Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	spirit_n	worship_v	worshipper_n	8,943	5	13.1108	5	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

who teach these Doctrines disown for M. Daille himself in the place quoted by the Bishop charges the Opinion of the Lutherans and of the Church of Rome about the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament with inferring the destruction of the Humanity of Jesus Christ and therefore the Bishop concludes too much when he infers It is then a certain Maxime established amongst them that they must not in these cases look upon the Consequences which may be drawn from a Doctrine but purely upon what he proposes and acknowledges who teaches it But the use M. Daille makes of it is only this That when such ill Consequences as mens Doctrines are justly chargeable with have no ill influence upon Worship or as he speaks no poyson in them if they disown such Consequences this ought not to break Christian Communion And therefore though no man ought to be received into the Communion of the Church who denies the Humanity of Jesus Christ yet the National Synod at Charenton admits Lutherans to the Holy Table because whatever might be inferred from their Doctrine yet they expresly owned the Humanity of Christ and this Doctrinal Consequence was a meer Speculative Error which made no change at all in Acts of Worship but when the Consequences are not meerly speculative but practical and do not so much concern what other men believe and think as what we our selves are to do as it is in the Worship of Saints and Images and the Host c. to say that we must have no regard to Consequences if the Church disowns them is to say that we must not consider the nature and tendency of our Actions nor what they are in Gods account but only what the Church thinks of them and therefore though we will not charge the Church of Rome with believing any Consequences which she disowns yet if her Doctrines and Practices corrupt the Christian Faith and Worship it is fit to charge her with such Corruptions and if the Charge be just though she disown it it will justifie our Separation from her Communion SECT III. Religious Worship is terminated in God alone THE account the Bishop gives of that Interior Adoration which is due to God alone is very sound and Orthodox that it consists principally in believing he is the Creator and Lord of all things and in adhering to him with all the powers of our Soul by Faith Hope and Charity as to him alone who can render us happy by the Communication of an infinite Good which is himself But there are two things I except against in this Section as not fairly stated First concerning the exteriour marks of Adoration Secondly concerning the terminating of Religious Worship As for the first he tells us This interiour Adoration which we render unto God in Spirit and in Truth has its exterior marks of which the principal is Sacrifice which cannot be offered to any but to God And with respect to the second he tells us The same Church teaches us that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sence be called Religious it is for its necessary relation to God The Bishop very well knew that this is the main Seat of the Controversie between us and had he intended by his Exposition to have put an end to our disputes he should have taken a little more care about this Point for as he has now stated it he has left the matter just as he found it We say that all Religious Worship ought not only to terminate in God as its necessary End but that God is the sole and immediate Object of all Religious Worship and that we must worship none besides him as our Saviour expounds the Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Matth. 4. We have always denied any relative Worship to be due to Creatures for to worship Creatures is to make them Gods and it is no honour to the Supreme God to advance his own Creatures to divine Honours to make more though inferiour Gods for God's sake We say all external Acts of Religious Worship are peculiar and appropriate to God as well as Sacrifice for since we must worship none but God whatever can be called Religious Worship must be given to none besides him and the Bishop has not dealt plainly in this matter he says that Sacrifice can be offered to none but God but he has not told us what he thinks of other external Acts of Worship whether they may be paid to some excellent Creatures for since Sacrifice is not a natural but instituted Worship if nothing but Sacrifice is peculiar to God then all external natural Worship is common to God and Creatures and then in the state of nature there could be no external and visible Difference between the worship of God and Creatures nor had there been any under the Gospel neither had not Christ instituted his last Supper which the Church of Rome has transformed into a Sacrifice of his natural Flesh and Blood Thus when he says that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary end this seems to me an ambiguous Expression for Worship properly terminates in the Object to which it is given and in this sense If all Religious Worship must terminate in God then all Religious Worship must be given to God and to none else which is the true Catholick Faith that God is only to be worshipped But then what becomes of that Religious Worship which is given to the Virgin Mary and Saints in relation to God Does not this Worship which is given to them terminate in them and not in God Are not they the immediate and proper Objects of that Worship which is given to them And does not the Object terminate the Worship Is God the Object of that Worship which they give to the Saints and Blessed Virgin Then they either give that inferior Degree of Worship to God which is proper for Creatures which is an affront to his Majesty and Greatness or they give that Worship to Creatures which is proper to God which is Idolatry Which plainly shews that that Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated in those Creatures to which it is given and therefore if any degree of Religious Worship be given to Creatures all Religious Worship does not terminate in God as he said it must and if all Religious Worship must terminate in God then no Religious Worship must be given to Creatures as he grants it may to the Virgin Mary and Saints Yes you will say that Worship which is given to the Saints and Blessed Virgin terminates in God because it is given them upon account of their Relation to God but this is a great mistake their Relation to God can only serve for a Reason why they are worshipped but cannot terminate that worship on God which