A DISCOURSE Concerning the Worship of Images. Preached before the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, On the 24th of May, 1686. By GEORGE TULLY Subdean of York, etc. For which he was Suspended.  
IMPRIMATUR,  
Apr. 7. 1689. Z. Isham R. P. D. Henrico Episc. Lond. à Sacris.  
LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church Yard. MDCLXXXIX.   

To the Right Honourable, and Right Reverend Father in God, HENRY Lord Bishop of London, one of his Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council.  
My LORD,  
SInce the true Reasons of Punishments inflicted upon such private and obscure Persons, as myself, are many times not rightly understood by some, and misrepresented by others, and thereby leave a Stain behind them, and that this I found was my Case, at the time of my Suspension; I thought I should be wanting to myself, if at this Juncture, (when, God be thanked, an honest Zeal against Popery is no longer Criminal) I did not publish that Sermon, which brought the Rage of the Papists, and a Suspension upon me. My Lord, 'tis not from any Opinion I have of the Performance itself, that I now make it public; for I am too well acquainted with the excellent Tracts which the Divines of our Church have published, as upon others, so likewise upon this Argument, since the time of my preaching this Sermon, to entertain any such foolish conceit of it; Nor shall I here take occasion to reflect upon that venerable Body, the Dean and Chapter of York, who were pleased, immediately upon the receipt of a Letter from the King, to Suspend me there for this Discourse preached before the University of Oxford; and that without as much as the least Summons, Citation, or ordinary Civility of a private Letter to acquaint me with their Summary proceed against me, though 'twas visible enough, that as the management of their Censure was unpresidented, and then a leading Case; so had it not been without fatal Effects upon the Clergy, had not your Lordship, in a most generous and heroic Manner, put a stop to it here in the very same Case of the Reverend the Dean of Norwich. My Lord, as I had the Honour (for such even then I esteemed it) to be the first Clergyman in England who suffered in those days in the Defence of our Religion against Popish Superstition and Idolatry; So I humbly beg, that your Lordship's being shortly after made the greatest and most eminent Instance of Suffering in the same excellent Cause, may excuse the Presumption of this Dedication, in  
My LORD, Your Lordship's most Obedient and Devoted Servant GEO. TULLY.   
EXOD. XX. ver. 4, and part of ver. 5. 
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth.  
Thou shalt not how down to them, nor worship them.  
THese Words being an express Law or Command, of a Moral, and therefore perpetual, Obligation, enforced upon us, above any of the other, not only with the particular Reason of it, The Jealousy of that Great God in Relation to his Honour, who himself promulged it; but likewise, with a most severe and terrible Sanction, of visiting this great Iniquity, as the Breach of it seems peculiarly to be styled, unto the third and fourth Generation; and lastly, with the most ample Reward, of showing Mercy unto thousands of them that keep it; (who seem here to be said by way of Eminency, to Love God, as they, who violate the Command, to Hate him;) It concerns, doubtless, the Christian as highly as ever it did the Jewish Church, to inquire into the true Sense and import of that Law, which God himself has bound so fast upon us; lest some of us Christians also, whilst we trifle and distinguish to palliate an unwarrantable Practice in the Church, become Idolaters, as were some of them. My present business therefore shall be,  

I. To assert and explain the genuine Sense and Meaning of this Commandment.  
II. To inquire into the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, in relation to this way of Worship.  
III. To consider, how they justify themselves from the Imputation consequent upon it.   
And this with what brevity the Copiousness of the Argument, and with what plainness the Nature of it will admit.  
And first, I am to assert and explain the genuine Sense and Meaning of this Commandment.  
In order to the distinct understanding whereof, I find it absolutely requisite; First, To remove those false Glosses and Constructions which the Sophistry of some Men have put upon it, which, if left untouched, would darken and perplex the otherwise most evident Proofs of its true Sense and Import.  
Now that Exposition which restrains the Images and Similitudes, mentioned in this Command, to the Representations of false and fictitious Gods; and the worship prohibited, to the worshipping them for Gods, being the most usual amongst our Adversaries, and the likest to stand in our Light; we had best, I think, for brevity's sake, confine ourselves to the consideration of that, and show,  
1st, That they have no reasonable Colour for restraining the Images here spoken of, to the Representations of false Gods. And that  
2dly, Neither Gentile nor Jewish Idolaters did ever worship such Representations for Gods; and consequently, such worship could never be intended in this Prohibition before us.  
First, That our Adversaries have no reasonable Colour for restraining the Images here mentioned, to the Representations of false Gods only.  
And here one would have expected some shrewd Authority, and convincing Reason for so straitlaced a Construction of a most plain, full, and comprehensive Law; and yet, after all, the burden of the Argument miserably ends in the pretended Signification of the Greek Word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which it seems the Seventy had the good luck to Translate the Hebrew word Pesel, in their version of this Law. And thus behold a pure Logomachy or Strife of words made the chief Foundation of an awkward Sense of so express, so important a Commandment; a jejune and insipid sort of Contest This, I confess; but the misery is, a Defendant is obliged to follow a litigious Plaintiff into what Court soever he thinks fit to remove his Cause. And here, though one would think 'twere every whit as reasonable to have recourse to the import of an original Word for the Sense of a Law, as to a Version of it; a word most properly significative of any thing carved or engraven; a word rendered by the same Seventy almost constantly in that large Sense, by the Chaldee and Syriac Interpreters of the place Image; by Jerome, and other Latin Translators, Idolum, Sculptile, and Imago indifferently; by their own dear Vulgar Latin, Sculptile, in this very place; yet, to throw them all this in for quietness sake, how comes Clemens of Alexandria, a great Critic, as well as a Divine, reciting this Law, to use the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, instead of this so highly significant word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Nay, what is more strange, How comes not only he, in his Protreptick; but Origen in his fourth Book against Celsus, and Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, utterly to omit the word in their Citations of this Law, using only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Of so little peculiar importance, did they think it; and yet am I apt to believe, they understood the Sense of the Command, and the Signification of Words in their own Language, as well as the nicest Critic now a days, without any offence to them. Nay, so far is this word from only denoting the Representation of a false God, that, on the contrary, there's nothing more certain, than that any Image or Figure, designed to worship the true God by, actually does, and properly may, come under the same Denomination. Thus St. Stephen calls the Golden Calf, an Idol, (Acts 7. 41.) and yet it was only a Symbolical Representation of the Great God, Jehovah, as we shall see hereafter. Thus, again, their own celebrated vulgar Version, unluckily styles the Image that Micah's Mother made, Idolum; and yet this was wholly dedicated unto the Lord, says the Text, (Judges 17. 3.) And what in fine, is more evident, than that the Fathers, who branded the Carpocratian Heretics with the Imputation of Idolatry, for worshipping the Images of Christ; and the Arrians likewise, for worshipping Christ himself, whilst they thought him but a Creature; (styling even our blessed Lord an Idol to them, who Worshipped him under that Notion.) What, I say, is more evident, than that they looked on every thing as an Idol that was worshipped, besides the only true God; and such Worshippers, Idolaters: and consequently, must have understood the word Idol, to have imported a great deal more than the Representation of a false or fictitious God. But should we let all this go for nothing, (as perhaps it would be thought hard to differ for a Word) yet cannot any reasonable Man imagine why the other word Temunah, mentioned in the Law; a word most amply expressive of any manner of Similitude whatsoever, and by which the Divine Wisdom seems most industriously to have provided against all possible Evasions; Why this, I say, should be either supinely flured over, or most boldly and unwarrantably consigned to the narrow, and that falsely supposed, Signification of the former word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For, to say no more, is it not more faitable to the received Notions of Mankind in this particular, to interpret a precedent by a subsequent word, rather than a subsequent word by a precedent; a subsequent word, especially, of a most comprehensive Signification, by a precedent of a very narrow and confined one? As I would only desire to know of these Persons, that if the Head of their Church should publish a Bull, prohibiting Papal Honours, such as being placed upon the Altar after Election, to be given to false Popes (as we know there have been several Pretenders to the infallible Chair at the same time) and not only to them, but to any Person else whatsoever: I would only know, I say, whether or no, he who should explain the subsequent Terms of any Person whatsoever, by the precedent, the Pseudo-Pretenders to the Popedom, and say, that the one meant not more than the other, would not be thought guilty of a very saucy and wilful Misconstruction of his Holiness' pleasure in the matter; and if he would, I desire them to make the Application.  
And thus I have shown, That they have no reasonable Colour for restraining the Images and Similitudes mentioned in this Commandment, to the Representations of false Gods.  
I proceed in the second Place, to show, That neither did the old Idolaters ever worship such Representations for Gods; and that consequently, the Prohibition of such Worship could never be the Intention of this Commandment. This indeed is an Interpretation one might possibly have expected from the Pen of a Jesuit, or other private everlasting Caviller of that Church; but it is a shame, methinks, to find such wretched Stuff in so authentic a Record, as the Catechism ad Paroch.  
For first, all false Objects of Worship, (and such must be all Images worshipped for Gods) are manifestly prohibited in the first Commandment, [or, if they will have it so, in the first Part, or Clause of it,] Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, i. e. thou shalt worship nothing but me; and therefore cannot be supposed to be again prohibited under that Notion in the second Commandment, or but Appendix to the first; unless they will suppose the infinite Wisdom guilty of Impertinence, rather than themselves. And indeed, would not any indifferent Man be apt to think them hard put to't for a Salvo to their own Practice, when they are forced to suppose the Alwise Lawgiver to have spent so many Words, in a short Comprehension of Laws, upon the Prohibition of that which 'tis next to Impossible, in the very nature of the thing, any Man in his Wits should ever be guilty of? For is it indeed, as much as fairly supposeable, that any thing in the shape of a reasonable Creature should take the Image, i. e. the Likeness or Representation of a thing, for the thing itself; take it for a Representation, and not for a Representation at the same time? I know not, I confess, what they may think credible, who can roundly take a Sign for the thing signified; but other People, who are not so much used to Contradictions, will not perhaps so easily digest the belief of it. If then they cannot reasonably be presumed to have taken the Likeness of a God, for the very God himself whose it was, they could not worship it for such; and consequently, God could not here prohibit the worship of Images for Gods; which was the Point to be proved. And of which incidentally, more hereafter.  
Having thus cleared the way, by a short removal of the chief part of that Dirt and Rubbish, which obstructed our Passage; we may now go a little more cleanly and directly on, to the true Sense and Import of this Commandment, which we assert to be this, That we are hereby forbidden to worship the true God by all corporeal Figures and Representations.  
For, as in the first Commandment God has determined himself to be the only proper Object of Worship in Opposition to all false Objects of it, which the grosser Heathens might Figure to themselves; so, here in the Law before us, he prohibits that corrupt way or manner, whereby the more intelligent Heathens, at least, and amongst the rest, the Egyptians, (whose Rites and Customs his own People might now be apt to retain) did actually worship him, declaring it altogether not only repugnant to his Will, the sole Rule and Standard, but likewise incongruous to his Nature, the Ground and Reason of his Worship; of both which they being to have more ample Discoveries than the Nations had from amongst whom he had brought them, would consequently lay under stricter Obligations of not offending in this particular; which they perhaps would do well to consider, who living under infinitely clearer Revelations of the Divine Will and Nature, than ever the Jews themselves could pretend to, retain yet the worship here forbid, so manifestly repugnant to the express Declaration of his Will, and the Majesty of his Nature.  
But to be a little more distinct, I shall endeavour to make out this Sense of the Commandment.  

1. From the Notion of Image-worship, as practised by the Heathens. And  
2. From those Reasons, by which the Prohibition in the Text is further enforced; and some particular Instances of the contrary Practice related in Scripture. And  
3. From the Sense of Antiquity in the matter.   
1st, From the Notion of Image-worship, as practised by the Heathens. And that the more ingenious amongst them, (from whose Sentiments we are to form our Notions of their Worship, not from the Rabble) looked upon their Images and Statues, as no other than Symbols, and Analogical Representations of that Being, to which they paid Divine Worship, is so evident from those accounts which Christian Writers, no less than themselves, give of their Images, and their Opinions concerning them, that no doubt but a Julian, Celsus, or a Porphyry, were they to write now, would publish their Complaints of Misrepresentation, as well as other People, and justify their Practice upon the very same Grounds their Misrepresenters do theirs. Nec simulacrum, nec Daemonium colo, says the Heathen in St. Austin, [in Psal. 113.] sed per Effigiem corporalem ejus rei signum intueor, quam colere debeo. And it appears from the Discourse of John of Thessalonica, recorded in the fifth Action of that Synod, which first established this hopeful way of Worship in Christendom, that the Heathens at that time denied they worshipped Images, but only the Spiritual Powers through them. Nay, farther, that the more Learned thinking parts of the Gentile-World, as the Schools of Socrates and Plato amongst the Greeks, did worship one true Supreme God, by some of their Images; as likewise did the wiser Egyptians, a rational and contemplative People, by theirs, is so largely, so learnedly evinced by an unanswerable Writer of our own Church; that 'tis but manners his Labour should supersede any others upon this Argument, too copious to admit of any more than a bare mention here. I only therefore briefly Remark, without descending to Particulars, That if we will allow the wiser Heathens to have had any Notions of one Supreme God, (and he must be a great Stranger, not only to theirs, but to Christian Writers concerning them, who will not allow them to have had very noble and great ones) we must likewise grant that they worshipped him in a measure proportionable to those Notices and Conceptions they had of him. Agreeable hereunto the great Apostle, in the first Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, speaking of the Heathen Philosophers, as Chrysostom observes, grants them not only to have known God, even the Eternal Power and Godhead, by Deductions from the Creatures; but likewise, to have glorified him in their Devotions, only indeed they did not glorify him as God, but in a way unsuitable to the infinite Perfections of his Nature, that is, as the Apostle explains himself in v. 23. by corporeal Images and Representations.  
Thus again, The same Apostle in his Encounter with the Wits of Athens, Acts 17. taking it for granted they acknowledged one Supreme God, though indeed they had not such clear and distinct Conceptions of him, but that he was still in a great measure unknown to them, as the Inscription upon the Altar styled him, plainly tells us, that they worshipped him; for they worshipped him whom he afterwards declared unto them, according to the Text; (whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you) and he, I presume, will be easily granted to have been the true God. Their only fault laid in the means or manner of their Worship, the Images graven by Art and man's Device, things so highly incongruous to the transcendent Perfections of his Nature, as the Apostle there argues. And what he has affirmed of the Greek Philosophers, Plutarch and others, who have writ concerning the Egyptian Worship, assert equally of them; and indeed, it seems highly absurd, to imagine that they, who were so profoundly versed in the Books of the Creation, should not in some measure spell out the great Creator by them, as well as other People. So that from the generality of this way of Worship by Images, and of the Supreme God by several of them, amongst the Egyptians especially, (whose way and notions of Worship must needs be supposed to have made a deep Impression upon the minds of those People to whom this Law was first given) we have good reason to conclude, That the Divine Wisdom, which in the first Commandment forbade all false Objects of Worship, had in this second a more peculiar regard to this corrupt manner of it.  
But, 2dly, this Sense of the Law will farther appear from those Reasons by which 'tis farther enforced, and some particular Instances of the contrary Practice related in Scripture. The reason urged by Moses, in the Repetition of this Law, in the 4th of Deuterenomy, is, that they saw no manner of Similitude on the day that the Lord spoke unto them in Horeb, out of the midst of the Fire: Where I would only desire to know, whether the force of that Reason be levelled against making the Representations of false Gods, or the true; unless indeed they will have him a false God who spoke to the People out of the midst of the Fire. The Argument offered against this Practice by the Evangelical Prophet, seems to go a little farther than that urged by Moses, proceeding not upon the want of Countenance from God's non-appearance to them in any Similitude, but upon the intrinsic Absurdity and Incongruity of the thing. All Nations, says he, before him are as nothing, and they are counted to him as less than nothing, and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? [Isa. 4. 17, etc.] Where I hope our Adversaries will not be so absurd, as to make an Argument against Worshipping the true God by Representations derived from the incomprehensible Majesty of his Nature, a dissuasive only from the worship of Heathen Idols.  
If from the Reasons by which the Law is enforced, we descend to particular Instances of the Violation of it; they are so impregnable an evidence of the truth of what we assert, that 'tis next to an affront to an intelligent Audience to insist upon them. For what Men in their Wits, but they who pretend to the faculty of making Gods themselves, can imagine the Jewish Highpriest so absurd, as to have designed the Golden Calf for the true God of Israel, or the People to have worshipped it as such? Was Aaron indeed so Blasphemously fond of the Work of his Hands, as to give that, and not rather the great Object designed to be worshipped by't, the incommunicable Name of Jehovah, as he does in the Proclamation of the Feast upon this occasion? Or, did they take the Man Moses for their God? For, for aught I see, they only desired one in his Capacity, upon the occasion of his Absence, Up, make us gods; or as Nehemiah has it, a God, which shall go before us; for, as for this Moses, who went before us out of the land of Egypt, we wots not what is become of him. So that they either before took Moses that living Symbol of the Divine Presence amongst them, for a God, or did not now take the Calf for one, but only for a Symbolical Representation and Presence of him, agreeable to the Worship of Egypt. Or, must we, lastly, to show that these Jews were worse than other People, suppose them indeed so completely Sottish, as to have really taken the Calf for the God that brought them out of the Land of Egypt, even before it was made, whilst the divine stupid thing lay yet scattered in the Earrings of its future Votaries? If from this Calf in the Wilderness, we pass on to those at Dan and Bethel, we find them likewise designed for no other end, than visible Symbols of the true God of Israel. Jeroboam, who set them up, never pretending an alteration in the Object, but only in the place of the People's worship; as is evident from hence, that the Sin of Ahab (who actually introduced the worship of a false God) is loaded with much greater Aggravations than this of Jeroboam; that the Worshippers of Ahab's God, Baal, are mentioned in Contradistinction to those who worshipped the Lord, [1 Kings 18. 21.] The generality whereof did at that time worship him by Jeroboam's Calves; That Jehu styles his Zeal against the Worshippers of Baal, a zeal for the Lord, i. e. the established Worship of the Kingdom at Dan and Bethel by the two Calves to which he adhered, [2 King's 10. 16.] And indeed, Jeroboam must have been as much out of his Policticks, of which he was perfectly Master, as some Men are out of their Divinity, had he gone about to have secured the Revolt made to him, (the only end he designed in the Change made of their Worship) by the Introduction of strange Gods into it; that being the very cause for which, as Ahijah had but just lately told him, the Divine Vengeance rend the Kingdom from Solomon, and gave it to him, his Servant, [1 Kings 11. 11, 31, 33.] and yet for all Jeroboam's good Intentions of directing his Worship to a right ultimate Object, the God of Israel, by the Calves; we know what that God thought of him for it. Thus, lastly, were the Graven and the Molten Images of Micha, in the 17th of Judges, dedicated unto the Lord, says the Text, to the worship of the only true God. As is farther evident from the Opinion he had, that the Lord would do him good for what he had done; especially, since he had got a Levite to Officiate in his little private Oratory; which he had little reason to expect, if he worshipped them either beside, or in Opposition to that Lord from whom he expected the Blessing.  
I should now come to make out the same Sense of this Commandment, from the third Medium I proposed; The Sentiments of the Church in its purest Ages; showing that the Fathers utterly condemned all manner of Images set up for Religious Worship, such as respected God particularly, and not merely those of the Heathen World, on considerations peculiar to them; and this upon the strength of the Prohibition in the Text, or other Places of the same import with it. But what I have said, being sufficient to give light to the true meaning of the Law, and the evincing of this Truth consequent upon it, That in the Scripture-notion, a man may be guilty of Idolatry, who Worships a right ultimate Object by an Image; I must be content to dismiss this last Argument, because it would require so just a Discourse of itself, that it cannot possibly be comprised within the limits allotted to this.  
I proceed to the second thing I proposed, The consideration of the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, in relation to the Worship here prohibited; and because an Image being made a Medium of Worship, becomes likewise an intermediate Object of it, the Original being worshipped in and by that Worship, which is relatively given to the Images; and because this will appear in the Sequel of this Discourse, to be the true intent and meaning of the Church; I shall consider their Doctrine and Practice under the term of Image-worship.  
But cannot but justly complain, before I go any further, of the great insincerity, that has of late been used in representing their Doctrines to the World. If we'll believe the modern Palliators and Expositors, we have been upon a false Scent all this while; our Forefathers, poor Men, either fond or wilfully pursued the mistaken Ideas of their own Imagination, instead of attending to the Intention of the Church; and there needs now no more than an innocent turn to the State of any Controversy betwixt us, finally to decide it. So that in truth, we have more ado now, to know what their Doctrines are, than to refute them; as if they too, as well as their secret Disciples, were for a time to go in disguise amongst us. Now, of all the Points in dispute betwixt us and them, there has certainly none been more artificially dressed up, than this concerning the Worship of Babies; as if Paint and Varnish were as requisite to the Doctrine, as the Subject of it. Our Eyes every day inform us, (if indeed we may trust the Testimony of our Eyes) that they solemnly consecrate them, carry them in Pomp and Procession, set them up in their Churches, over their very Altars, places most proper for Religious Worship, kiss them, prostrate themselves to 'em, burn Lights and Incense to their Honour; and yet they worship them! no, not they, honest Men, God forbidden! They are only Incentives to their Devotion, Remembrancers of their great Prototypes, and serve to fix their otherwise distracted Thoughts upon their right Objects. So that to speak precisely, and according to the Ecclesiastical Style, when they honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, their intention is not so much to honour the Image, as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of, or before the Image, says the Bishop of Meaux, in his Palliation of the Doctrine of Image-worship; and from him, the Representer.  
To wipe of which Fucus, I shall prove in the first place, That that which is given before, or in the presence of Images, call it here what you will, has relation, or is given to Images, not only before them.  
And secondly, because the same Learned Prelate, and his unhappy Imitator, the Representer, would again qualify the matter by the softer terms of Honour, Reverence, Respect, such a decent Regard as is paid to holy things, and the like;  
I shall show in the second Place, That, what is thus given to Images, is Religious Worship, properly so called.  
1. Then, that what is given before Images, has relation, or is given to Images.  
In order to the Proof whereof, I observe in the first place, that in the Scripture-stile, which we Heretics think as good Argument as the Ecclesiastic, to fall down before Images, is as much as to fall down to them; and either of them, as much as to worship them. Thus Amaziah, in 2 Chron. 25. 14. is said to have bowed down himself, not to, but before the Gods of the Children of Seir, which the Angel of the Lord interpreted worshipping of them; for his anger was kindled against him for so doing, v. 15. In 1 Chron. 17. 25. compared with 2 Sam. 7. 27. to Pray before God, and to God, are equivalent Expressions. And in the New Testament, the worship which the Devil required our Saviour to give him, is expressed in St. Luke, by worshipping before him; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chap. 4. ver. 7. And as the Scripture interprets such Actions to be giving of worship to the thing before which they are done; so likewise, 'tis certain their Chucrh intended no less. All their Divines unanimously, except two or three, who are censured grievously for it, are full to this purpose, and expressly confute this Opinion as Heterodox, and almost Heretical. And why have they perplexed the Christian World so long, with the studied Jargon of their Shifts and Distinctions, telling us, that the Honour, Worship, or whatever else you'll call it here, that they give them, is either Subordinate, Transient, Relative, or the like. For, in short, 'tis none at all, under what Denomination soever, if Images are only a bare external Occasion or Circumstance of such Honour or Worship, as this Palliation pretends. What need all the Scholastic Pother and Noise about that sort of Latria, as they are pleased to call it, which is given to Christ by Images, if the whole Mystery amount to no more than giving it in their Presence? For what should hinder, why the most absolute Divine Worship should not be given him before them, only as they call him to mind, to whom all imaginable Latria is due? Accordingly Bellarmin and Suarez, discerning the necessary consequences of this Opinion, as any Man might do, one would think, without the help of a Prospective; declare, like honest Men, that it utterly vacates the whole State of the Controversy; and that if this Notion takes place, the question about the Worship of Images is at an end without farther dispute, and ought absolutely to be denied.  
But because all the Worthies of that Church hitherto, were only private, and the Bishop of Meaux, perhaps a public Doctor; I appeal in the second Place, to that Council of Nice, which the Trent Divines confirm as Authentic; and there we find them styled in one place, little better than mad; in another, half wicked, who affirm that Images are only to be retained for helps to Memory, and not for Worship or Salutation; and not to multiply Instances in a Case so notorious, they are roundly Anathematised in the seventh Action of that Synod, who come not up to the business of their Worship; and for the sake of common Sense, why is the Notion of a relative Worship so frequently repeated and inculcated by the great Spokesmen of that Senate, and insisted chief upon, as an healing Consideration, in the very decree of the Trent Council upon the same Subject, if there had then been no more in the wind, than only worshipping in the Presence of an Image, as an occasion of, and an incitement to that Duty? For as any Man's reason will inform him, this Notion of Relative Worship makes the Image an intermediate Object of Worship, though the reason of such Worship consist not in the Image itself, but in its Relation to the thing represented; and therefore I cannot but wonder what that Learned Prelate meant in his Appeal to the Decree of the Council of Trent, for the Confirmation of his Exposition, unless he supposed that Heretics had no Eyes in their Heads, which is all that's requisite to refute him in this particular. For, besides what I have just now said, 'tis as palpable as words can make it that the Decree expressly defines that Images are to be worshipped, unless indeed, debitum cultum & venerationem impertiri imaginibus, be in a new Catholic Version to worship something else before them.  
Secondly, One would think it had been every whit as obvious for the Reverend Fathers of the Council, to have expressed themselves by honos qui coram imaginibus exhibetur, as qui eis exhibetur, and to have framed the tenor of the whole Decree accordingly, if that had been their intention. And in the third and last place, I would only desire to know, Whether or no it be the same thing to worship before Images, and by them, the one the Language of the Bishop, the other of the Council; it a ut per imagines, say they; not coram imaginibus, quas osculamus, and so forth. But any thing, it seems, rather than fail of making Conversions; and perhaps the more gilt the toys, the properer they are to wheedle the Children into the bosom of their Pretended Mother; and I hearty wish that Learned man joy of the honour of being the first who ever yet could make a Doctrine pass for Catholic, against the almost entirely universal vote of the Writers of his own Communion, and the express words of two of their Ecumenical Councils: An happy man he, indeed, who can stamp that Character upon a Doctrine, for the vending whereof two or three dissenting Brethren amongst them, whose Obsolete Opinion he has revived, could hardly escape the Censure of Heresy.  
And thus much for the Proof of the First Proposition, That what is given before Images, has relation, or is given to them. I now come to prove in the Second Place, in opposition to a farther Palliation, respecting the Acts themselves, styling them only Honour, Reverence, Respect, or the like, That what is given to Images, is Religious Worship, properly and strictly so called.  
And the most natural way to do that, will be,  
1. To explain what we mean by Religious Worship. And then,  
2. To examine their allowed Doctrine and Practice, in relation to what they give to Images. Whereby it will distinctly appear, Whether or no the latter fall within the Notion of the former, which is the question.  
First then, I mean by Religious Worship, an awful acknowledgement of the Supreme Excellency, Power and Dominion of the Divinity over us, his transcendent Excellencies raising in us the most profound Honour for him, to which his Absolute Power and Dominion superadd the more formal Reason of Worship. Now man being a compound of Soul and Body, this acknowledgement must accordingly be twofold, interior of the one, and exterior of the other; the latter being not only a sign and indication of, but naturally consequent upon the former, and as absolutely requisite, as is the public external exercise of Religion, the greater advancement of God's Glory, and the acknowledgement of his superiority over one part of us as well as another; it being necessary, if for no other reason, to glorify God in our Bodies as well as Spirits, because they are both God's; and an unanswerable argument, that external actions must bear a part in the due performance of Religious Worship, is this, That otherwise we could never be certain of any false Worship in the World, since the internal actions of the mind do not fall of themselves within human cognizance: As to the former part of this Worship, the internal veneration and submission of our Souls, there is no doubt at all, but that he who gives that to Creatures, or any Images of them, gives them Religious Worship with a witness; the only difficulty lies in the external actions of the Body, as Bowing of the Head, Genuflexion, etc. which being capable of different Constructions, Civil as well as Religious, the main point of our present enquiry, must be how to know when such actions become of a Religious signification; for when they do so, they become acts of external Adoration, which the common notions of mankind, ever since the world began, have determined to be parts of Religious Worship: And whence, I pray, should such actions take the particular denomination of Religious, but from what Physical Actions receive any other appellations; and that is either positive appropriation to such an use, or from the Circumstances of Time, Place, Occasion, Object, and the like, as well as intention of him that does them? Thus, for instance, acts of Sacrifice and Incense, become acts of Religious Worship, because God appropriated them to his Service. Thus the Prostration which the Devil required of our Saviour, was by him interpreted Religious Worship, because the occasion was argument enough that he could demand no other. Thus though a man may kneel, bow his head, or incline his body to his Friend, his Father, or his King, and still keep within the bounds of Civil Decency and Decorum; yet if he should use the Solemn Rites appointed for a Religious Performance, consecrate his friend, place him not only in the Church, but upon the Altar; and at the set times of Prayer, there pay the same external acts of respect to him, no man would stick to pronounce them religious, from the natural notions we have of such actions, so circumstantiated; accordingly we find St. Austin in one place insisting upon the particular circumstance of placing their Statues over the Altar, to prove that the Heathens, constructively, took them for Gods, i. e. gave them Divine Worship. Quod numen habeant, & pro numine accipiant, illam statuam ara testatur, etc. Nemo mihi dieat, non é Deus, non é numen (for it seems they stood upon the goodness of their Intentions too) utinam ipsi sic norint, says he, quomodo nos novimus, sed quid habeant, pro quâ re habeant ara testatur. Thus again when S. John in an Extacy fell down at the Feet of the Angel, that action likewise came under the notion of Religious Worship (which he bid him therefore give to God) because the Angel, the Object to which it was done, was of a nature Superior in Power and Perfection to his own. For such respects, proceeding not from any civil Relations to such beings, of which they are not capable, but from a strange awful Apprehension of some secret Power and Superiority they have over us; they partake of the formal Reason of the Worship of God himself, and must therefore be looked upon as Religious. Upon the same ground, doubtless, did St. Peter interpret the Worship Cornelius gave him to be Religious, from the extraordinary Sentiments which he saw he had of his Person, as of one above the Power and Perfection of humane Nature; as sufficiently appears from the Apostles bidding him stand up, for that he also was a man, [Acts 10.] And thus all mankind naturally judge of such Actions without the least Hesitancy or Demur, though perhaps they never state the Point, unless upon occasion, nor attend to the reasons why they do so. And what has been said of such Actions in relation to animate Being's, will for the very same reasons hold good of them, when performed with regard to the Images of such Being's; besides, that the Worship of the Images being referred to the thing represented, it must of necessity be the same, and not a different kind of Worship.  
Thus much then for the Explication of the term of Religious Worship. The next and most natural advance now is, to examine whether or no, by the Authentic Doctrine, and the best authorized Practice of the Church of Rome, any such Worship given to Images.  
And first, I shall examine them in relation to the first and principal part of it, the internal Veneration and Submission of the mind. This, I presume, being the most considerable Part of that worship they are pleased to call Latria; for that, as the second Council of Nice describes it, is done, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Spirit or Mind.  
That St. Thomas, as the Phrase is, and his numerous Adherents determined the worship of Latria, and consequently the most interior Devotion of the mind, to be given to the Images of Christ, is notoriously known; and yet St. Thomas may vie with any Bishop in Europe, in Approbations from Rome; witness the Eulogies and noble Testimonies concerning him and his Doctrine, by John the 22 d who Canonised him; by Paul the 5th, Innocent the 6th, Clement the 8th, Vrban the 5th, Pius 5th, in their several Bulls, or other Discourses relating to this Saint. But because Testimonials signify nothing, perhaps, when urged the wrong way, and that reason is altogether as satisfactory to those they call Heretics, as a naked Authority; I shall show, That this Opinion of Aquinas is undeniably consequent, both upon the Doctrine and Practice of their Church.  
First, Upon the Doctrine. The reason assigned for the Worship of Images in the Council of Trent, is, Because the Honour which is exhibited to them, is referred, or, as the second Council of Nice more clearly expresses it, does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pass on, or go through, to the Prototypes which they represent. Now, says Aquinas, who quotes this Reason from Damasus, the Worship that is given to the Prototype, Christ himself, is certainly latria, and consequently so must that be too which is given to his Image; for otherwise how can the Worship be said to be referred to, or pass on, from the One to the Other, if it be not the same, but a different sort of Worship?  
A Reasoning this, as old as the second Council of Nice itself, where it is urged, without the least Contradiction, by John the Vicar of the Oriental Bishops; and they may refute it at their leisure, unless, by a modern sort of Logic, it be Answer sufficient to disavow a Consequence evidently deduced from Principles allowed, i. e. to hold fast the Premises, and yet deny the Conclusion.  
But, secondly, this Doctrine of Aquinas is most undeniably consequent upon the Practice of the Church, the best Comment upon her Doctrine; and that in relation, particularly, to the Images of the Cross; where I shall need only barely to relate the Prayers addressed to them, and then leave any man to judge whether or no the great Doctor of the Schools, and his Followers, who expressly found their Opinion thereupon, concerning the latria that is to be given them, did not argue like Men of both that Sincerity and Logic which were to be desired in later Writers of that Communion. In their Breviary then, of as good Authority as the Council of Trent could make it, by whose Order it was restored, we find this Hymn to the Cross: Arbor decora & fulgida (for I'll repeat the words in their own Language, for fear of a Misrepresentation) ornata Regis purpurá, electa digno stipite, tam sancta Membra tangere. O Crux ave spe●●●ita, in hoc Paschali gaudio, ange piis justitiam reisque dova veniam. To which the Antiphona subjoins: O Crux splendidior cunctis astris, mundo celebris, hominibus multum amabilio, sanctior universis, quae sola fuisti digna portare talentum mundi, dulce lignum, dulces clavos, dulcia ferens pondera, salva presentem catervam, in tuis hodie laudibus congregatam. Where the Crux, the Arbour decora, electa digno stipite, and the dulce lignum, to which these notable Petitions are addressed, are so expressly distinguished from the sancta membra, the talentum mundi, and dulcia pondera, which they bore upon them, that 'tis not in the power of all the Figures in Rhetoric to construe them as put up to Christ himself, unless Christ may be styled the Cross, the Tree, the Wood, chosen of a worthy Trunk, as well as the Person that hung upon it. And, but to add one word more; The Rubric in the Pontifical, determining the manner of Procession at the Reception of the Emperor, order the Cross of the Legate to have the Right-hand, quia debetur ei latria, without any distinction, or farther explication of the term.  
If to what I have proved from Authorities very little inferior to a positive Decree of Council, be opposed the silence of the Trent-fathers' in the matter, (and I see nothing else at present that can be objected:) I answer;  
First, That their silence in a Point which they ought to have condemned, had they disliked, ought certainly to pass for a  Approbation. Secondly, That I have already made it appear from the Reason of Image Worship assigned in the very Decree of the Council, that the Images of Christ are to be worshipped with latria, the most proper Divine Worship imaginable. Thirdly, That they still retained those Prayers and Hymns to the Cross, which the best Heads of that Communion grounded their Opinions upon, as is evident from the Breviary restored by their Order, published and revised since by several of their Popes. And fourthly and lastly, That the Council plainly enough countenances this Doctrine, as well as any other; for, defining only in general, That due Worship and Veneration is to be given them, any man certainly may give the Images of Christ, and the Cross, the Worship of latria, who thinks it their due; especially when backed with the Practice of the Church, the best Expositor of what the Council meant by their due Worship.  
And thus much in proof, That the internal Veneration of the Mind is paid to Images. After which, it will be no hard matter to prove, that the acts of external Adoration are performed to them likewise, though upon the account of their relation to their Originals, which altars not the Object, but only the Reason of such Worship. And for this I might appeal, not only to the Epistle of Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople at the time of the second Nicene Council, to Constantine and Irene, besides infinite other places, but to the very Definition of that Council in the seventh Action, where they are anathematised who deny it. I only observe, that the word by which the Council expresses such Worship, is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same whereby the Holy Ghost styled that which the Devil required of our Saviour; which Tarasius, in the forementioned Epistle, explains by the exterior actions of Kissing, Bowing, Prostration, etc. the internal signification of which Actions he there affirms to be improved and augmented by the addition of the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the obsolete Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; to all which that Council adds, in its very Definition, the burning of Lights and Incense. As for the Synod of Trent, which confirms it, the Fathers there expressly decree the exterior acts of Adoration to be done to Images.  
The Trent-Catechism tells us they are placed in the Church ut colantur, that they may be worshipped. The Pontifical informs us, That in the Benediction of a new Cross, the Priest, flexis ante crucem genibus, ipsam devotè adorat & osculatur. The Choir sings, upon a Good-Friday, upon uncovering the Cross to the People, Venite adoremus; which they accordingly perform, by Prostration, and suchlike Actions. The Head of the Church himself, good Man, on that day goes between two Cardinals, ad adorandum, to adore the Cross, says the Ceremonial, bowing himself in great humility to it. Now all these exterior actions being performed with all the Formalities, Occasions, Circumstances and Solemnities, which the common sense of Mankind pronounces sufficient to denominate them Religious; as, at set Times of Religious Worship, fixed Places of it, in Temples and before Altars, with burning of Lights, oblation of Incense, and with Intention of worshipping the Image thereby, (for otherwise 'tis all but Mockery and Grimace, as several of their own Authors irrefragably argue, and a Man only plays the fool with an Image, for the sake of its Original;) such Actions, I say, must therefore inevitably fall under the Notion of Religious Adoration, a necessary part of Religious Worship; and consequently Religious Worship, as it relates to the actions of both Body and Mind, is given to Images themselves in the Church of Rome.  
But because these Men have sought out many Inventions to vacate rather the force of this Law, than totally to recede from a Doctrine and Practice repugnant to it, when once decreed by Infallible Church: let us, in the last place, briefly examine how they qualify the matter, and palliate the Cure which they resolve not to perfect.  
And first, as to the Images of the Trinity, which he must be a very bold man who affirms it unlawful either to make or to worship in the Church of Rome; they tell us, That they are not intended for Representations of the Divine Nature as it is in itself, but only of the Appearances of the Divine Persons; as of our Saviour in an Humane Form, of the Holy Ghost in the Shape of a Dove, etc.  
To which 'tis answered briefly, first, That unless they can show how any thing can be represented otherwise than according to its Appearances, or that an Heathen Phidias, Apelles, or others, ever set up for carving or painting Natures and Souls, Invisibilities, Abstractions, and Essences, this distinction must be vain and insignificant; and just as if a Prince, having made it Treason by an express Law to draw his Picture, a Criminal should think to come off by alleging that he drew indeed his Face and his Body, but not his Soul, or his reasonable Nature Secondly, I say, That God having prohibited all Representations of himself whatsoever, whether they be likenesses of things in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the Water under the Earth; he has consequently forbid all Representations of his Appearances; for they must be in the Likeness of some of the things before mentioned. And thirdly, I ask upon what grounds the Representations of such Appearances, as that of an Old Man for God the Father, and of a Dove for God the Holy Ghost, which are mere Representations of Creatures not personally united to the Godhead, not even during such Appearances, much less in their Representations, come to be the Object of Religious Worship.  
Others therefore among them, upon these, or the like Considerations, being infinitely scandalised, as well they may, at this horrible Practice, yet think themselves without the reach of the Prohibition of this Law, in worshipping Christ by an Image, since the actual hypostatical Union of the Humane to the Divine Nature in him, here upon Earth.  
But that this is by no means sufficient to justify the Worship of Christ by a Representation of an Humane Form, will appear from this single Consideration, That he being the proper Object of our Worship, upon the account of his Godhead only, that Law which forbids Men to worship God by any Images or Figures of him, must likewise forbid them to worship Christ so too, who is God. Had indeed the assuming of our Nature contributed any thing towards the Glory of the Divine, thereby founding, as it were, a farther Reason of Worship, there might then have been some specious Colour for worshipping him still by Representations of it: But since this form of a Servant was so far from being a fresh accession to, that it was the very emptying himself of his Glory, it must needs be very preposterous and absurd to think of honouring him by that, much more by the dead senseless Figure of the very exterior Lineaments of that, not capable of any Union with him, which he thought so infinitely debasing of his Nature, whilst, for our sakes, he bore it about him.  
A third Colour by which they would render this Practice plausible, are those words in the Trent Decree, which forbidden us to believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images for which they ought to be worshipped, to demand any favour of them, or put any trust in them, as the Gentiles did. Which words, says the Bishop of Meaux, are so many Characters to distinguish them from Idolaters.  
To which I return, first, That the Prohibition in the Law extending to all manner of Images without exception, or distinction of such as are believed to have Virtue and Divinity in them, and such as are not; we expect better Reason than any yet offered for restraining the Prohibition to any particular kind of them. Secondly, I absolutely deny that the Heathens, unless the very Beasts of the People, (and those may find Parallels enough in our opposite Communion) had such gross and sottish Conceptions of their Images, as the Council and their Writers would fix upon them; as has been touched upon before, and is so clearly made out by several good hands already, that I might safely omit it, had I time to insist upon it here. All the Virtue and Divinity that they thought lodged in them, if we will believe their own Testimony in Arnobius, was only such as they conceived did derive from their Consecration to such an Use. Wherein, I say, thirdly, the Romanists seem equally guilty. Witness the many notable Miracles, reported of their Images, by no less Authority than that of the wise Fathers of the second Nicene Council. Witness the known Practice of Pilgrimages to some of them, rather than to others. Witness several of their own Authors, who assure us, That Christ himself is most truly believed to be present in them after a particular manner. Witness, lastly, what is unquestionable Authority, the Prayers extant in the Pontifical and Ceremonial, used to this day in the Benediction of the Images of the Cross, and the Consecration of Agnus Dei's: As that, particularly, to omit several others, wherein the Priest prays, That the very Lignum Crucis, the Wood of the Cross which he dedicates, on purpose as it were to bar all Figures in the Construction, may be a wholesome Remedy to Mankind, a strengthening of Faith, a Comfort, Protection, and Safeguard against the cruel Darts of the Enemy, etc.  
In the Consecration of those Divine Baubles, Agnus Dei's, the Head of the Church himself, to make sure of the business, prays, That they may receive Virtue, ut virtutem accipiant, against all the Wiles of the Devil, Tempests, Pestilences, Adversities, Falling sickness, Fires, Miscarriages in Women, Iniquities, and what not? and that they who carry them about them, and worship them, adds another Prayer, may partake of the Benefits of those great and transcendent Virtues they are endowed with. After which I desire only to know, first, Whether or no we may not very rationally presume, that such Virtues as these come in for a share of the Reason of that Worship which is given to such Images of the Cross and Agnus Dei's, after Consecration? And secondly, Whether or no the Bishop of Meaux has represented their Doctrine with that Sincerity and good Faith which might become a Person of his Character and Undertaking, when he tells us, that they attribute no other Virtue to Images, but that of exciting in them the remembrance of those they represent.  
The fourth and last Asylum they fly to, is the distinction of Worship into inferior and relative, given to Images; and Sovereign and Absolute, terminated upon their Originals.  
Now that these terms, how plausible soever, can have no place in the present business of Divine Worship, will appear from the consideration of the reason why they came to be used, and that was their congruity indeed to the nature of Civil Honours and Respects, from whence they came, but very illogically, to be applied to the acts of Religious Worship, different in the whole Species from them. The reason of Civil Honours are Civil Excellencies; and the reason of the different degrees of them, the different Excellencies, orders, Stations, and Capacities of Men who are their Object, which may therefore be given to them in different measures, and by different methods.  
But now the proper Reason of Religious Worship being the Supreme Sovereignty and Power of Almighty God, and that being utterly incommunicable to a Creature, which is infinitely distant in its whole nature and kind, how excellent soever it be, neither can any part or parcel of Divine Worship which is founded thereupon, in any respect whatsoever be given to any thing besides himself; and therefore though I may, for instance, give inferior degrees of civil respect to a Subject, without entrenching upon the Honour due to a King, because they are both of the same kind of Being's, to which civil respects belong, differing not specifically in their Natures, but politic Capacities only; yet cannot I therefore give an inferior degree of Religious Worship to a Creature, much less to its Image, or any Image of God, which is a Creature still, because it is different in the whole kind from him, as different only as Finite is from Infinite, and does not in the least partake of the reason of such worship. And therefore, again, though I may Honour my Prince, as the Representer argues, by relatively honouring his Image for his sake, because my Prince has not forbid it, and is a Being of such a Nature as to admit of a Representation, and of Honour by it; yet cannot I therefore worship God by an Image, not only by reason of the natural incapacity of the object, as before; but because he has expressly prohibited such Worship: and as a Reason thereof, has been pleased to acquaint us, that He's a Being of such a Glorious and Infinite Nature, as neither can be represented, nor receive any honour by Graven Images.  
Agreeable to what has been said, we may observe that the Law now before us prohibits the lowest sort of worship that we can possibly bestow on them, the external acts of bowing down to them, and the like, as the Text words it; and that in a relative sense too, it being the scope and intent of the Commandment to prohibit the Worship of God by them, as we have before evinced: Thus likewise the worship which the Devil required of our blessed Lord, was no more than the bare exterior act of falling down, not only to, but before Him, as we have before already observed out of St. Luke, which yet our Saviour denied him; and that not upon considerations peculiar to that infernal Spirit, but for such a Reason as will hold against any other Creature, and much more its Image: because God, the Great God, was the only true and adequate Object of what he required. Accordingly we find the Fathers frequently insisting upon these two places now alleged, as utterly irreconcilable with all use of Images in the business of Divine Worship; and indeed had they once broke in upon these comprehensive Precepts, as comprehensive as words can make them, by Salvoes and Distinctions, the trash and refuse of School-Divinity, it cannot well be imagined how they could have oppugned the Heathen Philosophers in this particular, who generally acknowledging one supreme God, gave only a relative and inferior worship to all created Being's, and images of them, as they themselves abundantly testify; or how they could have escaped the same condemnation with the Heathen world in general, who owning several inferior Deities, could, consequently give them, and their images, or rather them by their images, no more than an inferior worship. How could they, if the business of relative Worship had then been thought sufficient to excuse from Idolatry, even where the ultimate Object is right, have condemned the Gnostics of it, who terminated the worship they gave to Images of Christ upon Christ himself, as is on all hands confessed? How could they, again, admitting this distinction, so unanimously have pronounced the Arrians Idolaters, for worshipping Christ under the notion of a Creature, notwithstanding those Heretics alleged they worshipped Him only as the Image of God the Father, upon whom they ultimately terminated the the worship which they relatively gave to him? So repugnant are their distinctions with the comprehensive Precepts of God, in relation to his Worship, and the sense of the purest Antiquity, the best Rules we have to walk by.  
I might farther, in the last place, evidently display the utter inconsistency of one distinction, and of one Doctor's Opinion, with another in this matter, but that the time will not give me leave; and therefore I shall content myself, to shut up this Argument with this brief Reflection, That the repugnancies amongst them, and the almost unintelligible subtleties they are driven to in defence of their respective Doctrines upon this subject are, upon the whole, to any unprejudiced person, a strong indication of a desperate cause.  
And now is it not an amazing consideration, to find the worship of those things grown up into an Article of our Christian Faith, and a condition of Salvation itself, which some of the ablest Writers of the purest Ages of the Church, such as Clemens of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian thought it unlawful for a Christian even to make, which the Fathers of those and aftertimes general thought improper, at least, for the Churches of God; which were afterwards introduced into those sacred places, upon the unhappy supposition they would prove proper motives to draw the Gentile world, who had been used to them, to their Assemblies, and the Christian Profession; and were of no other than ornamental and historical use there; which, when began first to be worshipped, had no other Votaries than the ignorant and superstitious; and which no part of the whole Christian Church ever made any object of Religious adoration for Seven hundred eighty seven years together; a Doctrine, nourished in its growth, by notorious Treason and Rebellion, advanced and confirmed by trifling Reasonings, frivolous or false Quotations, fabulous Stories, lying Miracles, and all that idle trash extant, God be thanked, at this day in that glorious Council of Nice, which first established Baby-worship by a Law; a Doctrine and Practice that originally derived from Gentile superstition; remains an everlasting obstruction to the Conversion of the Jew; is without the least countenance from the written Word of God, in the confession of our Adversaries themselves; the very Council of Nice, the great Aquinas, Suarez, and others, founding it only upon that hopeful Basis of I know not what Tradition: A Practice, lastly, not only besides the Rule of our Religion, but particularly repugnant to the Nature and Genius of the worship if requires, a worship in Spirit and Truth, that would be performed with as deep an abstraction from sense, as the complexed condition of humanity will admit; a worship that ought to ascend to its great object above, in steady and direct rays of fervour and devotion, without the least refraction from sensible intermediate Objects, which clog, retard, and frequently cut short its flight in any one's experience, who attends to the Actions of his own mind in this particular. And therefore, are Images so far from being any assistance to us in our Devotions, as is pretended,  
That first, as to the Vulgar, the far greatest Part every where, and who carry no distinctions to Church with them, they inevitably plunge them into the Commission of the most crass and profound Idolatry; as has been frequently and sadly complained of by several sober Writers of that Communion; and is, at this day, a most deplorable Spectacle in those Countries, where these dumb Instructors of the Ignorant, as they would have them thought, abound in greatest numbers. No nor  
Secondly, Can the Devotion of the most intelligent abstracting Persons escape considerable Corruption and Alloy by this way of Worship; which I think demonstrable from hence, That the wisest Men being made up of Soul and Body, as well as the rest, and the Operations of one part being in every one's experience limited and depressed by the weight and contrary tendency of the other visible Objects do in spite of ourselves, most sensibly affect us; and consequently, a visible Representation of an invisible Object, supposed too to bear some Analogy to its Original, actually courting our Senses in the Duties of Devotion, which of all our Actions ought to be the most purely spiritual and refined, will, by insensible advances, work its self into an internal Respect and Veneration in the minds of its Votaries, will tie down the best of their Devotions to the Object of their Eyes, and gradually engross a greater share in them, than the thing represented. For a further Confirmation whereof, I desire only, with St. Austin, to appeal to the Observation and Conscience of any, who ever repeats the Experiment. Quis adorat, vel orat intuens simulacrum, qui non sic afficitur, ut ab eo se exaudiri putet, ac ab eo sibi praestari quod desiderat speret, [in Ps. 113.] And therefore, Men may talk of their Intentions in the performance of such Actions as long as they please; God, who knows what is in Man, better than he himself is acquainted with the utmost stretch and extent of his Faculties, Judges thus of them, and so indeed, will any Man too who attentively reflects upon them himself. Thus, for instance, does the Divine Wisdom tell us, That he who commits any known Sin, casts his Laws behind him, says in his heart, God sees it not, or that the God of Israel doth not regard it, and the like, though no Man perhaps ever actually intended, or thought of any such thing at the time of the Commission of his Sin, and would be ready to deny the Justice of the Imputation; which yet, upon Examination, appears undeniably true, every such Sin implying a proportionable degree of Atheism, as the Divine Wisdom interprets it. Let us therefore make his declared Will, not our foolish Intentions, the Rule and Standard of his Worship; and why should it not be the measure of that, as well as of our Obedience to any other of his Commands? Let us in a word, hearty bless God for the Reformation of our Church, from the Fopperies and Idolatrous Practices of the Romish Communion; and never through Fear, Cowardice, Levity of Mind, Temporising Goldness and Indifferency, Interest, or any other Motive, unworthy of a Man, Christian, or Protestant, desert our excellent and established Profession, till we find another more Orthodox in her Doctrine, or more pure and decent in her Worship; and than who knows how soon God may arise, and have Mercy upon our Zion; for it is time, O Lord, that thou have Mercy upon Her, yea, the time is come.  
FINIS.   

Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell.  
DR Patrick's Parable of the Pilgrim. The 6th Edition Corrected.  
— Exposition of the Ten Commandments. 8vo.  
— Private Prayer to be used in difficult times.  
— Sermon before the Prince of Orange at St. James', 20th January, 1688.  
— Sermon before the Queen at Whitehall, March 1. 1688.  
Dr. Burnet's Collection of Tracts and Discourses, written after the Discovery of the Popish Plot, from the years 1678, to 1685. To which is added, A Letter written to Dr Burnet, giving an Account of Cardinal Pools Secret Powers. The History of the Powder Treason, with a Vindication of the Proceed thereupon. An Impartial Consideration of the Five Jesuits Dying Speeches, who were executed for the Popish Plot, 1679.  
— His Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England: In which is demonstrated, that all the Essentials of Ordination, according to the Practice of the Primitive and Greek Churches, are still retained in our Church.  
— Reflections on the Relation of the English Reformation, lately Printed at Oxford. In two Parts 4 to  
— Animadversions on the Reflections upon Dr. Bvrnets' Travels. 8 o.  
— Reflections on a Paper, entitled his Majesty's Reasons for withdrawing himself from Rochester.  
— An Enquiry into the Present State of Affairs, and in particular, whether we own Allegiance to the King in these Circumstances? And whether we are bound to Treat with Him, and call him back or no?  
— A Sermon Preached in Saint James' Chapel before the Prince of Orange 23 d. December, 1688.  
— A Sermon Preached before the House of Commons, 31. January, 1688. being the Thanksgiving day for the Deliverance of this Kingdom from Popery and Arbitrary Power.  
— His Eighteen Papers relating to the Affairs of Church and State, during the Reign of King James the Second Seventeen whereof were written in Holland, and first Printed there; the other at Exeter, soon after the Prince of Orange's Landing in England.  
— A Letter to Mr. Thevenot, Containing a Censure of Mr. Le Grand's History of King Henry the Eighth's Divorce. To which is added, a Censure of Mr. the Meauxes History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches. Together with some further Reflections on Mr. Le Grand. 1689.  

Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Lateraria a Christ nat● usque ad Saculum XIV. Fac●l● Methodo ●●gesta. Qua de Vita illorum ac Rebus gestis, de Secta, Dogmatibus, Elogio, Stylo; de Script● genuin●s, dub●●●, suppositit●●●, ineditis, deperditis, Fragmentis; deque variis Operum Editionibus perspicue agitur. Accedunt Scriptores Gentiles, Christiana Religionis Oppugnatores; & c●y●sves Saculi Breviarium. Inseruntur suis locis Veterunt aliquot Opuj●ula & Fragmenta, tum Graeca, tum Latina, hactenus inedita. Praemissa denique Pro●●gomena, quibus p●er●ma ad Antiquitatis Ecclesiastica studium sp●ctan●a tra●untur Opus Indicibus necessariis instructum. Autore GULIELMO CAVE, SS. Theol. Profes. Canonico Windesoriensi. Accedit ab Alia Manu Appendix ab 〈◊〉 Saeculo XIV. ad Annum usque MDXVII. Fol. 1689.