Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	father_n	spirit_n	true_a	7,185	5	5.8168	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59784	An ansvver to a discourse intituled, Papists protesting against Protestant-popery being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by Protestants : and containing a particular examination of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, his Exposition of the doctrine of the Church of Rome, in the articles of invocation of saints, and the worship of images occasioned by that discourse.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1686 (1686)	Wing S3259; ESTC R3874	97,621	118

they Worship But how unreasonable is this when they know he is invisible and would not be a God if he could be seen And how absurd is it to Represent him by an Image when they know they can make no Image like him No worship can be natural which contradicts the nature of that Being whom we Worship and if it be not natural it must be instituted Worship and then tho it were forbid by no Law it must be commanded by some Law to make it reasonable at least if it be possible that a Law could make that an act of Honour and Worship which is a Dishonour to the Divine Perfections 6ly It is more especially contrary to the nature of the Christian worship which teaches us to form a more spiritual Idea of God and to worship him in Spirit and in Truth in opposition not only to all sensible Representations but to all symbolical Presences There are two things principally for which Images are intended to be visible Representations and a visible Presence of the Deity The first of these is so great a Reproach to the Divine Nature that it was forbid by the Law of Moses which was at best a less perfect Dispensation as being accommodated to the carnal State of that people but as to the second God himself gratified them in it for he dwelt among them in the Tabernacle and afterwards in the Temple of Jerusalem where he placed the Symbols of his Presence But now when the Woman of Samaria asked our Saviour about the place of Worship whether it was the Temple at Jerusalem or Samaria He answers The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father But the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth for the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in Truth Where Christ opposes worshipping in Spirit and in Truth to worshipping in the Temple not as a Temple signifies a place separated for Religious Worship which is a necessary Circumstance of Worship in all Religions but as it signifies a Symbolical Presence a Figure of Gods Residence and Dwelling among them in which sense the Primitive Christians denied that they had any Temples For God dwelling in human Nature is the only Divine Presence under the Gospel of which the Temple was but a Type and Figure Now if the spiritual Worship of the Gospel does so withdraw us from sense as not to admit of a Symbolical Presence much less certainly does it admit of Images to represent God present to us which is so gross and carnal that God forbad it under the Legal Dispensation We must consider God as an infinite Mind present in all places to hear our Prayers and receive our Worship and must raise our hearts to Heaven whither Christ who is the only visible Presence of God is ascended and not seek for him in carved Wood or Stone or a curious piece of Painting 7ly But since M. de Maux and the Representer think it sufficient to justifie the worship of Images that they are of great use to represent the object of our worship to us and to affect us with suitable passions it will be needful briefly to consider this matter For I confess I cannot see how a material and visible Image should form a true Idea in us of an invisible Spirit it is apt to corrupt mens notions of God and Religion and to abate our just reverence by representing the object of our worship under so contemptible an appearance An Image cannot tell us what God is if we are otherwise instructed in the nature of God we know that an image is not like him but a reproach to the Divine perfections if we are not better instructed we shall think our God like his image which will make us very understanding Christians But the Representer has drawn this Argument out at large and therefore we must consider what he says of it That Pictures and Images serve to 1. Preserve in his mind the memory of the things represented by them as people are wont to preserve the memory of their deceased Friends by keeping their Pictures But I beseech you the memory of what does a Picture preserve Of nothing that I know of but the external lineaments and features of the face or body and therefore the Images and Pictures of God and the Holy Trinity which yet are allowed in the Church of Rome cannot serve this end unless they will say that God has an external shape as Man has And suppose we had the exact Pictures of Christ and the Virgin Mary the Apostles and other Saints and Martyrs this might gratifie our curiosity but of what use is it in the Christian Religion To remember Christ is not to remember his face which we never saw but to remember his Doctrine and his Life to call to mind his great Love in dying for us to remember him not as a Man but as a God incarnate as our Mediator and Advocate as our Lord and Judge and therefore the Gospel which contain the History of his Life are a much better Picture of Christ than any drawn by the most curious Pencil and I doubt the Christian Religion will not gain much by taking the Gospels out of peoples hands and giving them a Picture to gaze on Yes says our Author 2. He is taught to use them by casting his eye upon the Pictures or Images and thence to raise his heart to the Prototypes and there to imploy it in Meditation Love Thanksgiving Imitation c. as the object requires But he is a very sorry Christian who never thanks of Christ but when he sees his Picture And how can the sight of a Picture raise our hearts to the Love of Christ The sight indeed of a lovely Picture may exci●e a sensible passion but not a Divine Love The sight of his Picture can only put us in mind that there was such a person as Christ in the world but if we would affect our hearts with his love and praise we must not gaze on his Face which is all that a Picture can show us if it could do that 〈◊〉 meditate on what he has done and suffered for us which may be done better without a Picture than with it If they want something to put them in mind that there is such a person as Christ which is all that his Picture can do the name of Christ written upon the Church Walls would be more innocent and altogether as effectual to this end But Pictures are very instructive as that of a Deaths head and Old Time painted with his F●rel●ck Hour-glass and Sythe and do inform the mind at one glance of what in reading requires a Chapter and sometimes a Volume Which is so far from being true that a Picture informs a Man of nothing but what he was informed of before The Picture of a Crucifix may put a

other Catholick Divines will take this I cannot tell This is enough in all Conscience concerning the Bishop of Condom's Authority which I must still say is nothing when we speak of an Authentick Rule of expounding the Catholick Faith in which sense our Author appeals to him though we will allow him the Authority of a wise and prudent man whose writings are published and approved by Publick Authority as the writings of other Catholick Doctors are which is all the Authority we Protestants give to our best Writers and therefore the Protester has no reason to complain as he does p. 27. of an uneven kind of Justice and Reasoning in this matter and whoever desires a more particular account of the Bishop of Condom's Authority and those Glorious Testimonies which are given to his Book if he be a reasonable man may find Satisfaction in the Preface to the late Answer to the Bishop of Condom But the truth is I know no reason there is for all this Dispute I told the Reflector before that I did not like his Faith though it were as he has represented it should we allow the Bishop of Condom's Exposition and his Character of a Papist represented to contain the true Catholick Faith and that this is the whole of what the Council of Trent has determined yet I can never be of this Religion and since he was not satisfied with my bare telling him so I will now give him some Reasons for it and particularly shew him what it is I dislike in Monsieur de Meaux the late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church about the Object of Worship Invocation of Saints and worship of Images and take the flourishes of his Introduction into the bargain And I chuse these Heads because these are the matters wherein he principally appeals to the Bishop of Condom and about which only he has offered any thing like an Argument in his answer to my Reply And I am as glad to take any opportunity of useful Discourse as our Author seems cautious not to give any And that neither he nor the Bishop may have any occasion of Quarrel I shall observe the Directions the Bishop has given to those who think fit to answer to his Treatise He tells us To urge any thing solid against this Treatise the Exposition and which may come home to the point it must be proved that the Churches Faith is not here faithfully expounded and that by Acts which the same Church has obliged her self to receive or else it must be shewn that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force and all the disputes untouched or in fine it must be precisely shewn in what this Doctrine subverts the foundations of Faith As for the first of these it is done already to my hand in the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented in answer to the Papist misrepresented and represented And he must be as bold a man who will attempt to mend that Author as who attempts to confute him The other two I will have in my eye in examining as far as I am now concerned Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church in matters of Controversie SECT I. The Design of this Treatise WEre it possible to reconcile the Differences between us and the Church of Rome only by a fair Representation of matters in Controversie between us I should think it an admirable Design and this being all the Author professes to intend I cannot but highly commend his good Meaning in it whether he has shewn so much Skill and Judgment in undertaking a Design in its own nature impracticable I shall leave to the Reader to judge when he has fairly heard both sides Had I known no more of the matter but that the Reformation was begun by men brought up in the Communion of the Church of Rome and intimately acquainted with the Doctrines and Practices of that Church that some of these Corruptions both before and since have been complained of by men of that Communion that the Council of Trent which was convened upon this occasion condemns many Doctrines of the Reformers as contrary to the Catholick Faith and guilty of Heresie that both before and after this Council there have been many Volumes written and many fine Disputes between Popish and Protestant Divines who have been men of as great Learning and true Understanding in these matters as any the Age has bred who did all this while believe that there was a real and substantial difference between them I say when I consider these things I should not venture for the reputation both of Papists and Protestants especially of the Council of Trent to say That the Dispute has been only about Words that Papists and Protestants even the most Learned men among them have mistaken each others Propositions and that the only way to reconcile this Difference is so to state the matter in dispute that Papists and Protestants may understand each other I doubt not but fierce men on both sides may have made this difference much wider than it is but yet such a difference there is as no Representing can cure as I believe will appear by considering Particulars SECT II. Those of the Reformed Religion acknowledge that the Catholick Church embraces all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion THat the Church of Rome does profess to believe all the Principal and Fundamental Articles of Faith as the Bishop affirms I readily grant but yet she may hold Fundamental Errors and destroy that Faith she professes by other Doctrines destructive of the true Catholick Faith That this is possible he cannot deny for men may believe inconsistent Propositions and the Design of his Book is so to explicate the peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome as to reconcile them with the Fundamental Articles of Faith which the Protestant Explication of Popish Doctrines contradicts and overthrows which had been a very needless Undertaking were it impossible for men who believe all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith to believe any thing contrary to it He might then have spared his pains in vindicating and explaining particular Doctrines for it had been evidence enough that such Doctrines and Practices do not overthrow any Fundamental Article of Faith because they are owned by that Church which professes to believe all Fundamental Articles And therefore I cannot well guess what advantage he promised himself from this We may safely grant that the Church of Rome believes all Fundamental Articles and yet charge her with such Doctrines and Practices as destroy and tear up Foundations He observes indeed from M. Daille that we ought not to charge men with believing such Consequences as they themselves do formally reject nor do we charge any such thing upon the Church of Rome but M. Daille never said that we may not charge mens Doctrines and Practices with such Consequences as they