don’t take away from the mind its geometrical skill; so a man
may be most mathematical in his demonstrations of the religion of
reason, when he has extinguished every good sentiment of his heart, and
be the most zealous for its excellency and sufficiency, when he has his
passions in the most disordered state.

[Dem-382] But in that light of the heart, or attraction to God, which I
have said is common to all mankind in and through Jesus Christ, all is
contrary. As it is a gift and grace of God, so it is a real life, a
living thing, a sentiment of the heart, and so far as it grows and
increases in us, so far it destroys all that is bad and corrupt within
us. It has the same contrariety to all vices of the heart, that light
has to darkness, and must either suppress or be suppressed by them.

[Dem-383] Now when I speak of this light, or instinct of the heart, or
attraction to God, I have not only the authority of scripture, but
every man’s own experience on my side; that distinction between the
head and the heart, which everyone knows how to make, plainly declares
for all I have said. It shows that the state, and manner, and tendency
of our heart, is all that is good within us; and that the reasonings
and speculations of the head, are only an empty show and noise that is
made in the outside of us.

[Dem-384] For that which we mean by the heart, plainly speaks thus
much; it is a kind of life and motion within us, which everyone knows
contains all that is good or bad in us; that we are that which our
hearts are, let us talk, and reason, and dispute what we will about
goodness and virtue; and that this state of our heart is as distinct
from, and independent of all speculations of our reasoning faculties,
as it is distinct from, and independent of all the languages in which a
scholar can reason and speculate upon it. And if a man should say, that
the excellency and sufficiency of natural religion consisted in knowing
all the languages in which virtue, goodness and religion are expressed
by different sounds and characters, he would have said as much truth,
and as well grounded, as he who places the excellency and sufficiency
of natural religion in the many arguments and demonstrations which
reason can raise about it. For all reasoning and speculation stand on
the outside of the heart, in the same superficial manner as all
languages do.

[Dem-385] For our heart is our manner of existence, or the state in
which we feel ourselves to be; it is an inward life, a vital
sensibility, which contains our manner of feeling what and how we are;
it is the state of our desires and tendencies, of inwardly seeing,
hearing, tasting, relishing and feeling that which passes within us: it
is that to us inwardly with regard to ourselves, which our senses of
seeing, hearing, feeling &c., are, with regard to things that are
without, or external to us.

[Dem-386] Now as reason is a poor, superficial, and insignificant thing
with respect to our outward senses, unable to add anything to our
hearing and seeing, &c., or to be the true power and life of them, by
all its speculations and reasonings upon them; so it is much more a
poor, and superficial, and insignificant thing with respect to the
inward sensibility of the heart, or its seeing, feeling, &c., and much
more unable to add to, or amend the state of the heart, or become the
life and power of its motions, by its arguings about them.

[Dem-387] And therefore, to seek for the religion or perfection of the
heart in the power of our reason, is more groundless and absurd, and
against the nature of things, than to seek for the perfection and
strength of our senses in the power of our reason.

[Dem-388] Now I appeal to every man in the world for the truth of all
this; for every man has the fullest inward conviction, that his heart
is not his reason, nor his reason his heart, but that the one is as
different from the other in its whole nature, as pain, and joy, and
desire, are different from definitions of them; and that as a thousand
definitions of joy and desire, will not become that desire and joy
itself; so a thousand definitions of religion will not become religion
itself, but be always in the same state of distance from it; and that
all reasoning and speculations upon religion, are at the same state of
distance from the nature and power of religion, as speculations upon
our passions are from the nature and power of them.

[Dem-389] You know, not by hearsay, reasoning, or books, but by an
inward sentiment, that your reason can be very nicely religious, very
strict in its descriptions of goodness, at the same time that the heart
is a mere libertine, sunk into the very dregs of corruption: on the
other hand, you know, that when your reason is debauched with
arguments, is contending for profaneness, and seems full of proof that
piety is superstition, your heart at the same time has a virtue in it,
that secretly dissents from all that you say.

[Dem-390] Now all this proof that the state of reason is not the state
of your heart, is the same proof that reason is not the power or
strength of our religion, because what our heart is, that is our
religion; what belongs to our heart, that belongs to our religion;
which never had nor can have any other nature, power, or perfection,
than that which is the nature, power, and perfection of our heart.

[Dem-391] You are forced to know and feel, whether you will or no, that
God has a certain secret power within you, which is watching every
opportunity of saying something to you, either of yourself, the vanity
of the world, or the guilt and consequences of sin.

[Dem-392] This is that instinct of goodness, attraction of God, or
witness of himself in the soul of every man, which without arguments
and reasonings rises up in the soul, and would be doing some good to
it, if not quenched and resisted by the noise and hurry either of
pleasures or business.

[Dem-393] And this is everyone’s natural religion, or call to God and
goodness, which is faithful to every man, and is the only foundation of
all the virtue and goodness that shall be brought forth in him. And the
least stirring of this inward principle, or power of life, is of more
value than all the activity of our reason, which is only as it were a
painter of dead images, which leave the heart in the same state of
death, and emptiness of all goodness in which they find it.

[Dem-394] Therefore, my dear friend, know the place of your religion,
turn inwards, listen to the voice of grace, the instinct of God that
speaks and moves within you; and instead of forming dead and lifeless
images, let your heart pray to God, that all that is good and holy in
him, may touch, and stir, and revive all that is capable of goodness
and holiness in you. Your heart wants nothing but God, and nothing but
your heart can receive him. This is the only place and seat of
religion, and of all communication between God and you.

[Dem-395] We are apt to consider conscience only as some working of our
heart, that checks us, and so we are rather afraid, than fond of it.
But if we looked upon it as it really is, so much of God within us,
revealing himself within us, so much of a heavenly life, that is
striving to raise us from the dead, we should love and adhere to it, as
our happy guide to heaven.

[Dem-396] For this reason, I have called this spark of life, or
instinct of goodness, our inward redeemer; not only because it is the
only thing within, that helps forward our salvation, but also because
it is the first beginning of Christ’s redemption in the souls of all
men, by his becoming the atonement for all.

[Dem-397] And as it is the first step of Christ’s redemption in the
soul, and that which became their capacity of salvation; so the
progress of their redemption consists in the increase and growth of
this first seed of life, till the new man be wholly raised up by it.

[Dem-398] Lastly, another real difference between this instinct of
goodness, or piety of the heart, and your religion of reason, is this,
that natural reason in itself is incapable of Jesus Christ; it cannot
comprehend him, it is at enmity with him, and sets itself up against
him. For it feels no want of a savior, and therefore is unwilling to
receive one. Or if it were to admit of a savior, it must be only such a
one as came to increase the number of its images and ideas, or to help
it to be more active and artful in the ranging, dividing and
distinguishing them. And for this reason it is, that a book of ideas
and distinctions is more valued by some people, than all the salvation
that is offered in the gospel.

[Dem-399] But this natural religion or instinct of goodness, of which I
have spoken, as God’s free gift to all men in Jesus Christ, has that
natural fitness for the receiving of Christ, as the eye has for
receiving the light; it wants him, it desires him, it is for him, it
knows him, it rejoices in him, as the eye wants, desires, knows, and
rejoices in him, as the eye wants, desires, knows, and rejoices in the
light. And of this natural religion, or religion of the heart, does our
savior plainly speak, when he saith, “He that is of God heareth God’s
Word,” and again, “My sheep hear my voice.” Therefore this instinct of
goodness, or piety of the heart, though it is God’s gift to man before
his hearing the outward word, is yet a certain preparation for it; and
if it be brought forth in us, is a never-failing fitness to receive it.
Therefore he that has this natural religion of the heart, of which I
have spoken, has the greatest fitness to receive the gospel, he is so
of God, that he heareth God’s Word, such a sheep of Christ as knoweth
his voice. And therefore the receiving, or not receiving the gospel, is
the greatest of all demonstrations, whether a man hath, or hath not
that right religion that is antecedent to it.

[Dem-400] Natural religion, when rightly understood, is a real thing,
and of the same truth as revealed religion. But the mistake lies here,
in our taking natural religion to be the work or effect of natural
reason; whereas reason, or our faculty of reasoning upon our ideas, is
not a part of natural or revealed religion, but only a bare spectator
of its own images of natural and revealed religion, just as it is not a
part of our hearing and seeing; nor can come any nearer to them, than
as it is a bare spectator of its own images of them.

[Dem-401] All men, by virtue of God’s first pardon to Adam, are put
into a state of salvation; and as this state, though it is the free
gift of God, is common to all men, as men, or born of Adam; so it may
in a good sense be called their natural state, and the religion of this
state, their natural religion.

[Dem-402] Now the question is, What is the natural religion of this
state? It is that which his state and condition speaks to him. Now his
condition and state in the world plainly speaks thus much to him, that
he is a sinner, and yet in a state of favor with God, or in a
possibility of being accepted of him. Every man’s nature teaches him
thus much, with the same certainty that it teaches him, that he is weak
and mortal. That he is a sinner, and at the same time an object of
divine mercy, are things that are made known to him, not by arguments
or speculation, but by his own being what he is.

[Dem-403] Therefore the whole of natural religion consists in a man’s
following this voice of nature, and acting conformably to it; in
acknowledging the sinfulness of his state, and in imploring and relying
upon the divine mercy to be delivered from it. This is the whole truth
of natural religion; an humble penitent sense of sin, and an humble
faith and trust in the mercy of God to be delivered from it; though it
is not known by what name to call that deliverance, or what kind of
savior is wanted to effect it. But he that thus according to the
direction of his natural state lives before God, in penitence, and in
faith in his mercy, is sure of having the benefit of all the mercy of
God, though he does not know the method, or the means, by which the
mercy of God will save him.

[Dem-404] So that true, natural religion and revealed religion agree in
these two great and essential points, that man is in a state of sin,
and yet in a state of acceptance with God through his mercy; therefore
the piety of the one, is the piety of the other, viz., a penitent sense
of sin, and a humble faith and trust in God to be delivered from it by
his mercy.

[Dem-405] And here you may again see, why this natural religion is to
be considered, not as a matter of reason, but as an instinct of
goodness, or piety of the heart; because it is nothing else but so much
goodness, not in idea, but in the very inward essence of the soul, as
distinguishes and preserves it both from beasts and fallen spirits.

[Dem-406] Had a man no sense of shame for his sins, he would be in the
very state of the beasts; had he no faith and hope in the mercy of God,
he would be in the state of the devils. Therefore that internal
sentiment of heart, that instinct of goodness, is his only true
religion of nature, because it is thus the preservation of his nature,
and the saving him from being like to beasts and fallen spirits.

[Dem-407] Reason therefore, as it is a faculty of speculating and
comparing ideas, has no more share in this religion of nature, than it
has a share in our natural powers of hearing and seeing; and as it can
only in a little way, and in certain circumstances, do some outward
service to these senses, so it can only in the same little and low way
help and assist this religion of nature by some outward services.

[Dem-408] And as this instinct of goodness, or inward sentiment of the
heart, is that alone which preserves our nature, and therefore is alone
the true religion, or salvation of nature; so the whole of all revealed
religion is to improve this true religion of nature in its two
essential parts, penitence for sin, and faith and trust in the mercy of
God. For all revealed religion has only this end, it teaches nothing,
intends nothing, but to give us more reasons for penitence, and more
reasons for faith and trust in the mercy of God.

[Dem-409] And therefore it was that I said, this instinct of good, or
true religion of nature, is the very preparation of the heart for the
reception of the gospel. For so much as there is of this penitence and
faith living in the soul, so much it has of eyes to see, of ears to
hear, and of a heart to understand all the truths of divine revelation.
The humility and penitence of the gospel, the mercies of God in and
through Jesus Christ, are as agreeable to a man in this state of heart,
as food and water to the hungry and thirsty soul. The gospel presents
everything to him that he wants; and God is thereby become all that to
him, which the miserable state of his soul stood in need of. And so
when he finds the gospel, he finds the pearl, for which he gladly sells
all that he hath.

[Dem-410] Therefore a man can have no greater proof that the religion
of nature is suppressed in him, that he has not the religion of
penitence and faith, than by his refusal of the gospel; for the gospel
as naturally agrees with such a state of heart, as light mixes with
light, and darkness with darkness.

[Dem-411] Lay the cause of infidelity where you will, it is a certain
truth, that it lies only in this insensibility of heart, in this
extinction of the religion of nature. And if the least sentiment of
penitence arises in your heart, or a sensibility of the need of divine
mercy, the gospel has got so far an entrance into you, and it cannot
lose its hold of you, but by your losing this state of heart.

[Dem-412] Let your reason pretend what it will, and fancy it has ever
so many objections of speculation and argument against the gospel, they
are all objections of the heart. For the gospel speaks only to the
heart, and nothing but the heart can either receive or reject it. For
this is an eternal truth, which you cannot too much reflect upon, that
reason always follows the state of the heart, and what your heart is,
that is your reason. If your heart is full of sentiments of penitence,
and of faith in the divine mercy, your reason will take part with your
heart, and will entertain itself with all arguments, ideas, and
discourses, that can exercise this religion of the heart.

[Dem-413] But if your heart is shut up in death and dryness, your
reason will be according to it, a poor quibbler in words, and dead
images, and will delight in nothing but such dry objections and
speculations as answer to the deadness and insensibility of your heart.

[Dem-414] So what you imagine, of your having a religion of pure
reason, is the merest fiction of deceit that can be imposed upon you;
for reason has nothing of its own, it acts nothing of itself, it barely
reflects that which comes from the heart, as the servant of the heart,
and must act or not act in obedience to it; what the heart loves, that
reason contends for; and what the heart has no inclination to, that
reason objects against. Therefore there neither is, nor was, nor ever
can be any other religion but the religion of the heart, and reason is
only its servant, in the same manner, and in the same degree, whatever
the religion of the heart be, whether true or false.

[Dem-415] And to imagine that natural religion is the effect of pure
reason and speculation, is as great an error against the nature of
things, and more hurtful to you, than to imagine that natural hearing
and seeing is the effect of reason and speculation.

[Dem-416] Natural religion, if you understand it rightly, is a most
excellent thing, it is a right sentiment of heart, it is so much
goodness in the heart, it is its sensibility both of its separation
from, and its relation to God; and therefore it shows itself in nothing
but in a penitential sentiment of the weight of its sins, and in an
humble recourse by faith to the mercy of God. Call but this the
religion of nature, and then the more you esteem it, the better; for
you cannot wish well to it, without bringing it to the gospel state of
perfection.

[Dem-417] For the religion of the gospel is this religion of penitence,
and faith in the mercy of God, brought forth into its full perfection.
For the gospel calls you to nothing, but to know, and understand, and
practice a full and real penitence, and to know by faith, such heights
and depths of the divine mercy towards you, as the religion of nature
had only some little uncertain glimmerings of. Therefore there is the
same agreement, and the same difference between the true religion of
nature, and the religion of the gospel, that there is between the
breaking of the day, and the rising of the sun to its meridian height;
the one is the beginning, and the other is the perfection of the same
thing. And as the light of the daybreak, and the light of the noonday,
are both the same light, and from the same producer of light; so the
light of the religion of nature, and the light of the gospel, are the
same light, and from the same producer of light in the mind.

[Dem-418] If you only stood for some time in the first break of day,
sensible of the misery of darkness, and only feeling some hope and
expectation of the light, yet knowing nothing of that globe of fire
that afterwards was to appear, and bless you with so many unknown and
unhoped for joys and comforts of the noonday light, you would then
resemble one standing for some time in the daybreak of natural
religion, sensible of the weight of his sins, and only hoping in God
for some kind of mercy towards him; yet knowing nothing of that globe
of fire, that mystery of divine love that was by degrees to discover
itself, and bless him with so many unknown, unhoped-for joys and
comforts of the divine mercy towards him.

[Dem-419] The original instinct of goodness in the soul, which I have
shown to be the only religion of nature, is the light of daybreak in
the soul, and is that light which lighteth every man that cometh into
the world. The light of the gospel is that noonday light, which
discovers such joys and comforts as no one could have thought of, that
had only stood in the break of day.

[Dem-420] And as no one, when the day arises, can reject or dispute the
coming or goodness of the rising sun, but because he has lost that
sense which was to distinguish light from darkness; so no one can
reject or dislike, or dispute against the light of the gospel, but he
that has extinguished that instinct of goodness in his soul, which
alone can distinguish good from evil, and make him love the one, and
reject the other.

[Dem-421] Don’t therefore, my dear friend, deceive yourself, nor let
anyone else deceive you. The matter is of infinite consequence that you
have before you. You come into the world but once, and have but one
trial, but the effects of it are to last for ever. The time of
disputing and speculating upon ideas is short; it can last no longer
than whilst the sun of this world can refresh your flesh and blood, and
so keep the soul from knowing its own depth, or what has been growing
in it. But when this is over, then you must know and feel what it is to
have a nature as deep, and strong, and large as eternity.

[Dem-422] If you have lived upon the amusements of reason and
speculation, your life has been worse than a dream, and your soul will,
at the end of such a life, be left to itself in its own darkness,
hunger, thirst, and anxiety, to be for ever devoured by its own fire.
But if you have watched over that instinct of goodness which God
planted in your soul, and have exercised yourself in that penitence for
your sins, and humble faith in the mercy of God, that the gospel
proposes to you; then when your body falls off from you, you will feel
and know what a kingdom of God lay hid in your soul, you will see that
you have a life and strength like that of eternity, and the fullness of
God himself will be your everlasting enjoyment.

[Dem-423] For heaven and hell stand ready to awake and be revealed in
you, and can no longer be hid from you, than whilst you are under the
cover of flesh and blood. And then will be fully verified in you that
saying of scripture, “he that seeketh findeth”: for you will find that
which you have sought, and according to your faith, so will it
eternally be done unto you. Your soul will have nothing taken from it,
but it will have all that good which you sought after, and provided for
it. You chose to be saved only by the powers of your own reason, and
refused the mercy of God that was to have saved you, and therefore you
will have that very salvation you have chosen, you will be entirely
without the mercy of God, and left wholly to your own nature: and that
salvation is the misery of hell.

[Dem-424] You are now your own carver, and must be that which you shall
have made of yourself. If the depth of your heart has not in this
lifetime its proper cure; if it has not something done to it, which
your reason can no more do, than it can create the light, your heart
will become your hell. And if you let the light of the gospel shine
into it, and revive the good seed of life in it, then it will become
the seat and habitation of your heaven.

[Dem-425] You may perhaps imagine, that because you practice sobriety
and justice, and are a friend to moral behavior, both in yourself and
other people, that therefore your disbelief of the gospel cannot
proceed from the disorder of your heart, or a want of piety. But this,
sir, is all mistake. For you may have all this moral behavior, and yet
have nothing at all of that sentiment of penitence, and faith in the
divine mercy, which I have shown to be the only true religion of
nature. It is as easy to have all this kind of goodness which you
appeal to, as it is to be civil, well-bred, and a friend to the peace
and order of that society of which one is a member. Even an atheist may
find his ends, and act suitably to his own principles of self-love,
ease and reputation, by this moral behavior.

[Dem-426] But the preaching of the gospel discovers all, and shows from
what principle all this morality proceeds. If there was this sentiment
of penitence and faith in the mercy of God at the bottom, then this
morality would want and rejoice at the precepts and doctrines of the
gospel, because they raise a morality built upon the foundation of
penitence and faith. But when this morality is only a worldly wisdom, a
convenience of life, a political conformity, and as mere a
gratification of selfishness, as any other worldly accomplishments are,
then this morality is in the greatest enmity with the gospel, because
the gospel takes away its worth, and all the self-accomplishment that
was placed in it.

[Dem-427] Therefore it is not the mere moral man that has that goodness
of the heart, that is a qualification to receive the gospel: for an
atheist may be such a moral man; but it is he, whose heart is in a
state of penitence for his sins, and humbly looking to the mercy of God
to be some way or other delivered from them.

[Dem-428] This is the only foundation of a religious morality, and this
is that state of heart which must be wanting in every moralist that
refuses the gospel.

[Dem-429] Hence therefore it is plain, that you may have a great deal
of morality in your behavior, and yet nothing of the religion of nature
in your heart, and so be entirely unqualified to receive the gospel,
because of the disorder of your heart. For the morality of an
unreformed heart, adds no more goodness to it, than whited sepulchers
do to the rottenness of dead men’s bones.

[Dem-430] What I say I say not to reproach you, but from a sincere
desire of doing you all the good that I can. For I have too much
experience myself of the weakness and mistakes of human nature, to
reproach any degree of them in other people. But if you will take in
good part what is well meant, I hope you will find that I have been
your friend in discovering the bottom of your disorder.

[Dem-431] But it may be you will say, you would believe the gospel if
you could, but that its evidence cannot have that effect upon your
mind. You may say also, the gospel is a matter of fact; you must
examine into the truth of it, as you do into the truth of other matters
of history; and as both the internal and external evidence of the
gospel is much defended and opposed by learned men, its evidence is so
perplexed, and made a matter of such laborious and intricate enquiry,
that your mind cannot come at any certainty of what you ought to
believe concerning the truth of it.

[Dem-432] I will therefore propose to you the shortest, and at the same
time the surest of all methods, and such as you shall either be obliged
to acquiesce in as sufficient, or to own that you have suppressed that
instinct of goodness within you, which I have shown to be the original
birthright of all mankind, and to be the only state of heart that saves
us from being a mere mixture of the beasts and the devils.

[Dem-433] I don’t recommend to you to lay aside prejudice, and begin
again the controversy from the bottom, and read all on both sides with
all the impartiality you can. I would as soon send you on a pilgrimage,
to be a penitent, as propose to you this travel to be a Christian. The
truth of the gospel lies much nearer to us than we imagine, and we only
dispute and wrangle ourselves into a distance from it.

[Dem-434] Do you think that you need many books to show you that you
are a sinner, that you have the disorder of almost all the beasts
within you; that you have besides this, such passions and tempers of
pride, envy, selfishness and malice, as would make you shun the sight
of other people, if they could see all that passes within you? Need any
learning instruct you, that at the same time that you have all these
disorders, both of the beasts and evil spirits within you, you have a
great desire to seem to be without them, and are affecting continually
to have, and appear in those very virtues which you feel the want of?
When you are full of hatred and envy, you affect to be thought good and
good-natured, when proud, to appear as humble.

[Dem-435] Now I desire you to know no books, but this book of your own
heart, nor to be well read in any controversy but in that which passes
within you, in order to know the gospel to be the greatest of all
truths, and the infallible voice of God speaking the way of salvation
to you. No echo answers to the voice that raises it, so certainly and
agreeably as the voice of nature or the state of your own heart answers
to that which the gospel preaches unto you. And this I will show you to
be the shortest and surest of all methods to discover the truth of the
gospel.

[Dem-436] The gospel is built on these two pillars, first, that you are
a fallen: secondly, that you are a redeemed creature. Now every man’s
own soul, and what daily passes within him, speaks these two great
truths to him, with a conviction and sensibility that cannot be
avoided.

[Dem-437] You have seen, and you feel, and know that you are a sinner,
that you have the disorders of the beasts, and the depravity of evil
spirits within you. Is not this saying to you, not in the sound of
words, but by the frame and voice of your nature, that you are a fallen
creature, and not in that state in which a good being must have created
you? For I appeal to yourself, in your own degree of goodness, if you
could create your own children, whether you would not create them in a
better state, and with less evil, both of the beast and the devil, in
them, than that in which you were born yourself?

[Dem-438] Therefore, only supposing God to have your degree of
goodness, he could not have created the first man, from whom your
nature is derived, in the state that you are; and therefore supposing
him only to be good, you have a sufficient proof; but supposing him to
be infinitely good, or goodness itself, you have an infallible
demonstration written n the frame of your nature, that you are a fallen
creature, or not in that state in which God created you.

[Dem-439] Again, do you want any learning, or books, or reasoning, to
show you, that every man, as well as yourself, affects to appear
virtuous, to have good qualities, and is ashamed of every beastly and
diabolical disorder; and would seem to have virtues and goodness that
he has not, because of an innate love that he has for them, and from a
sense of their being proper for him? And is not this saying again with
the same fullness of certainty, that you are a redeemed creature, that
there is in you an inward redeemer, a light of the mind, a seed of
goodness, an instinct to virtue, given you by God, though without
revelation you don’t know when nor how?

[Dem-440] And is not this such an evidence of the truth of the
Christian religion, and of its fitness to save your soul, as not only
needs not the assistance of foreign books and learning, but is also
sufficient to support itself against all the books and learning in the
world that should oppose it? Can any echo answer better to the voice
that raises it, than the voice of your nature answers to the sound of
the gospel? And do you not hereby plainly see, that you stand nearer to
the truth of the Christian religion, than you do to anything else? It
is only the description of that which passes within you. It is the book
of yourself, it talks of nothing out of you, it speaks but that which
is written within you, and therefore you have a sufficient help to
understand it. To look for outward testimonies, is like looking for
yourself abroad; turn but your eyes inward, and you have no need of
miracles to show you, that Jesus Christ came from that God that made
you, and that he teaches you the only way to find that perfection and
happiness for which he made you.

[Dem-441] What can the gospel say to you of the fall of man, that your
heart does not feel to be true? What can it say to you of your
redemption, that is not at the same time said to you by the state of
your own soul?

[Dem-442] For if you were not fallen, how could you labor under so much
corruption? A sinful creature cannot come from God in its sinful state.
And, on the other hand, if you were not redeemed, how could you feel a
dislike of sin, an inclination to goodness, and a desire of appearing
virtuous? For what else is this desire of goodness, but a certain
inward principle that has begun your redemption, and is trying to carry
it on?

[Dem-443] Now the Christian religion says nothing to you; it has not
one doctrine, or practice, or institution, but what has its immediate
relation to these two great truths, and is, for the sake of them,
either to convince you of your fall, or to assist your redemption.

[Dem-444] Now if a revelation from God had only told you, that you had
a mixture of evil and good in you, could you have any doubt about the
truth of such a revelation? Or if it told you that the evil came from
the fault of your first parents, and the good was God’s free gift to
you at their fall, that the evil might be resisted and suppressed; if
it told you, that God had a desire, and a design in the depths of his
mercy, to assist the good that was in you, that it might conquer and
put an entire end to all the evil of your nature, would you ask for
proofs of the goodness of such a revelation, or of its being worthy of
God, and suitable to your own needs?

[Dem-445] Now the Christian religion is this revelation. It tells you
only this great truth, that you are fallen and redeemed, that is, that
you have a mixture of evil and good in you; it tells you that God, as
early as the fall, redeemed you, when the seed of the woman became the
enemy of the serpent; that is, as soon as the evil came into you, he of
his free gift put a good power into you to withstand it; it tells you,
that from the beginning of the world, it has been God’s gracious desire
and design in and by Jesus Christ to render your redemption effectual,
that is, to make the good that is in you perfectly overcome all your
evil.

[Dem-446] Complain therefore no more of want of evidence; neither
books, nor study, nor learning is wanted; the gospel is within you, and
you are its evidence; it is preached into you in your own bosom, and
everything within you is a proof of the truth of it.

[Dem-447] Ask how you shall know there is such a thing as day and
night; for the fall and redemption are as manifest within you, as day
and night are manifest without you.

[Dem-448] Here, sir, in this intimate and true knowledge of yourself
lies the most precious evidence of the gospel, and is as near to you,
as you are to yourself; because all that is said and declared, and
recorded in the gospel, is only a plain record of that which is said
and done, and doing in yourself.

[Dem-449] And when you once feel it thus proved to you, by its
agreement with the state of your own nature, then it becomes a pearl
that is dearer to you than your life; and what is best, it is then a
pearl which no one can rob you of. You are then in such assurance and
possession of the power and goodness of Christ, as those blind men
were, whose eyes he had opened to see the light.

[Dem-450] Then all the wrangle and dispute of learned men against the
truth of the gospel, will signify no more to you, nor raise any more
doubt in you, than if by history and criticism they would prove, that
you never had any benefit from the light of the sun.

[Dem-451] If you go only outwardly to work, and seek only for an
outward proof of the truth of the gospel, you can only know it by such
labors, and in such uncertainty as you know other matters of history,
and must be always balancing what is said for, and against it. And if
you come to believe it this way, your faith will be held by an
uncertain tenure, you will be alarmed at every new attack, and
frightened at every new enemy that pretends to lessen the evidence of
the gospel.

[Dem-452] But these, sir, are difficulties that we make to ourselves,
by neglecting the proper evidence of the gospel, and choosing only to
know it, as we know other histories that have no relation to us, or
connection with our own state.

[Dem-453] The gospel is not a history of something that was done and
past 1700 years ago, or of a redemption that was then present, and only
to be transmitted to posterity as a matter of history; but it is the
declaration of a redeemer, and a redeeming power that is always in its
redeeming state, and equally present to every man.

[Dem-454] We all stand as near to the reasons and motives for receiving
the gospel, as they did to whom it was first preached. No one then did,
or could receive Jesus Christ when he was on earth, but for the same
reasons, that the sick, the lame, and the blind, sought to him to be
cured, namely, because they felt their infirmities, and wanted to be
relieved from them. But if this state of heart, or their insensibility
of their condition, of what they were, and what they wanted, was then
the only possible reason they could have for receiving Christ; then it
follows, that every man of every age, has all the reasons for receiving
or not receiving the gospel within himself, and stands just as near to
and just as far from the evidence of it, as those did who first heard
it.

[Dem-455] If you know of no burden or weight of sin, nor want any
assistance to overcome it, the gospel has no evidence for you; and
though you had stood by our savior, you had been never the nearer to
it. But if you know your state, as the sick, the lame, and the blind
knew their state; if you groan under the power of sin, and are looking
towards God for some assistance to overcome it, then you have all the
reasons for receiving the gospel written in your heart, and you stand
as near all its proper evidence, whether you were born the last age, or
1700 years ago.

[Dem-456] Now if you don’t know and feel, that the gospel has this
foundation in you, that you have that fall and redemption in you that
it teaches, then all external evidence of it can be of no use to you,
because you are not the person that wants such a salvation.

[Dem-457] But if you know that these two things are written in the
frame of your nature, that evil and good, or the fall and the
redemption, are at strife within you, and that you want some divine
assistance to help you to overcome the evil that is in you; then the
gospel needs no external evidence, because your heart is a witness of
all the truth of it. For you are then only doing that in a lower
degree, which the gospel teaches and enables you to do in a more
perfect and prevailing manner.

[Dem-458] Further, if you have only that instinct of goodness in you,
which I have shown to be the only religion of nature; if you have a
desire to act suitably to this state of your heart, this struggle of
evil and good that is in you, and are weary of your sins, and desirous
to be delivered from them, then you are fully prepared to love, admire,
and receive all the precepts of the gospel, because they have no end,
but to do that which you want and desire to have done in you; that is,
to suppress the power of evil in you, to destroy the old man, or the
first life of your corrupt nature, and to raise the new man, or
principle of goodness that is in you, to its full state of strength and
perfection.

[Dem-459] And here you have the shortest and surest of all methods, to
find both the truth and excellency, and necessity of the gospel method
of salvation.

[Dem-460] I put no labor or deep enquiry upon your hands; I desire you
only to know, what you cannot help knowing, that you have good and evil
alive, and at work in you. For this is the whole of the fall of Adam,
and of the redemption of Jesus Christ. Say that you have no evil in
you, and I will not desire you to believe the fall of Adam. Say that
you have no sense of goodness in you, and I will not desire you to
acknowledge the redemption through Jesus Christ. But if neither of
these can be denied to be in you, if your own heart confesses these two
things; how can you want a proof of the truth of that religion, which
only tells you that which your own heart is a witness of?

[Dem-461] Again, say that you have no instinct of goodness in you, that
you have no dislike of the corruption of your nature, nor the smallest
desire to be free from it, and then I will excuse your ignorance of the
truth and fitness of the precepts of the gospel.

[Dem-462] But if you will but own so much of natural religion, as to be
at all troubled at your sins, or but secretly wish that God would some
way or other help you to get the better of them; then you are under a
necessity of seeing and knowing that the precepts of the gospel are
highly suited to the state of your soul, to assist this degree of
natural religion in you, and to help you to that conquest over sin
which you want.

[Dem-463] So that from this plain and easy knowledge of yourself, you
are absolutely obliged either to deny the most known state of your
heart, and to deny that you have any degree, or desire of goodness in
you; or to own the gospel to have everything in it, both as to doctrine
and precept, that strictly answers to the state and necessities, and
good inclinations of your heart.

[Dem-464] And therefore the proof of the gospel is at no distance from
you, requires no labor of learning, or search of history, but arises
from the most obvious knowledge of yourself, what you are, and what you
want. And you may have the utmost assurance, that you cannot hurt or
deceive yourself in this short method that I have recommended. For if
you cannot be hurt or deceived in believing yourself to be a sinner,
and yet to be in a state that admits of the divine mercy to you, then
you are sure that you cannot have any hurt or deceit put upon you by
the gospel; because it is to do nothing to you, you are to receive
nothing from it, but a confirmation of your penitence, and a
strengthening your faith in the mercy of God.

[Dem-465] Understand all the gospel in this manner, and then you
understand it according to the truth, as it is in itself. For there is
not a doctrine or precept of the gospel, but is given you for this end;
to perfect your penitence, to show you all the grounds, and reasons,
and extent of it, and to confirm, increase, and exercise your faith in
the mercy of God, by such a discovery of God, and his goodness towards
you, as without the gospel could not have been known.

[Dem-466] So then, if you know the religion of nature, the religion of
penitence and faith, to be a true and good religion; if the proof of
the truth and goodness of this religion lies within you, then the proof
of the truth and goodness of the gospel is in the same degree of
nearness to you, and you cannot but know it in the same manner and
degree as you know yourself, what you are, and what you want.

[Dem-467] Thus much may serve to convince my unbelieving reader, if I
have such a one, whom I would fain lead to God, that I have said
nothing in favor of a modern religion of reason; which I have shown to
have the vanity, insignificancy, and sin of the ancient idolatry in it,
and to be that very confidence in natural strength, and hardness of
heart, which keeps fallen angels prisoners of darkness.

[Dem-468] I must now say a word to the zealous Christian, who may
perhaps imagine, from what I have said of that inward light, which is
the gift of God to all men in Jesus Christ, that I have brought this
light too near to the advantageous state of revealed religion, whether
Jewish or Christian.

[Dem-469] To such a one I say, first, that what I have said of this
light of the mind, or instinct of goodness common to all men, is so
much said of the light and benefit of divine revelation. Because this
light of the mind, or instinct of goodness, is not something
independent of, and antecedent to all divine revelation, but was the
effect of God’s revealing himself as reconciled to Adam through the
seed of the woman. God’s pardoning Adam as the head and representative
of all mankind, and giving him a mediator and redeemer, was putting him
into a state and capacity of being renewed in his mind; and this
renewing power, which God then by pardoning him bestowed upon him, is
that instinct of goodness, or light of the mind, of which I have
spoken. And therefore all the possibility of religion, and all that is
good in it, is to be ascribed to divine revelation.

[Dem-470] Secondly, what I have said of this common light, or piety of
the heart, is only to signify, that they have a possibility of such
good dispositions as belong to those, of whom it is said, “He that is
of God, heareth God’s Word”; and of such as Christ spoke, when he said,
“My sheep hear my voice.”

[Dem-471] Now if there were not a possibility or capacity of this
degree of goodness in men, distinct from all outward revelation, how
could mankind be fit for God to make a revelation to? For if men could
not be in this state of goodness, so as to be prepared or qualified
hearers of the Word of God, why should God speak to them? Or why should
the voice of Christ be sounded, if there were no sheep that could know
it? Therefore what I have said of this light of men, is only so much
said of their capacity to receive divine revelation; it is only a
glimmering of light, a seed of goodness, a possibility of piety, which
lies only in the soul, as the beginning of its salvation, and therefore
is in great want of, and must be much benefited by further revelations
from God.

[Dem-472] I have not considered it as a species of religion that may
trust in itself, or set up itself against divine revelation, as having
no need of it. When it is thus, it is not the religion I speak of, it
is so far from being then the light of Christ in the soul, or the
instinct of goodness that it had from him, that it is the darkness and
depravity of the heart, and the foundation of that hell which will be
at last manifested in it.

[Dem-473] Lastly, if my zealous Christian should find it a disagreeable
thought to him, to think that all mankind have had some benefit from
Christ, and that the seed of the woman from the beginning has helped,
and will to the end of the world help and call every man to resist and
make war against the serpent; I must tell him, he need have no greater
proof than this, that his own heart is not yet truly Christian, that he
is not a true disciple of that Lord who would have all men to be saved.

[Dem-474] Having said this much to guard against all misapprehension,
either by the unbeliever, or the Christian, I now return to my subject,
concerning the benefits of Christ, as he is the savior of mankind.

[Dem-475] Now this great truth that I have already declared, namely,
that all mankind were pardoned and redeemed in Adam’s pardon and
redemption; that at the fall, Jesus Christ became the second Adam, or
parent of all mankind, who from him received a principle or seed of
life, an instinct of goodness, which was to be in every man a beginning
of a new birth, a possibility of his salvation, or receiving a new man
from this second Adam, in the same reality as he received a natural
life from the first Adam; this great and glorious truth is of great
importance when rightly known, and is the key to all the mysteries of
scripture; it leads you into the fullness of the greatest truths, and
disperses all difficulties.

[Dem-476] This free gift of God to all men, in thus making all men
partakers of Christ’s redemption, by a seed of life, which all men, as
men, receive from Christ, is the true and solid meaning of that which
is called preventing grace, and which, when rightly spoken of, is said
to be common to all men. It is grace, because it is God’s free gift; we
could not lay hold of it by any power of our own, nor had any right to
claim it. It is preventing grace, because it prevents, or goes before,
and is not given us for anything that we have done. And therefore it
has its plain distinction from God’s assisting grace, which always is
in proportion to the nature of our actions, and only works as they
work. Hence there is a full end of all the wretched disputes of an
abominable election and reprobation, and of other disputes concerning
the grace of God.

[Dem-477] For if all men, as sons of Adam, are by the free gift of God
made sons of the second Adam, and, as such have a principle or seed of
life in them from him, in order to be raised up to a perfection of the
new man in Jesus Christ; and if this seed of life, or instinct of
goodness, or light of the mind, is the general preventing grace of all
men, that enables them so to act as to obtain God’s assisting grace in
the renewal of their minds; then you must easily see, that all men have
a general call and a general capacity to obtain their salvation, and
that the doctrine of particular absolute election and reprobation is
plucked up by the roots, and most of the difficulties of God’s
dispensation fairly solved. But this is by the by.

[Dem-478] Now you must have observed that this general grace, or
redemption, of life given to all men in Christ as their second Adam, is
not done only by an outward teaching, as when one teaches another the
way of a new life, or by an outward adoption, as when a person takes a
stranger to be his son; but by the communication of an essential seed
or principle of life from the second Adam to all the sons of the first
Adam. From which seed or principle of life, every son of Adam has
Christ for his spiritual father and parent in the same reality, as he
had the first Adam for his natural parent.

[Dem-479] For this reason, the change that religion aims at, is
constantly represented as a new birth, and our progress in religion as
our progress in regeneration, or being born again. We are not called
upon only to change our notions, or to receive such an alteration, as
scholars may receive from their teachers, but to die to ourselves, that
a new life may be raised up in us; or to suffer something to be revived
in us that is not of our own growth, or any change that we can make
upon ourselves.

[Dem-480] Thus says our Lord, “Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” {John 3:5.} And to
show that this new birth is to be understood according to the literal
truth of the expression, there is added, “That which is born of the
flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
Therefore the birth of the spirit is as real as the birth of the flesh,
and Christ is a principle of life to us, as surely as we derive our
flesh from Adam.

[Dem-481] Again, “The first Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam
was made a quickening Spirit.” {1 Cor.xv.45} That is, the first Adam
was made to be a fountain, or original, of a natural life to men, the
second Adam was made a reviver or parent of a spiritual life in men.
Therefore the spiritual life derived from the second Adam, is in the
same degree of reality, as the natural life derived from the first
Adam. The apostle adds, “The first is of the earth, earthy; the second
is the Lord from heaven. And as is the earthy, such are they also that
are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are
heavenly.”

[Dem-482] Therefore those that are related to Christ, have his heavenly
life and nature in them, in the same reality as those that are related
to Adam have his earthy nature in them. “And as we have borne the image
of the earthy, so we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”
Therefore, as we bear the image of the first Adam, by having his nature
and life in us, derived, from him; so we can only bear the image of the
second, by having his nature and life in us, derived from him.

[Dem-483] So that it is an undoubted truth, that Christ is our second
Adam, or a raiser of a new birth and life in us, in the same reality as
we have our natural birth and life from Adam. Hence it is that you see
so much mention in scripture of Christ’s being in us, formed in us,
revealed in us, of our putting on Christ, of our receiving life from
him, as the branches from the vine. Hence also so much mention of a new
and old man that is in us, and the whole of religion represented as a
contest betwixt this twofold man that is in us, the one from the first,
the other from the second Adam.

[Dem-484] The knowledge of this great truth, that Christ is our second
Adam, as mentioned above, renders all the most mysterious, and
seemingly hard passages of scripture, not only plainly intelligible,
but full of a most affecting sense. Thus when it is said, that Christ
must be formed in us, and that “we are members of his body, of his
flesh, and of his bones,” &c. {Eph.v.30.} all this, and the like, is
highly intelligible, as soon as it is known, that Christ is the parent
of a spiritual man in us, in the same reality, as Adam is the parent of
our natural life.

[Dem-485] Thus also when Christ saith, “Except ye eat the flesh of the
son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” And again, “I
am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he
that believeth on me shall never thirst.” {John 6:35.} And again,
“Whosoever shall drink the water that I shall give him, shall never
thirst: but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of
water springing up into everlasting life.” {John 4:14.} And again, “I
am the resurrection and the life. Whosoever liveth and believeth in me,
shall never die.” {John 11:25}

[Dem-486] Now if Jesus Christ had been only a teacher of morality, how
unaccountable must all this language have been? But as soon as it is
known that he is a spiritual parent, or principle of life to us, in the
same reality as we derive our flesh and blood from Adam, and that this
life lieth in us as a seed, which is to be brought forth to the
fullness of its stature by faith in Christ, then all these passages
have a meaning that is plainly intelligible, yet never to be exhausted,
but is always suited to the state and progress of the reader.

[Dem-487] For if Christ is a principle of life to us, and this life is
drawn into, or formed in us by means of our faith; then how justly are
we said to eat Christ as the bread of life, to eat his flesh and drink
his blood, &c., when by faith we draw him into us, as our principle of
life? For what can express the nature of this faith, so well as hunger
and thirst? Or how can it be a real faith, unless it have much of the
nature of hunger, or a strong desire, and ardent thirst?

[Dem-488] Therefore all these expressions are as literally suited to
the nature of the thing, to that which Christ is to us, as human words
can be, and are not a language adapted to our reason, to increase its
ideas; but are the language of heaven to the heavenly part of us, and
are only to excite, direct, and confirm our faith in Christ, or to
raise, increase, and exercise our hunger, thirst, and desire of the new
birth of Christ in our soul.

[Dem-489] But this author knowing nothing of this doctrine, is forced
to deny the most precious truths of scripture. Thus all that our savior
says of himself in the sixth of St. John, of his flesh being “meat
indeed, and his blood drink indeed,” and of the necessity of eating and
drinking it, to have eternal life in us; all this, says this author,
“was only a very high figurative representation to the Jews then about
him, of their duty and obligation to receive into their hearts, and
digest his whole doctrine, as the food and life of their souls.” {Page
100.}

[Dem-490] Therefore, according to this author, Christ is our life, in
no other meaning or sense, than any other person who teaches us any
doctrine that may do us good, and we have no life from him any other
way, than we may have from any teacher of useful truths. And therefore
what he says of himself, of his being the life of the world, has just
as much truth in it, as if any of the apostles had said the same things
of themselves. Nay, had Socrates, or Plato, or anybody else, preached
the same gospel that our savior has done, there had been just the same
meaning, and neither more nor less in it than in the gospel of Jesus
Christ.

[Dem-491] St. John saith, “Who is a liar, but he that denieth that
Jesus is the Christ? He is anti-Christ that denieth the Father and the
Son.” {1 John 2:22}

[Dem-492] Now surely the Son could not be mentioned with the Father, as
an equal object of our faith and acknowledgement, if he could not in
reality be said to be our life in such a sense, as the Father may be
said to be our God, not by a very high or strong figure of speech, but
in truth and reality.

[Dem-493] The scriptures tell us that Jesus Christ is the “Word that
was with God,” and “was that God by whom all things were made.” {John
1:3.} “That by him all things were created that are in heaven and in
earth, visible and invisible, and that in him all things consist.”
{Col.i.16.} {Sic, but should be 17.}

[Dem-494] Must not this author be here obliged to have recourse to much
higher and stronger figures of speech, to account for the meaning of
these expressions? For if there is anything in the nature of our
savior, to support the literal meaning and truth of these expressions,
then it must not only be groundless, but absolutely false, to say, that
we can only be said to dwell in him, or have our life from him, by a
very high or strong figure of speech.

[Dem-495] For surely, if all things both in heaven and earth are
created by him, if “in him all things consist,” then it may be said
without any strong figure, that he is our life, and that we “dwell in
him, and he in us,” in the same reality, as we are said to “live, and
move, and have our being in God.” For if this creator becomes our
redeemer, we may be said to receive life from him, to be new-born, or
created again by him, in the same reality and fullness of truth, as we
can be said to be created by him at first.

[Dem-496] When therefore this author saith, “We may be said (by a
strong figure of speech) to dwell in him, and he in us; to be one with
Christ, and Christ with us,” that is, that “Christ and we, to all the
intents and purposes of true religion, shall be in perfect friendship
and union together”: {Page 111.} it is the same barefaced denial of the
gospel, the same direct blasphemy against God, as to affirm, that God
can only by a strong figure of speech, be said to be our life, our
“creator, in whom we live, and move, and have our being.” It is the
same blasphemy as to affirm, that we have no relation to, or dependence
upon God, or existence in him, but such as any party of people, whether
at court, or the exchange, have with one another, when they are to all
the intents and purposes of their party interest, in perfect friendship
and union together.

[Dem-497] But to return: from this doctrine of Christ’s being a
principle of life, or parent of a new birth in us, we may see the plain
reason, why the scripture describes a Christian as a creature or
instrument of the Holy Spirit, and entirely animated by it, so far as
he is truly Christian. Because as Christianity consists in the birth of
a new man within us, it must needs have a Spirit and breath as suitable
to it, as the spirit and air of this world is suitable to a life of
flesh and blood. And as every thought and motion of our outward man
must be in, and by the assistance of the spirit, and air of this
outward world: so every thought, and motion, and desire of our inward
spiritual man, must be in, and by the assistance of the Spirit, and air
of that world, whose creature it is.

[Dem-498] Now, was there not as really this new spiritual man within
us, in the same reality of existence, as our outward rational nature,
there could be no foundation for this doctrine of the necessity of
God’s Holy Spirit. Nor could the scripture account of the guidance of
that Holy Spirit be at all intelligible, upon this supposition, that we
had nothing more in us, but our outward rational nature.

[Dem-499] Thus when it is said, “No one can call Jesus the Lord, but by
the Holy Spirit”: how could this be intelligible, or have any truth in
it, if there were not a principle in us, a spiritual man, distinct from
our rational nature? For our rational nature can as well call Jesus
Lord, as it can call anyone else Lord, or as Judas said, “Hail master.”

[Dem-500] Therefore since man in his natural state, and by his powers
as a rational man, cannot truly call Jesus Lord, it follows, that he
has a spiritual nature or principle in him, entirely distinct from his
rational nature, and which receiving its life and power from the Spirit
of God, has alone the power of owning, knowing, and receiving Jesus
Christ as Lord.

[Dem-501] St. Paul saith, “Ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit,
if so be the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. Now if any man hath not the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” {Rom.viii.9.} And again; “Now we
have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of
God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for
they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned.” {1 Cor.ii.12}

[Dem-502] Therefore there is a spiritual life, or man within us, by
which alone we have our communication with God, and which is so
distinct and different from our natural, rational man, that they are of
a nature contrary to each other. The one is by nature fitted to
receive, and know the things of the Spirit of God; the other has a
nature that cannot know, nor receive them.

[Dem-503] This is not to be understood, as if the natural man could not
understand the words of scripture, as other words are to be understood,
for he can reason and discourse as well upon scripture, and the things
of the Spirit of God, as upon other matters.

[Dem-504] Neither are we to take him that is able to discern things
spiritually, to be only such a one whose faculty of reasoning is
assisted by the Holy Spirit. For this does not make the spiritual man
here spoken of. No, the subject of the Holy Spirit, or that which {it?}
operates upon in us, is not our reasoning faculty, it no more assists
our reason in this manner, than it assists our eyes to read a difficult
print, or our ears to hear sounds more distinctly.

[Dem-505] For as the Holy Spirit is holiness itself, or the life and
power of holiness, so it operates only in the manner of itself, and
only upon that part of us, which has its own nature, or a real
agreement with it. Therefore the spiritual man that is animated,
enlightened and guided by the Holy Spirit, is that vital instinct of
goodness, that spark of life, of which I have spoken so much, and which
shows itself in an inward sentiment of the weight of sin, and in an
inward sentiment of hope and conversion to the mercy of God.

[Dem-506] This is the beginning, or foundation, or seed of that
spiritual man, for whom the scriptures are written, to whom they speak,
and who alone has a capacity to be animated, moved, and governed by the
Holy Spirit.

[Dem-507] And therefore it is, that our savior saith so often, “He that
hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Meaning only this inward state of
sensibility of the heart. He is so far from saying, according to modern
learning, he that hath clear ideas, that has accustomed himself to
reason, and distinguish about them; he that can speculate impartially,
and search into the nature of things, actions and persons, by comparing
the ideas of them; let such a one so prepared, draw near to the kingdom
of heaven; he is so far from saying anything like this, that he rejects
it all as the burden and darkness of the heart and says, “Except ye be
converted, and become as little children, ye cannot enter into the
kingdom of God.”

[Dem-508] But you will perhaps say, If the scriptures are not proposed
to our reason, if reason is not the subject or faculty of religion in
us; is not this the same as to say, that the scriptures and religion
are proposed to the unreasonable part of us; is it not saying, that we
must neglect or suppress that which is most excellent in us, in order
to be religious?

[Dem-509] You shall see reason possessed of all that belongs to it, and
yet religion set up in a better place.

[Dem-510] I will grant you much more than you imagine in respect of
reason; I will grant it to have as great a share in the good things of
religion, as it has in the good things of this life; that it can assist
the soul, just as it can assist the body; that it has the same power
and virtue in the spiritual world that it has in the natural world;
that it can communicate to us as much of the one as in the other. Can
you ask more?

[Dem-511] Now man considered as a member of this world, that is to have
his share in the good that is in it, is a sensible and a rational
creature; that is, he has a certain number of senses, as seeing,
hearing, tasting, smelling and touching, by which he is sensible of
that which the outward world, in which he is placed, can do to him, or
communicate to him, he is sensible of what kind and degree of happiness
he can have from it; besides these organs of sense, he has a power or
faculty of reasoning upon the ideas which he has received by these
senses.

[Dem-512] Now how is it, that this world, or the good things of this
world are communicated to man? How is he put in possession of them? To
what part of him are they proposed? Are his senses or his reason the
means of his having so much as he has, or can have from this world?

[Dem-513] Now here you must degrade reason, just as much as it is
degraded by religion. And as we say, that the good things of scripture
and religion are not proposed to our reason; so you must say, that the
good things of this world are not proposed to our reason. And as St.
Paul says, the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of
God, because they are spiritually discerned; so you must also say, the
rational man cannot receive the things of this world, because they are
to be sensibly received, that is, by the organs of sense.

[Dem-514] Thus must you necessarily set reason as low, with respect to
the things of this world, as it is set with respect to the things of
the spiritual world. It is no more the means of communicating the good
things of the one, than of communicating the good things of the other.

[Dem-515] It stands in the same incapacity in one world, as in the
other.

[Dem-516] For everyone knows, that we know no more, can receive no
more, can possess no more of anything that is communicable to us from
this world, than what we know, receive and possess by our senses, or
that sensible capacity that is in us, of having something communicated
to us by the world. Sounds are only proposed to our ears, light our
eyes; nothing is communicated to our reason; no part of the world hath
any communication with it. Reason therefore has no higher office or
power in the things of this world, than in the things of religion. The
world is only so far known, received and possessed, as we receive and
possess it by our senses. And reason stands by, as an impotent
spectator, only beholding and speculating upon its own ideas and
notions of what has passed between the world and the sensible part of
the soul.

[Dem-517] And as this is the state of man in this world, where he
receives all the good he can receive from it, by a sensibility of his
nature, entirely distinct from his faculty of reasoning; so is it his
state with regard to the spiritual world, where he stands only capable
of receiving the invisible good things of it, by a sensibility of his
nature, or such a capacity as lets the spiritual world into him, in the
manner as the natural is let into him in this life. Religion therefore
does no more violence to your reason, or rejects it in any other way,
than as all the good things of this life reject it. It is not seeing,
it is not hearing, it is not tasting and feeling the things of this
life, it can supply the place of no one of these senses. Now it is only
thus helpless and useless in religion; it is neither seeing, nor
hearing, tasting nor feeling of spiritual things; therefore in the
things of religion, and in the things of this world, it has one and the
same insignificancy. So that the things of the Spirit of God belong not
to reason, cannot be known and received by it, for the same reason,
that the good things of this world belong not to reason, and cannot be
known and received by it.

[Dem-518] It is the sensibility of the soul that must receive what this
world can communicate to it; it is the sensibility of the soul that
must receive what God can communicate to it. Reason may follow after in
either case, and view through its own glass what is done, but it can do
no more.

[Dem-519] Now the sensibility of the soul, which is its capacity for
divine communications, or for the operation of God’s Holy Spirit upon
it, consists in an inward sentiment of the weight and disorder of sin,
and in an inward sentiment of hope and conversion to the mercy of God.
This is the first seed of life, sown into the soul when Adam was
redeemed; and it is this seed of life, or sensibility, that the Holy
Spirit of God acts upon, moves and quickens, and enlightens; and to
this it is, that all that is said in the scripture is addressed.
Nothing but this sensibility, or state of heart, has eyes to see, or
ears to hear the things of the Spirit of God.

[Dem-520] Reason may be here of the same service to us, as it may be
when we want any of the enjoyments of this life. It may take away a
cover from our eyes, or open our window-shutters, when we want the
light, but it can do no more towards seeing, than to make way for the
light to act upon our eyes. This is all its office and ability in the
good things of religion, it may remove that which hinders the
sensibility of the soul, or prevents the divine light’s acting upon it,
but it can do no more.

[Dem-521] Hence you may judge of the following passage of the Plain
Account, “We may be sure we are pleasing God, whilst we are obeying the
command of his Son.” “But in this particular instance of our duty, we
can with reason go no further, I say with reason; because the benefits
received from all such performances by reasonable creatures, cannot
possibly be received in but a reasonable way. These duties, how well
soever performed, cannot be supposed to operate as charms; nor to
influence us, as if we were only clock-work, or machines, to be acted
upon by the arbitrary force of a superior being.” {Page 154.}

[Dem-522] Now all this is in direct contradiction to the nature and
state of man in this world. For no good thing of this world, no power
or virtue in the whole system of beings that surround us, can possibly
be communicated to our reason, or by the way of our reason. Whatever
the world communicates to us of its power and virtue must be
communicated to the sensibility of our nature, to that part of us which
is as distinct from our reasoning faculty, as seeing the light is
distinct from a conjecture about the nature of it.

[Dem-523] Now let us suppose a man to stand in this world, only with
his rational nature, or faculty of reasoning, but destitute of the
sensibility of his nature, or the organs of sense; what would all this
world, or all the good of it signify to him? If he was to receive
nothing but the way of reason, would it not be the same thing as to
say, that he was to receive nothing from it?

[Dem-524] Now this is the state that this author would have you be in,
with relation to God, and the spiritual world. No power, or virtue, or
influence of God, or the spiritual world, is to be communicated to you,
but by the way of reason, and you are to stand with relation to all the
riches and powers, and virtues of God, and the spiritual world, in the
same state as he stands in this world, who is to know and feel, and
possess no more of it, than he can know, and feel, and possess by way
of reason, without any one sense. Therefore it is plain, that this
author desires all communication from God to you, to be as much at an
end, as all communication from this world must be at an end, if you had
not one sense left.

[Dem-525] I have just supposed a man to stand in this world, without
all sensibility of nature, endued only with a faculty of reasoning; let
it now be supposed, that you had a power to awaken a sensibility of
nature in him, and to help him to all those senses that are common to
man. Would you say, this must by no means be done? Would you say, that
you must keep off this sensibility of nature, that you might preserve
him a free agent? And that if the light and heat of the sun, the
virtues and powers of the world, should operate upon him in any other
manner than by the way of reason, he would be turned from a rational
creature, into a mere machine and clock-work.

[Dem-526] Now this is the way that this author would preserve you a
free agent, with relation to God, and the spiritual world: he will not
allow you to have any senses, that he may preserve your reason. For if
God, or the spiritual world, could do that to you, which this outward
world can do to a man that has his senses; if God should communicate
any good to you, as the sun communicates its light and good influence
without the assistance of your reason, and only by making you sensible
of them, you are undone, the freedom and rationality of your nature is
lost, and you are turned into clock-work.

[Dem-527] Let me ask this rational man, who is so great an enemy to all
that is not done in a rational way, whether he feels no attachment to
the world, and his interest in it; whether he pursues it no further,
and has no sensibility of its power over him, but just so much as pure
reason and the light of the gospel raise in him; whether he has no
self- love, no family-love, no party-love, no ambition, no pride, no
sensuality, but what is weighed out to him by arguments and motives of
pure reason, enlightened by the letter of the gospel? Now if there is
something of those tempers in him, arising from some secret power that
is working in him, that has not all its life and working from pure
reason, will he therefore say, that he is a mere machine, that he has
no liberty left, that he is no longer a rational creature; now if a
degree of goodness should steal upon him this way, without consulting
his reason, if he should find a heavenly love, a purity of heart, an
attraction to God, a desire of holiness, a poverty of spirit, a
contempt of the world, a sensibility of the greatness of eternal
things, stirring and awakened in him in a greater degree than ever he
intended to have them by his own reason, would he be obliged to cry
out, that his reasonable soul was undone, that he had lost the
rationality of his nature, was become a machine, because such a sense
of God and goodness had got entrance into him without consulting his
reason?

[Dem-528] And if God is as ready to operate upon our souls, and to
manifest his power and presence in them, when we give way to it, as the
world and the devil are when we leave an entrance for them, has a
preacher of the gospel any authority from thence, to reproach this
divine assistance, as “communications and impressions from above, which
leave the mind in a state satisfied with what carries no rational
satisfaction in it- {Page 156}

[Dem-529] For however this author may please himself with thinking that
his mind is free from communications and impressions from above, and
satisfied only with such things as carry a rational satisfaction in
them; yet it is an eternal immutable truth, founded in the nature of
things, that no soul can enjoy any degree of good whatsoever, but by a
communication or impression of something upon it.

[Dem-530] Every creature, as such, is by the necessity of nature, in a
state of poverty and want, and may be defined to be only a capacity to
receive so much good as shall be communicated to it, or impressed upon
it. Were not this the state of our souls, it would not be the state of
our bodies; and as the body stands in this world in poverty and want,
only capable of being fed, nourished, comforted and blessed by
communications and impressions from the things that surround it, so the
soul stands in the same poverty and want in the spiritual world, and
only capable of being nourished, comforted, and blessed by
communications and impressions from God.

[Dem-531] So that this author’s satisfaction which he has chosen for
himself, a satisfaction purely rational, or by way of his reason,
instead of divine impressions, is the choice of a man in a dream, that
knows nothing of the nature of God, or of his soul, or of the state and
nature of things. For the satisfaction of every being, from the highest
angel to the lowest of human creatures, is all sensible, and wholly
seated in the sensibility of their nature.

[Dem-532] This is as certain, as that a child has no rational
satisfaction; for no man ever was satisfied or dissatisfied for any
other reason, or upon any other account, than as a child is satisfied
or dissatisfied, namely, according as its senses, or the sensibility of
its nature, has or has not that which is agreeable to it. For nature
shows what it is in a child, and does not become another thing in a
grown man. The child has no cunning or fraud, and therefore he plainly
owns what he wants and cries for it.

[Dem-533] Grown men are under the same sensibility of nature, want only
what the child wanted, viz., to have their senses gratified, but they
have the cunning not to own it, and the fraud to pretend something
else.

[Dem-534] And thus it must be with every human creature. He must be
governed by this sensibility of his nature, must be happy or unhappy,
according as his senses are gratified, till such time as he is born
again from above, till the new birth has awakened another sensibility
in him, and opened a way for divine communications and impressions to
have more effect upon him, than the things of this world have upon his
natural senses. For no created being whatever, can any moment of time
be free from communications and impressions of some kind or other; if
it is not governed by communications and impressions from above, it is
certainly governed by communications and impressions from below.

[Dem-535] The needle that is touched with the loadstone, does not then
begin to be under the power of attraction, for it was under the power
of attraction from the earth before. And if it loses the attraction of
the loadstone, it does not cease to be attracted by something else.

[Dem-536] The soul that is touched with an impression from God, does
not then begin to be under the power of something that acts upon it,
for the world and the devil, or the nature of those things that
surround it, attract it, and act upon it. For as it has something of
the nature of everything in it, so the whole nature of things as
continually act upon it by impressions, as the sun acts upon everything
that has anything of the nature of the sun in it.

[Dem-537] Now the freedom of the will, is not a freedom from
communications and impressions, but is only a liberty of choosing to be
made happy, either by yielding ourselves up to the attraction or
operation of God upon us, or to be miserable, by yielding ourselves up
to the impressions of the world, and sensible things.

[Dem-538] There is no middle way; if we reject or make ourselves
incapable of impressions from God, we are the machines and clockwork of
this sensible world.

[Dem-539] Two men born blind may talk and dispute about receiving light
in a rational way, and think it ought only to be received by their
reason, or in conformity to its power of speculating; as soon as their
eyes are opened, they both see that reason was a fool, and that light
can only act upon them by way of impression upon the sensibility of
their nature.

[Dem-540] It is so far therefore from being a dangerous delusion to
expect, desire, believe, and pray for communications and impressions
from above, by means of the holy sacrament, that it is as right and
sound a faith, and as beneficial to the soul, as to believe that the
goodness of God’s providence is in everything, and that everything is
blessed by his power and presence in it to the faithful receiver.

[Dem-541] All the perfections of God have some kind of similitude or
resemblance of their power in the perfections of the sun, which refresh
our animal and rational nature by continual communications and
impressions upon it, as the perfections of God communicate and impress
themselves upon the inmost spirit of our souls.

[Dem-542] And he that would have his animal rational nature comforted
and refreshed only in a rational way, without communications and
impressions from the sun, would be just such a pleader for reason, as
he that would have religious satisfaction only in a rational way,
without communications and impressions from above.

[Dem-543] For the impressions from God are more necessary and essential
to the pious life of the soul, than the impressions of the sun are to
the comfortable life of our outward rational man.

[Dem-544] And he that prays for nothing else but these divine
communications and impressions, who thinks of nothing else, desires
nothing else, trusts in nothing else, as able to comfort, strengthen,
and enrich his soul: he that is thus, all prayer, all love, all desire,
and all faith, in these communications and impressions from above, is
just in the same state of sobriety, as he that only prays that God
would not leave him to himself.

[Dem-545] For he that is without anything of these communications and
impressions of God upon him, is in the same state of death and
separation from God as the devils are. And to turn men from the faith
and love, and desire of these divine impressions, is to lay the ax to
the root of religion, and is as direct a way to atheism, as to teach
them, as Epicurus did, that God is afar off. For a God without any
communications and impressions upon us, a God afar off, are equally
atheistical tenets, equally destructive of all piety.

[Dem-546] The one opinion is the same denial of God as the other.

[Dem-547] And when men have once lost all sense of the necessity of
being inwardly, invisibly, and secretly supported, assisted, guided,
and blessed by communications and impressions of God upon their souls,
it signifies not much what religion they profess, or for what reason
they profess it, whether they have the reason of Epicurus, or Hobbs, or
this author. For a religion has no good of religion in it, but so far
as it introduces the life, power, and presence of God into the soul.

[Dem-548] For there is nothing good even in heaven itself, but the
fullness of divine communications and impressions; no wretchedness in
hell, but what arises from an entire cessation of them; and this life
has no possibility of being changed into a heavenly life, but so far as
it is capable of divine communications and impressions.

[Dem-549] For as the sun is the light of this world, only by
communications and impressions of his light upon all objects, according
to their capacity to receive it; so God is the God of all his
creatures, only by communications and impressions of his life, and
power, and presence upon all his creatures, according to their capacity
to receive them. And therefore to discredit and ridicule the desire,
hunger, faith, and expectation of divine communications and impressions
in all acts and parts of religion, is to teach men to unite religion
with atheism, and to make their very acts of religion, a renunciation
of, and departure from God.

[Dem-550] Had this author openly and plainly said with Epicurus, God is
afar off, the atheism had been plain and apparent, and confessed by
all; and yet he has said more than this; for to say that we are without
all communications and impressions of God upon us, for this reason,
because they would make us machines and clock-work, and could give us
no rational satisfaction, is not only saying that God is afar off, but
that he ought and must continue to be so, if we are not to be machines,
and lose the rationality of our nature. So that according to this
author’s doctrine, rational and free agents are not only to believe
with Epicurus, but also ought to rejoice that God is afar off, and to
desire, for the sake of the rationality of their nature, that he may
always be at the same distance from them.

[Dem-551] Hence it is, that this author is, as Epicurus was, forced to
invent a summum bonum, or chief good for man, exclusive of the
enjoyment of God. Thus says he, “The highest good of mortal man, is the
uniform practice of morality, chosen by ourselves, as our happiness
here, and our unspeakable reward hereafter.” {Page 157.}

[Dem-552] For as Epicurus was forced to place the highest good of man
in his philosophical garden, because he had separated the gods from
men, and placed them apart by themselves; so this author having
rejected all divine communications and impressions upon us, as having
no rational satisfaction in them, as making us machines and clock-work,
was forced to invent a highest good for mortal man, both here and
hereafter, that has nothing of good in it.

[Dem-553] Epicurus therefore and this parochial minister of the gospel
agree in this: first, that they place the highest good, or happiness of
man, in something that is exclusive of God. Secondly, that they place
it in something that they can do for themselves.

[Dem-554] The church, of which this author says he is a minister, sings
every day, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God, heaven and earth are full of
thy majesty and glory”; but according to him, it sings of something
that is no part of its happiness, either here or hereafter.

[Dem-555] The gospel, of which he pretends to be a preacher, brings the
glad tidings of a savior, and salvation to all mankind; but he preaches
a highest good of mortal man, that has nothing of this savior or
salvation in it.

[Dem-556] Jesus Christ says, “Except a man be born again of the water
and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” That, “as the
Father raises up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son
quickeneth whom he will.” {John 5:21.} And “that to as many as received
him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” Who “were born,
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but
of God.” {John 1:12.} Again, “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in
you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Ask and
ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. If any man love me, my
Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode
with him.” The apostle saith, “Giving thanks unto the Father, who hath
delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into
the kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption through his
blood.”

[Dem-557] Now had a Celsus, or a Porphyry, or any modern adversary of
the gospel, a mind to show their utmost detestation and abhorrence of
these doctrines, of a birth of the Spirit, a birth of God, a quickening
savior, a life in him and through him, a redemption through his blood,
a translation into his kingdom, of our asking and receiving all through
him, of his Father’s and his abode in us, had they the greatest desire
to persuade all people that all this was a groundless fiction, without
the least truth, or reasonableness in it, need they declare any more,
or desire any more to be believed than this, “That the highest good of
man, is the uniform practice of morality, chosen by ourselves, as our
happiness here, and our unspeakable reward hereafter- For is not this
the same thing as to say, all the doctrines of the gospel savior and
salvation, of a new birth, of the Spirit of God, of redemption through
Christ, of righteousness in him, of entering into his kingdom, are
absolutely false? For it is the same total denial of all the Christian
method of salvation, as to say, that we have our happiness or highest
good both here and hereafter from Epicurus. For the salvation, and
happiness, and eternal life which we receive through Jesus Christ, is
equally denied and rejected as false, whether you place our highest
good in what we can do for ourselves, or in what Epicurus can do for
us.

[Dem-558] The scripture saith, “The gift of God is eternal life,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.” {Rom.vi.23} And again, “He that hath
the Son, hath life; and he who hath not the Son, hath not life.” {1
John 5:12.} Again, “By grace ye are saved through faith; and that not
of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” {Eph.ii.8.} And again, “If
Christ be not raised, ye are yet in your sins”: And, “as in Adam all
died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” And again, “Your life is
hid with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life shall appear, then
shall ye also appear with him in glory.” {Col.iii.3.}

[Dem-559] Now this author does not expressly say all this is absolutely
false, and not fit to be believed, but he only desires you to believe
something, that will show it to be impossible to be true.

[Dem-560] For if our own morality, chosen by ourselves, is our highest
good and reward both here and hereafter, it is impossible to be true,
that we have no life but in the Son of God, or that eternal life is the
gift of God to us through Jesus Christ, or that we are saved by grace,
through faith, and not of ourselves.

[Dem-561] So that this author is not to be considered as one that has
barely mistaken something in the nature of the sacrament, but as one
that rejects the whole method of salvation through Jesus Christ, and
will have no happiness or redemption from him here, or eternal life
hereafter.

[Dem-562] When therefore he saith, “Do we not partake of the benefit of
remission of our sins, by partaking of the Lord’s Supper worthily?” I
must answer, No; if the gospel be true. {Page 144.}

[Dem-563] This ought to have no more weight with you, than if Celsus or
Porphyry, or Hobbs, had said the same thing. For since he makes our own
morality, chosen by ourselves, to be our highest good, both here and
hereafter, he as absolutely rejects our salvation through Jesus Christ,
and denies the love and goodness of God towards us in Christ Jesus, to
be our highest good, both here and hereafter, as ever Celsus or
Porphyry did: and therefore can have no more right or pretense to
explain any part of that salvation, which he has so totally denied,
than they had. In the gospel, says he, no pardon of past sins is
promised or given, unless to those just converted, renouncing their
sins, and baptized into the Christian faith; or to those, who having
sinned after baptism, actually amend their lives. This is to show you,
that there is no remission of sins obtained by worthy partaking of the
sacrament, if the gospel be true.

[Dem-564] Now in the gospel, our blessed Lord seeing their faith,
“saith to the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are
forgiven thee.”

[Dem-565] Now here pardon of sins is given, directly contrary to this
author’s assertion, to one not converted and baptized into the
Christian faith, but because of his and their faith that brought him on
a bed.

[Dem-566] Again, of Magdalen, our Lord saith, “Her sins, which are
many, are forgiven; for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven,
the same loveth little.”

[Dem-567] Here you see again a plain confutation of this author’s
doctrine; for here remission of sins is actually given and declared to
be due to love, and love is affirmed to be the measure of it.

[Dem-568] Therefore it is an undeniable doctrine of the gospel, that
faith and love are certain means of obtaining remission of our sins; if
therefore the sacrament is an exercise of our faith and love, then we
have the utmost assurance from our savior’s own words, that we thereby
obtain remission of our sins.

[Dem-569] But this author has another argument against it, taken from
our liturgy. In our public office, says he, “it is not supposed that
the worthy partaking of the Lord’s Supper does itself operate this
forgiveness; but it is made part of a prayer to God, that they who have
partaken of it, may obtain remission of their sins, &c. They are taught
to pray thus, after the act of communion is over, which supposes that
it is not already obtained.” {Page 145.}

[Dem-570] Now if there was any truth or reason in this argument, it
would follow, that our savior’s apostles had obtained no remission of
sins from him; and though he had chosen them out of the world, called
them his friends, and declared his extraordinary love for them, and
though they left all and followed him, yet he had not done that for
them, which he had done for the sick of the palsy, and many others; for
this reason, because he had taught and enjoined them a form of prayer,
in which they were to pray for the forgiveness of their sins.

[Dem-571] For if it is rightly argued, that there is no remission of
sins obtained by the use of the sacrament, because afterwards there is
prayer made for the forgiveness of sins; then it must follow, that our
savior’s apostles could not have received any remission of sins, when
he taught them to pray for it. It must follow also, that he never
intended that they should be in the state of new converts, baptized for
the remission of their sins, because then they could not without great
absurdity have used that form of prayer which he gave them.

[Dem-572] It follows also, that the apostles could not have taught this
form of prayer, or enjoined the use of it to their new baptized
converts, because it would have been, according to this author, a
proving to them, that they had not received the pardon of their sins by
baptism.

[Dem-573] Now the inconsistency which this author finds in praying for
the forgiveness of sins, and all other benefits of Christ’s passion,
after the reception of the sacrament, if the sacrament itself was a
means of obtaining them, all this inconsistency and difficulty had been
removed, if he had only known or acknowledged, that the Christian life
is a progressive state, and that forgiveness of sins is a grace and
benefit of Jesus Christ, bestowed upon us in the same manner as every
other grace or degree of holiness, as a talent to be improved, as a
seed to be nourished up by us to its full growth. And for this reason
it is, that we are obliged to pray for every grace, and every virtue,
that we have already received, because we had received it to grow up in
us, and prayer or desire of it is the only soil in which it can grow.

[Dem-574] Thus he to whom God has already given the grace of penitence,
for that reason prays for penitence; he that has already received of
God the gift of faith, for that reason prays, Lord, help thou my
unbelief; and he that is the fullest of righteousness, feels the
greatest hunger and thirst after it.

[Dem-575] But according to this author’s religion, he that has received
the Spirit of God, cannot be supposed to pray for it; and yet according
to the religion of the gospel, no one can pray for it, but because he
has received it.

[Dem-576] I shall now add a word or two on what this author says in
defense of the safety of his doctrine of the sacrament; though it
should be erroneous.

[Dem-577] “It ought certainly,” says he, “to be far from the thoughts
of every Christian to lessen any privileges, or undervalue any
promises, annexed by Christ to any duty or institution of his religion.
It is an inexcusable carelessness to do it for want of due
consideration. But this, I think, may with truth be said, that an error
of this sort (should it be supposed) does not really hurt any
Christian, nor alter the effect of the duty at all.” {Pref., p. 5.}

[Dem-578] The safety therefore of his doctrine of the sacrament,
supposing it to lessen and undervalue the benefits of it, is grounded
upon this general proposition, which he takes to be a great truth,
viz., “That to lessen or undervalue the privileges and promises annexed
to any duty or institution by Jesus Christ, does not really hurt any
Christian, or alter the effect of the duty at all.”

[Dem-579] Now this doctrine directly leads to infidelity, for
infidelity is nothing else but a lessening and undervaluing the
privileges and promises annexed to faith in Christ.

[Dem-580] The scripture saith, “In this was manifested the love of God
toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world,
that we might live through him”; and again, He sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins. {1 John 4:10.} “God so loved the world, that
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have eternal life.” Here the privilege and promise of
life, and atonement for our sins, is annexed to faith in Christ; but
according to this author, it does you no real hurt, nor alters the
effect of your faith at all, though you lessen and undervalue this
privilege and promise of life, and atonement for your sins, offered to
your faith in Christ Jesus.

[Dem-581] Is not this directly saying, that infidelity is as safe and
beneficial to you, as a belief in the privileges and promises of the
gospel? Is it not saying, that it is as beneficial to you to esteem
Christ only as a carpenter’s son, as to expect atonement and life from
him, as the only begotten Son of God?

[Dem-582] It is said of our blessed Lord, that among those of his own
country he did no mighty works, because of their unbelief. Now what was
their unbelief? It was nothing but the infidelity which this author
would prove to be harmless; it was only a lessening and undervaluing
all those privileges and promises which our savior offered to those
that would have a just sense of the value of them. Now if we lessen or
undervalue any privileges and promises annexed to faith in Christ, or
any other duty, such unbelief will certainly have the same effect upon
us that it had upon those amongst whom Christ lived, it will hinder him
from doing any mighty works among us, or in other words, render our
knowledge and profession of him ineffectual to our salvation.

[Dem-583] Prayer and faith are amongst the greatest duties of the
Christian life, and are the most powerful means of obtaining all the
blessings of our salvation. Now to these two duties the greatest
privileges and promises are annexed by Christ. The promise of the Holy
Spirit is made to prayer. Now, according to this author, if you lessen
and undervalue this privilege and promise annexed to prayer, if you
grow indifferent about the necessity or benefit of the Holy Spirit, and
fancy that you are sufficient of yourself for all the virtue that you
want, all this does you no real hurt, nor alters at all the effect of
your prayer.

[Dem-584] Again, another privilege annexed to prayer, is that of being
heard in and through the name of Christ.

[Dem-585] “Hitherto,” says our blessed Lord, “ye have asked nothing in
my name; ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.”
“Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.”
{John 16:24.}

[Dem-586] Now if any infidel, to abate your zeal for, and confidence in
this kind of prayer, should teach you, that no one can suffer any real
hurt by lessening and undervaluing prayer in the name of Christ, and
that it would have the same effect upon you, though you expected little
or no good from it, the gospel would be preached to you, just as it is
by this author.

[Dem-587] Again, “All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer,
believing, ye shall receive.” Now what is this believing, but an entire
faith in the privileges and promises annexed to prayer?

[Dem-588] But if prayer is effectual because of this faith in the
promises made to prayer, then everyone suffers a real hurt, and the
effect of his prayer is altogether hindered by this want of faith, or
by a lessening and undervaluing the privileges and promises annexed to
it.

[Dem-589] But if this author’s doctrine was true, it might then be
said, in contradiction to the gospel, prayer does you as much real good
when you have little or no faith in it, as when you have ever so much,
and your believing is no help to your receiving.

[Dem-590] The scriptures attribute a kind of omnipotence to faith;
thus, “All things are possible to him that believeth.” Again,
“According to thy faith, so be it done unto thee. Thy faith hath saved
thee. Thy faith hath made thee whole.” But according to this author, it
must be said, that the want of faith does you no real hurt, that you
will be healed and saved, and have all things done to you, in the same
manner, whether you be faithless or believing.

[Dem-591] And on this foundation it is that he grounds your safety in
receiving his doctrine of the sacrament, though he should have lessened
and undervalued the benefits annexed to it. But you ought to observe,
that you can have no safety in receiving his doctrine of the sacrament,
unless it be safe for you to receive another gospel.

[Dem-592] Had the sick, the lame, the blind, and the deaf believed that
which this author would have you believe, as safe doctrine, viz., that
to lessen and undervalue the promises and privileges made to faith,
could do them no real hurt, they had continued in their infirmities,
merely for knowing Jesus Christ and the gospel as this author would
have you know them.

[Dem-593] When two blind men ran crying after our savior to have mercy
on them, “He saith unto them, believe ye that I am able to do this?
They said unto him, yea, Lord. Then touched he their eyes, saying,
according to your faith be it unto you. And their eyes were opened.”
{Matt.ix.30.} The poor woman that wanted to be healed of her infirmity,
said, “If I may but touch his clothes I shall be whole.”: upon this
faith of the woman, our savior said, “I perceive that virtue is gone
out of me; and turning him about, and seeing the woman, he said unto
her, daughter, be of good comfort, thy faith hath made thee whole.”
{Matt.ix.22}

[Dem-594] Now, had the blind men answered to our savior’s question, No,
Lord, we do not believe that thou canst give us sight; had the diseased
woman said, I am so far from expecting to be healed by touching his
clothes, that I don’t believe he has the power of healing in himself;
according to this author, their infidelity must have helped them to
just the same benefit from Christ, as their faith did, notwithstanding
that Christ himself ascribes it to their faith. For unless it be true,
that their want of faith had helped them to the same benefit from
Christ that their faith did, it cannot be true, that to lessen and
undervalue the privileges and promises annexed to any duty, does you no
real hurt, nor alters the effect of it at all.

[Dem-595] And therefore the safety which this author proposes to you,
in lessening and undervaluing the privileges and promises annexed to
the sacrament, is only the safety of infidelity, and such a safety as
they are in, who lessen and undervalue the privileges and promises
annexed to faith in Jesus Christ.

[Dem-596] And indeed herein he is, though inconsistent with the gospel,
very consistent with himself. For if, as he has said, an uniform
morality chosen by ourselves, is our highest good both here and
hereafter; our highest good makes Christ as needless to us as the
sacrament; for if this is true, you can no more need the benefits of a
savior, than the benefits of a sacrament, and it can signify nothing to
your happiness, whatever privileges and promises are offered to you in
the gospel, because you want none, can receive none as a part of your
happiness, because you have it all from yourself, both here and
hereafter.

[Dem-597] So that if this minister of the gospel carries his point with
you, if you believe his doctrines of the sacrament, upon the principles
on which he teaches it, you may indeed retain something of the outward
form of the sacrament, but must reject the whole salvation of the
gospel

FINIS.
__________________________________________________________________

Indexes
__________________________________________________________________

Index of Scripture References

Psalms

[1]148:5

Matthew

[2]21:22 [3]26:28

Luke

[4]22:19

John

[5]1:3 [6]1:12 [7]3:5 [8]4:10 [9]4:14 [10]5:21 [11]6:35
[12]11:25 [13]15:5 [14]16:24

2 Corinthians

[15]3:6

1 John

[16]2:22 [17]4:10 [18]5:12

On this day...

• Ezra 1 - 2023
• 2 Samuel 5 - 2023
• Deuteronomy 26:2 - 2016
• Mercy's Master Motive - 2011
• 1 John 5 - 2011
• 1 John 4 - 2011
• Sin that so easy entangles - 2011
• One soul's fate is placed in your hands - 2011
• Let us submit to the will of God - 2011
• None can help us but Christ - 2011