William Law · 4 of 14

A DEMONSTRATION of the Gross and Fundamental Errors · Part 3

[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.