Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	blood_n	body_n	wine_n	4,504	5	8.0226	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48892	A second vindication of The reasonableness of Christianity, &c, by the author of The reasonableness of Christinaity, &c.	Locke, John, 1632-1704.	1697 (1697)	Wing L2756; ESTC R39074	184,081	507

Man a Christian. Is there any contradiction in it to say There are many Points besides these which Jesus Christ hath taught and revealed which every sincere Christian is indispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand If this be not so It is but for any one to be perfect in Mr. Edward's Creed and then he may lay by the Bible and from thenceforth he is absolutely dispensed with from studying or understanding any thing more of the Scripture But Mr. Edwards's Supremacy is not yet so far established that he will dare to say That Christians are not obliged to endeavour to understand any other Points revealed in the Scripture but what are contained in his Creed He cannot yet well Discard all the rest of the Scripture because he has yet need of it for the compleating of his Creed which is like to secure the Bible to us for some time yet For I will be answerable for it he will not be quickly able to resolve what Texts of the Scripture do and what do not contain Points necessary to be believed So that I am apt to imagine that the Creed-maker upon Second Thoughts will allow that Saying There is but One or there are but Twelve or there are but as many as he shall set down when he has resolved which they shall be necessary to the making a Man a Christian and the saying There are other Points besides contained in the Scripture which every sincere Christian is indispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand and must believe when he knows them to be revealed by Jesus Christ are two Propositions that may consist together without a Contradiction Every Christian is to partake of that Bread and that Cup which is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. And is not every sincere Christian indispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand these Words of our Saviour's Institutions This is my Body and This is my Blood And if upon his serious Endeavour to do it he does understand them in a literal sence that Christ meant that that was really his Body and Blood and nothing else must he not necessarily believe that the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper is changed really into his Body and Blood though he doth not know how Or if having his Mind set otherwise he understands the Bread and Wine to be really the Body and Blood of Christ without ceasing to be true Bread and Wine Or else if he understands them that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed given and received in the Sacrament in a Spiritual manner Or lastly If he understands our Saviour to mean by those words only the Bread and Wine to be a Representation of his Body and Blood In which was soever of these Four a Christian understands these words of our Saviour to be meant by him is he not obliged in that sence to believe them to be true and assent to them Or can he be a Christian and understand these words to be meant by our Saviour in one sence and deny his assent to them as true in that sence Would not this be to deny our Saviour's Veracity and consequently his being the Messiah sent from God And yet this is put upon a Christian where he understands the Scripture in one sence and is required to believe it in another From all which it is evident that to say there is One or any Number of Articles necessary to be known and believed to make a Man a Christian and that there are others contained in the Scripture which a Man is obliged to endeavour to understand and obliged also to assent to as he does understand them is no Contradiction To believe Jesus to be the Messiah and to take him to be his Lord and King let us suppose to be that only which is necessary to make a Man a Christian May it not yet be necessary for him being a Christian to study the Doctrine and Law of this his Lord and King and believe that all that he delivered is true Is there any Contradiction in holding of this But this Creed-maker to make sure Work and not to sail of a Contradiction in Mr. Bold's words misrepeats them p. 241. and quite contrary both to what they are in the Sermon and what they are as set down by the Creed-maker himself in the immediately preceding Page Mr. Bold says There are other Points that Jesus Christ hath taught and revealed which every sincere Christian is indispensibly obliged to understand and which being known to be revealed by Christ he must indispensibly assent to From which the Creed-maker argues thus p. 240. Now if there be other Points and particular Articles and those many which a sincere Christian is obliged and that necessarily and indispensibly to understand believe and assent to then this Writer hath in effect yielded to that Proposition I maintained viz. That the belief of one Article is not sufficient to make a Man a Christian and consequently he runs counter to the Proposition he had laid down Is there no difference I beseech you between being indispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand and being indispensibly obliged to understand any Point T is the first of these Mr. Bold says and 't is the latter of these you argue from and so conclude nothing against him nor can you to your purpose For till Mr. Bold says which he is far from saying that every sincere Christian is necessarily and indispensibly obliged to understand all those Texts of Scripture from whence you shall have drawn your necessary Articles when you have perfected your Creed in the same sence that you do you can conclude nothing against what he hath said concerning that one Article or any thing that looks like running Counter to it For it may be enough to constitute a Man a Christian and one of Christ's Subjects to take Iesus to be the Messiah his appointed King and yet without a Contradiction so that it may be his indispensible Duty as a Subject of that Kingdom to endeavour to understand all the Dictates of his Soveraign and to assent to the Truth of them as far as he understands them But that which the good Creed-maker aims at without which all his necessary Articles fall is that it should be granted him that every sincere Christian was necessarily and indispensibly obliged to understand all those parts of Divine Revelation from whence he pretends to draw his Articles in their true meaning i. e. just as he does But his infallibility is not yet so established but that there will need some proof of that Proposition And when he has proved that every sincere Christian is necessarily and indispensibly obliged to understand those Texts in their true meaning and that his Interpretation of them is that true meaning I shall then ask him whether every sincere Christian is not as necessarily and indispensibly obliged to understand other Texts of Scripture in their true meaning though they have no place in his System For

of yet owns the Omission of several things that the Apostle said For having expressed this Fundamental Doctrine That Iesus was the Messiah and recorded several of the Arguments wherewith St. Peter urged it for the Conversion of the unbelieving Iews his Auditors he adds v. 40. And with many other words did he testifie and exhort saying Save your selves from this untoward Generation Here he confesses that he omitted a great deal which St. Peter had said to perswade them To what To that which in other words he had just said before v. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ i. e. Believe Iesus to be the Messiah take him as such for your Lord and King and reform your Lives by a sincere Resolution of Obedience to his Laws Thus we have an account of the Omissions in the Records of Matters of Fact in the New Testament But will the Unmasker say that the preaching of those Articles that he has given us as necessary to be believ'd to make a Man a Christian was part of those Matters of Fact which have been omitted in the History of the New Testament Can any one think that the Corruption and Degeneracy of humane Nature with the true Original of it the Defection of our first Parents the Propagation of Sin and Mortality our Restoration and Reconciliation by Christ's blood the Eminency and Excellency of his Priesthood the Efficacy of his Death the full Satisfaction thereby made to divine Iustice and his being made an all-sufficient Sacrifice for Sin our Iustification by Christ's Righteousness Election Adoption c. were all proposed and that too in the Sense of our Authors System by our Saviour and his Apostles as Fundamental Articles of Faith necessary to be explicitely believed by every Man to make him a Christian in all their Discourses to Unbelievers And yet that the inspired Pen-men of those Histories every where left the mention of these Fundamental Articles wholly out This would have been to have writ not a concise but an imperfect History of all that Iesus and his Apostles taught What an account would it have been of the Gospel as it was first preached and propagated if the greatest part of the necessary Doctrines of it were wholly left out and a Man could not find from one end to the other of this whole History that Religion which is necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian And yet this is that which under the Notion of their being concise the Vnmasker would perswade us to have been done by St. Luke and the other Evangelists in their Histories And 't is no less than what he plainly says in his Thoughts concerning the Causes of Atheism p. 109. Where to aggravate my Fault in passing by the Epistles and to shew the Necessity of searchin them for Fundamentals he in words blames me But in effect condemns the Sacred History contain'd in the Gospels and the Acts. It is most evident says he to any thinking Man that the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity purposely omits the Epistolary Writings of the Apostles because they are fraught with other Fundamental Doctrines besides that one which he mentions There we are instructed concerning these grand heads of Christian Divinity Here i. e. in the Epistles says he There are Discoveries concerning Satisfaction c. and in the close of his List of his Grand Heads as he calls them some whereof I have above set down out of him he adds These are the Matters of Faith contained in the Epistles By all which Expressions he plainly signifies that these which he calls Fundamental Doctrines are none of those we are instructed in in the Gospels and the Acts that they are not discover'd nor contain'd in the historical Writings of the Evangelists Whereby he confesses that either our Saviour and his Apostles did not propose them in their Preachings to their unbelieving Hearers or else that the several faithful Writers of their History willfully i. e. unfaithfully every where omitted them in the account they have left us of those Preachings Which could scarce possibly be done by them all and every where without an actual Combination amongst them to smother the greatest and most material parts of our Saviour's and his Apostles Discourses For what else did they if all that the Unmasker has set down in his List be Fundamental Doctrines every one of them absolutely necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian which our Saviour and his Apostles every where preached to make Men Christians but yet St. Luke and the other Evangelists by a very guilty and unpardonable Conciseness every where omitted them and throughout their whole History never once tell us they were so much as proposed much less that they were those Articles which the Apostles laboured to establish and convince Men of every where before they admitted them to Baptism Nay the far greatest part of them the History they writ does not any where so much as once mention How after such an Imputation as this the Unmasker will clear himself from laying by the four Gospels and the Acts with contempt let him look if my not collecting Fundamentals out of the Epistles had that Guilt in it For I never denied all the Fundamental Doctrines to be there but only said that there they were not easie to be found out and distinguished from Doctrines not Fundamental Whereas our good Vnmasker charges the historical Books of the New Testament with a total Omission of the far greatest part of those Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity which he says are absolutely necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian. To convince the Reader what was absolutely required to be believed to make a Man a Christian and thereby clear the holy Writers from the Unmasker's Slander any one need but look a little further into the History of the Acts and observe St. Luke's Method in the Writing of it In the beginning as we observed before and in some few other places he sets down at large the Discourses made by the Preachers of Christianity to their unbelieving Auditors But in the Process of his History he generally contents himself to relate what it was their Discourses drive at what was the Doctrine they endeavour'd to convince their unbelieving Hearers of to make them Believers This we may observe is never omitted This is every where set down Thus Acts V. 42. he tells us that daily in the Temple and in every house the Apostles ceased not to teach and to preach IESUS THE MESSIAH The particulars of their Discourses he omits and the Arguments they used to induce Men to believe he omits But never fails to inform us carefully what it was the Apostles taught and preach'd and would have Men believe The account he gives us of St. Paul's Preaching at Thessalonica is this That three Sabbath Days he REASON'D with the Iews out of the Scriptures OPENING and ALLEDGING that the Messiah must needs