Answ. We must distinguish between such a determination of circumstances, modes, or accidents, as plainly destroy the worship or the end, and such as do not. For instance, 1. He that saith, You shall never assemble but once a year, or never but at midnight, or never above six or seven minutes at once, &c. doth but determine the circumstance of time: but he doth it so as to destroy the worship, which cannot so be done, in consistency with its ends. But he that shall say, You shall not meet till nine o'clock, nor stay in the night, &c. doth no such thing.

So, 2. He that saith, You shall not assemble but at forty miles' distance one from another; or you shall meet only in a room, that will hold but the twentieth part of the church; or you shall never preach in any city or populous place, but in a wilderness far from the inhabitants, &c. doth but determine the circumstance of place: but he so doth it, as tends to destroy or frustrate the work which God commandeth us. But so doth not he that only boundeth churches by parish bounds, or forbiddeth inconvenient places.

3. So he that saith, You shall never meet under a hundred thousand together, or never above five or six, doth but determine the accident of number: but he so doth it as to destroy the work and end. For the first will be impossible; and in the second way they must keep church assemblies without ministers, when there is not so many as for every such little number to have one. But so doth not he that only saith, You shall not meet above ten thousand, nor under ten.

4. So he that saith, You shall not hear a Trinitarian, but an Arian; or you shall hear only one that cannot preach the essentials of religion, or that cries down godliness itself; or you shall hear none but such as were ordained at Jerusalem or Rome, or none but such as subscribe the council of Trent, &c. doth but determine what person we shall hear: but he so doth it as to destroy the work and end. But so doth not he that only saith, You shall hear only this able minister, rather than that.

I need not stand on the application. In the latter case we owe formal obedience. In the former we must suffer, and not obey.

For if it be meet so to obey, it is meet in obedience to give over God's worship. Christ said, "When they persecute you in one city, flee to another;" but he never said, If they forbid you preaching in any city, or populous place, obey them. He that said, "Preach the gospel to every creature, and to all nations, and all the world," and that "would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,"[351] doth not allow us to forsake the souls of all that dwell in cities and populous places, and preach only to some few cottagers elsewhere; no more than he will allow us to love, pity, and relieve the bodies only of those few, and take none for our neighbours that dwell in cities, but with priest and Levite to pass them by.

Quest. CXI. Must subjects or servants forbear weekly lectures, reading, or such helps, above the Lord's day's worship, if princes or masters do command it?

Answ. 1. There is great difference between a mere subject, or person governed, and a servant, slave, or child.

2. There is great difference between such as are hindered by just cause and real necessities, and such as are hindered only through profane malignity.

(1.) Poor people have not so much leisure from their callings, as the rich; and so providing for their families may, at that time, by necessity become the greater and the present duty.

(2.) So may it be with soldiers, judges, and others, that have present urgent work of public consequence; when others have no such impediment.

(3.) He that is the child or slave of another, or is his own by propriety, is more at his power, than he that is only a subject, and so is but to be governed in order to his own and the common good.

(4.) A servant that hath absolutely hired himself to another, is for that time near the condition of a slave; but he that is hired but with limitations, and exceptions of liberty, (expressed or understood,) hath right to the excepted liberty.

(5.) If the king forbid judges, soldiers, or others, whose labours are due to the public, to hear sermons at that time when they should do their work, or if parents or masters so forbid children and servants, they must be obeyed, while they exclude not the public worship of the Lord's own day, nor necessary prayer and duty in our private daily cases.

(6.) But he that is under such bondage as hindereth the needful helps of his soul, should be gone to a freer place, if lawfully he can. But a child, wife, or such as are not free, must trust on God's help in the use of such means as he alloweth them.

(7.) A prince, or tutor, or schoolmaster, who is not a proprietor of the person, but only a governor, is not to be obeyed formally and for conscience sake, if he forbid his subjects or scholars such daily or weekly helps for their salvation as they have great need of, and have no necessity to forbear; such as are hearing or assembling with the church on the week days at convenient time, reading the Scriptures daily, or good books, accompanying with men fearing God, praying, &c.; because God hath commanded these when we can perform them.

Quest. CXII. Whether religious worship may be given to a creature? and what?

Answ. While the terms of the question remain ambiguous, it is uncapable of an answer.

1. By worship is meant either cultus in genere, any honour expressed to another; or some special act of honour. We must understand the question in the first general sense, or else we cannot answer it, till men tell us, what acts of honouring they mean.

2. By religious is meant, either in general, that which we are bound to by God, or is done by virtue of a religious, that is, a divine obligation, and so is made part of our religion; that is, of our obedience to God: or else by religious is meant divine, or that which is properly due to God. The question must be taken in the first general sense; or else it is no question, but ridiculous (to ask whether we may give God's proper worship to a creature).

And so I answer, 1. By way of distinction. 2. Of solution.

(1.) We must distinguish between the honour of worshipping acts of the mind, and of the body. (2.) Between idolatry as against the first commandment, and idolatry or scandal as against the second.

Af. Prop. 1. There is due to every creature, a true estimation of it according to the degree of its dignity or goodness; and a love proportionable: as also a belief, a trust, a fear, proportionable to every man's credibility, fidelity, power, &c.

2. There is an eminent degree therefore of estimation, reverence, and love, and trust, due to good men above bad, and to those in heaven above those on earth; and a peculiar honour to rulers as such, which is not due to their inferiors.[352]

3. This is to be expressed by the body, by convenient actions.

4. The highest honour which we owe to any, is for the image of God in them; viz. 1. His natural image, as men. 2. His moral image, as saints. 3. His relative image of supereminency, as superiors. And so it is God in them first, and they next as the images of God, who are to be honoured.

5. There is no honour to be given to any creature, but that of which God himself is the end; viz. as it referreth to his glory.

6. Therefore all honour given to men must be thus far religious honour (or worship); for as all things are sanctified to and by saints, so all things that religious men do, must be religiously done.[353]

7. As persons, so places, books, words, utensils, times, &c. must be honoured for God's sake, as they are related to God, with such estimations and expressions as are suitable to their relations.

Neg. 1. No creature must be esteemed to be a god; nor any of God's proper attributes or honour given to any creature whatsoever.

2. No creature must be esteemed better, or greater, or wiser, than it is (as far as we have means to know it).

3. Whatsoever outward expressions of honour (by word or deed) are appropriated to the true God, 1. By divine institution; 2. Or by nature; 3. Or by received usage, that expression of honour ought not to be used to a creature, were the heart never so free from honouring it. (1.) Because it is bodily idolatry: (2.) And scandal as being idolatry interpretatively, in the just sense of others.[354]

4. Whatsoever outward expressions of honour idolaters have used, and do use, to signify their inward idolatry, or taking a creature or a fiction to be God, and so make it a tessera, or symbol, or professing sign of that their idolatry, if those actions are so used or esteemed among us, or within the notice of our actions, it is unlawful for us to use the like to any creature. Because the use of their expression maketh it to be a profession of idolatry by us, and so to be interpretative idolatry and scandal; for to use professing symbols is to profess.

Except when there is some notorious reason to use the same words or actions to another lawful signification, which is of greater weight than the scandal; and we make it as public to obviate the scandal, that we do it not to the idolater's intents.

For example, If the Mahometans make it a symbol of their religion, to say, God is but one, upon a false supposition that the christians make more gods than one; yet it is lawful for us to use that symbolical word to a better end. But if they add to their symbol, and Mahomet is his prophet, we may not use that, because it is, 1. Symbolical of a false religion; 2. And a falsehood of itself.

So if they make it a distinctive note of their religious meetings, to congregate the people by voice and not by bells, when it will be taken for a professing their religion to do the same, we must avoid it; but not when there is great cause for it, (as if we have no other means,) and the reason against it or scandal may be well avoided.

5. Image worship, (or bowing or otherwise worshipping towards an image as an object,) in the time of divine worship, or when we otherwise pretend to be worshipping God, is so gross an appearance of inward idolatry, (either as visibly describing God to be like a creature, or else as seeming to mean what idolaters did by that action,) that God hath thought meet to forbid it to all mankind by a special law. (Command. 2.)

6. The scandal of seeming idolatry is a heinous sin, and not to be excused by the contrary meaning of the heart, no more than lying, idolatrous professions are. Because to blaspheme God as if he were like a creature, or to tell the world by our actions that a creature is God, are both very heinous. And so is it to murder our brethren's souls, by tempting them to the like.[355]

7. It is no appearance of idolatry to kneel to a king, or a father, or superior, when we are professing nothing but to honour them with due honour. But when the church assembleth professedly to worship God, if then they mix expressions of veneration to angels, and saints in heaven, or to a king, or any creature, in their worshipping of God, without a very notorious signification of sufficient difference, it will seem a joining them in part of the same divine honour.[356]

8. So we may put off our hats to the chair of state, or king's image, yea and kneel towards it as to him, if the command is in due time and place, when it is human worship only which we profess. But to kneel or bow as an act of honour towards the image of king, saints, or angels, in the time of our professed worshipping of God, is scandalous, and an appearance that we give them a part of that which we are giving to God.

9. Yet it is not unlawful even in the sacred assemblies, to bow to our superior at our entrance, or going out, or in the intervals of God's worship; because the time, and custom, and manner may sufficiently notify the distinction, and prevent the scandal.

10. If any presumptuous clergyman on pretence of their authority, will bring images into the churches, and set them before us in divine worship, as objects only of remembrance, and means of exciting our affections to God, that they may show quam proxime se accedere posse ad peccatum sine peccato, how near they can come to sin without sin, it is not meet for any good christians to follow them in their presumption, nor by obeying them to invite them to proceed in their church tyranny.[357] Though I now determine not, whether in case of necessity, a man may not be present with such a church, if their worship of God himself be sound, supposing him sufficiently to notify his dissent, and that he do not himself scandalously direct his worship toward such images. (As in the Lutheran churches we may suppose they do not.)

Quest. CXIII. What images, and what use of images, is lawful or unlawful?

Answ. 1. It is unlawful to make any image of God. Because it would be a blaspheming of him, as pretending him to be like to that which he is not like to, that is, a creature.[358]

Object. Man is God's image: it is lawful to make an image of man; and so an image of God's image, and that may be a secondary image of God.

Answ. 1. It is the soul of man, of which no image can be drawn or made, which is the image of God, and not the body. 2. The image of him who secundum quid as to the soul is God's image, is not God's image, but man's quoad corpus as to another part. We need not contend much about the name, whether this may be called a remote image of God (though undoubtedly unfit). But we must not really take it to be like him, or use it for his image.

Object. God hath imprinted his image on the whole creation; e. g. he is called a consuming fire; therefore fire may be pictured as his image.

Answ. The same answer serveth as to the former objection. And it is not all the impressions and vestigia of God's power, wisdom, and goodness, which are called his image; as the house is not the image of the builder, or a clock of a clock-maker, &c. And if God be metaphorically called fire, as he is called a lion, &c. because of the similitude of some operation or effect, it followeth not that these are his image; much less that the image of these is his image.

2. No image may be made to be a teacher of lies; as we may not lie by words, so neither by images. Therefore false stories, or false images of realities, when made as true, and pretended to be true images or representations, are unlawful.

3. Therefore it is unlawful to make an image of a spirit, pretending it to be a true image. Because it will be a lie.

4. It is unlawful so to make, place, or use any image, as is like to do more harm than good.

5. Therefore it is unlawful so to make, place, or use them, as that they are like to tempt a man to any sin, unless necessity for some greater good require it. (Of which more anon.)

6. Therefore all images of such idols or feigned deities are unlawful, as are like to be any temptation to any to believe in them, or worship them.

7. Therefore also all images of such creatures as others use to give unlawful worship or honour to, are unlawful when they are like to be a temptation to us or others to do the like. As among papists the image of the crucifix, the virgin Mary, and angels may not be made, placed, or used so as may tempt any to worship them sinfully as they use to do.

8. The image of an over-honoured or falsely honoured person, (though not adored,) may not be so made, placed, or used, as tendeth to tempt others also to such honour. As of Mahomet, or Apollonius (as Alexander Severus placed him and others, with Abraham and Christ, in his lararium or chapel). And many give too much honour by images to Alexander, Cæsar, and such other great thieves and murderers of mankind.

9. It is unlawful to make lascivious images of naked persons, and place or use them so, as tendeth to be a temptation to lust or immodesty. A common sin of persons of unclean imaginations.

10. It is also unlawful so to represent plays, pompous honours, splendid clothing or buildings, as tendeth more to tempt the beholders to sinful desires, than to any good.

11. It is unlawful to place images in churches or in secret before our eyes when we are worshipping God, when it tendeth to corrupt the imagination, or by possessing it, to hinder the spiritual exercise of the mind. Which is the ordinary effect of images.

12. It is unlawful to use images scandalously, as any of the aforesaid sinners use them, though we do it not with the same intent. That is, so to use them, as is interpretatively or in outward appearance the same with their use; because by so doing we shall dishonour God as they do, and harden them in sin. Therefore images in churches or oratories, in those countries where others use them sinfully, or near such countries where the same may harden men in their sin, is evil.

13. It is unlawful to make talismans or shapes, upon false suppositions that the very shape naturally disposeth the matter to receive such influences of the stars, by which it shall preserve men from plagues, fire, wild beasts, serpents, diseases, or shall otherwise work wonders; for which Gaffarel vainly pleadeth at large; such as they call naturally magical and charming shapes.

14. Much more unlawful is it purposely to make shapes to be symbols or instruments by which the devil shall operate, whether it be for good or evil; it being unlawful so far to use him.

15. So is it to make such shapes, on conceit that God or good angels will operate in or by them. As some use the cross or other images, to defend them from devils, to cure the tooth-ache or other diseases, or such like use; when God hath neither appointed any such means to be used, for such ends, nor promised any such blessing or operation by them.

16. It is unlawful to place the image of a tutelary saint or angel in house, church, or town, on supposition that we shall be the safer while that image is there placed; or else to profess our trust in that particular guardian. Because no man knoweth what angel God doth make his guardian, nor can we distinguish them; much less that he maketh such or such a saint our guardian. And men's own (foolish) choosing such a one to be their guardian, will not make them so. Nor hath God appointed or promised to bless any such imagery.

17. It is sinful to use such amorous images of the persons towards whom your lust is kindled, as tendeth to increase or keep up that lust, or to make profession or ostentation of it. As lustful persons use to carry or keep the pictures of those on whom they dote.

18. It is unlawful to make such use of the pictures of our deceased friends, as tendeth to increase our inordinate sorrow for them.

19. It is unlawful to make such images, monuments, or memorials of the best and holiest persons or martyrs, as may endanger or tempt men to any inordinate veneration of, or confidence in the persons honoured.

20. Inward images of God imprinted on the fantasy are sinful: and so are other such false and sinful images as afore-mentioned, though they be not made externally for the use of the eye.

21. I think it is unlawful to make an image, or any equal instituted sign, to be the public common symbol of the christian religion (though it be but a professing sign); because God having already instituted the symbols or public tesseræ of our christian profession or religion, it is usurpation to do the like without his commission. As the king having made the wearing of a George and star the badge of the order of the garter, would take it ill, if any shall make another badge of the order, much more if they impose it on all of the order: though I presume not to condemn it.

1. All images painted or engraven are not unlawful; for God himself commanded and allowed the use of many in the Old Testament. And Christ reprehendeth not Cæsar's image on his coin.[359]

2. The civil use of images in coins, sign-posts, banners, ornaments of buildings, or of books, or chambers, or gardens, is not unlawful.

3. As the word image is taken in general for signs, there is no question but they are frequently to be used; as all a man's words are the images, that is, the signifiers of his mind; and all a man's writings are the same made visible. It is therefore a blind, confounding error of some now among us (otherwise very sober, good men) who accuse all forms of prayer and of preaching as sinful, because (say they) they are idols, or images of prayer and of preaching; they are neither engraven nor painted images of any creature; but all words are or should be signs of the speaker's mind. And if you will secundum quid call only the inward desires by the name of prayer, then the words are the signs of such prayer. But because prayer in the full sense is desire expressed, therefore the expressions are not the signs of such prayer, but part of the prayer itself, as the body is of the man: nor is a form, that is fore-conceived or premeditated words, (whether in mind or writing,) any more an image of prayer, than extemporate prayer is. All words are signs, but never the more for being premeditated or written. And according to this opinion, all books are sinful images, and all sermon notes, and the printing of the Bible itself, and all pious letters of one friend to another, and all catechisms: strangers will hardly believe, that so monstrous an opinion as this, should in these very instances be maintained, by men otherwise so understanding and truly godly, and every way blameless, as have and do maintain it at this day.

4. The making and using of the image of Christ, as born, living, preaching, walking, dying, (a crucifix,) rising, ascending, is not unlawful in itself, though any of the forementioned accidents may make it so in such cases. As Christ was man like one of us, so he may be pictured as a man.

Object. His divine nature and human soul are Christ, and these cannot be pictured; therefore an image of Christ cannot be made.

Answ. It is not the name, but the thing which I speak of: choose whether you will call it an image of Christ secundum corpus, or an image of Christ's body. You cannot picture the soul of a man, and yet you may draw the picture of a man's body.

5. It is a great part of a believer's work, to have Christ's image very much upon his imagination, and so upon his mind.[360] As if he saw him in the manger, in his temptations, in his preaching, in his praying, watching, fasting, weeping, doing good, as crowned with thorns, as crucified, &c.; that a crucified Saviour being still as it were before our eyes, we may remember the price of our redemption, and the example which we have to imitate; and that we are not to live like a Dives or a Cæsar, but like the servants of a crucified Christ. A crucifix well befitteth the imagination and mind of a believer.

6. It is a great part of true godliness, to see God's image in the glass of the creation; to love and honour his image on his saints, and all the impressions of his power, wisdom, and goodness on all his works; and to love and honour him as appearing in them.[361]

7. It is lawful on just occasion, to make the image of fire or light as signifying the inaccessible light in which God is said to dwell, and the glory in which he will appear to the blessed in heaven.[362] For by many such resemblances the Scripture setteth these forth, in Rev. i. xxi. xxii. &c. And Moses saw God's back parts, viz. a created glory.

8. It is lawful to represent an angel on just occasions, in such a likeness as angels have assumed in apparitions; or as they are described in Ezekiel or elsewhere in Scripture; so be it we take it not for an image of their true spiritual nature, but an improper representation of them, like a metaphor in speech.[363]

9. It is lawful (seasonably and in fit circumstances) to use images, 1. For memory, 2. For clearer apprehension, 3. For more passionate affection, even in religious cases; which is commonly called the historical use of them. For these ends the Geneva Bible, and some other, have the Scripture histories in printed images; to show the papists that it is not all images, or all use of them, that they were against. And so men were wont to picture Dives in his feasting, with Lazarus in rags, over their tables, to mind them of the sinfulness of sensuality. And so the sacred histories are ordinarily painted, as useful ornaments of rooms, which may profit the spectators.

10. Thus it is lawful to honour the memory of learned, great, and virtuous persons, saints and martyrs, by keeping their images; and by the beholding of them to be remembered of our duty, and excited to imitation of them.[364]

11. It is lawful to use hieroglyphics, or images expressing virtues and vices, as men commonly make images to decipher prudence, temperance, charity, fortitude, justice, &c. and envy, sloth, pride, lust, &c. As they do of the five senses, and the four seasons of the year, and the several parts of man's age, and the several ranks and qualities of persons, &c.

12. Thus it is lawful to represent the devil, and idols, when it tendeth but to make them odious. For as we must not take their names into our mouths, Psal. xvi. 4; Exod. xxiii. 13; Eph. v. 3; that is, when it tendeth to honour them, or tempt men to it; and yet may name them as Elias did in scorn, or as the prophets did by reproof of sin; so is it also in making representations of them. Even as a drunkard may be painted in his filth and folly to bring shame and odium on the sin.

13. It is lawful to use hieroglyphics instead of letters, in teaching children, or in letters to friends; or to make images to stand as characters instead of words, and so to use them even about sacred things.

14. As it is lawful to use arbitrary professing signs even about holy things, which signify no more than words, and have by nature or custom an aptitude to such a use; while it is extended no further, than to open our own minds; so it may be lawful to use such a characteristical or hieroglyphical image to that end, when it hath the same aptitude, but not otherwise. As a circular figure or ring being a hieroglyphic of perpetuity, and so of constancy, is used as a significant profession of constancy in marriage; and so the receiving of each other's picture might be used. And so in covenanting, or taking an oath, the professing sign is left to the custom of the country; whether we signify our consent by gesture, words, action, writing. And as it is lawful to make an image on a seal which hath a sacred signification, (as a flaming heart on an altar, a Bible, a praying saint, &c.) as well as to write a religious motto on a seal; so it is lawful to put this seal to a subscribed covenant with God and his church, or our king and country, when we have a lawful call to seal such a covenant.[365] But if law or custom would make such a seal to be the common public badge or symbol of the christian religion, I think it would become unlawful.

As the crucifix for aught I know might thus have been arbitrarily used as a seal, or as a transient, arbitrary professing sign, as the cross was by the ancients at the beginning. If any man had scorned me for believing in a crucified Christ, I know not but I might have made a crucifix by art, act, or gesture, to tell him that I am not ashamed of Christ; as well as I may tell him so by word of mouth. But if men's institution or custom shall make this a symbol or badge of a christian, and twist it in baptism, or adjoin it, as a dedicating sign, and as the common professing symbol that every baptized person must use, to signify and declare that he is not ashamed of Christ crucified, but believeth in him, and will manfully fight under his banner against the flesh, the world, and the devil to the death: though he call it but a professing sign, and say, he doth but signify his own mind, and not God's act and grace; I should wish to distinguish between a private or arbitrary act of profession, and a common public badge and professing symbol of our religion; and tell him that I think the instituting of the latter belongs to God alone; and that he hath made two sacraments to that end; which sacraments are essentially such symbols and badges of our profession, and are dedicating signs on the receiver's part; and that Christ crucified is the chief grace or mercy given to the church, and his sacrifice is his own act: and therefore objectively, the grace, and act of God also, is here signified; and therefore on two accounts set together, I fear this use of the crucifix is a sin: 1. As it is an image, (though it should be transient,) used as a medium in God's worship, and so forbidden in the second commandment (for it is not a mere circumstance of worship, but an outward act of worship). 2. Because it is a new human sacrament, or hath too much of the essence of a sacrament, and so is a usurpation of his prerogative that made the sacraments: for as I said, it belongeth to the king to make the common badge or symbol of his own subjects, or any order honoured by him. And the general giveth out his own colours; and though one may arbitrarily wear another colour, yet if any shall give out common colours to his army, regiment, or troop beside his own, to be the symbol or badge of his soldiers, I think he would take it for too much boldness. Yet if only an inferior captain gave but subordinate colours, not to notify a soldier of the army as such, but to distinguish his troop from the rest, it were not so much as the other: so if a bishop or ruler did but make such a symbol by which the christians of his charge might be discerned from all others, and not as a badge of christianity itself, though I know no reason for such distinction, and it may be faulty otherwise, yet would it not be this usurping of sacramental institution, which now I speak of. All professing signs are not symbols of christianity. Christ hath done his own work well already; his colours, sacraments, or symbols are sufficient; we need not devise more, and accuse his institutions of insufficiency; nor make more work for ourselves in religion, when we leave undone so much that he hath made us.

15. All abuse of images will not warrant us to separate from the church which abuseth them; nor is all such abuse, idolatry. If the church or our rulers will against our will place images inconveniently in churches, we may lawfully be there, so that they be not symbols of idol worship, or of a religion or worship so sinful in the substance, as that God will not accept it; and so be it we make no sinful use of those inconvenient images ourselves. Though mere temptation and scandal make them sinful in those that so abuse them, and set them up; yet he that is not the author of that temptation or scandal, may not forsake God's worship, because that such things are present, nor is to be interpreted a consenter to them, while he cometh only about lawful worship (and perhaps hath fit opportunity at other times to profess his dissent).

16. It is lawful to preserve the honest and sober love to our friends, by keeping their pictures; or to show our love by decent monuments.

17. Where we may use creatures themselves to profit us by the sight, we may (ordinarily) use the images of those creatures. As the sight of trees, fruits, cities, &c. may delight us, and mind us of the power, wisdom, and goodness of God (or the sight of the sun, moon, stars, &c.); so may the pictures of the same things. And as a dead body, skeleton, or skull, may profitably mind us of our latter end; so may the picture of any of these, which we may more conveniently keep.

18. It is not unlawful to pray before or towards an image, in a room where images are placed only for ornament, and we have no respect to them as a medium or object of our worship (except by accident as aforesaid).

19. It is not unlawful to make an image (out of the cases of accidental evil before named) to be objectum vel medium excitans ad cultum Dei, an object or medium of our consideration, exciting our minds to worship God. (As a death's-head, or a crucifix, or an historical image of Christ or some holy man, yea, the sight of any of God's creatures, may be so holily used, as to stir up in us a worshipping affection, and so is medium cultus excitans vel efficienter.) But no creature, or image, (I think,) may lawfully be made the medium cultum vel terminus, in genere causæ finalis, a worshipped medium, or the terminus, or the thing which we worship mediately, on pretence of representing God, and that we worship him in it ultimately. And this I take to be the thing forbidden directly in the second commandment; viz. To worship a creature (with mind or body) in the act of divine worship, as representing God, or as the mediate term of our worship, by which we send it unto God, as if it were the more acceptable to him. So that it is lawful by the sight of a crucifix to be provoked to worship God; but it is unlawful to offer him that worship, by offering it to the crucifix first, as the sign, way, or means of our sending it to God.

20. Yet a creature may be honoured or worshipped with such worship as is due to him, by the means of such a representing terminus or image. If the king command his subjects to bow towards his image or throne when he is absent, as an act of honour, or human worship to himself, it is lawful so to do, God having not forbid it. But God hath forbid us to do so by himself, because he hath no image, and is confined to no place, and to avoid the danger and appearance of idolatry.

21. Yet is it lawful to lift up our hand and eyes towards heaven, as the place of God's glory; and I condemn not the ancient churches that worshipped towards the east. But it was not heaven, or the sun, or east that they worshipped, or to which they sent their worship, as any terminus medius, or thing mediately worshipped; but only to God himself, whose glory is in the heavens.

Quest. CXIV. Whether stage-plays, where the virtuous and vicious are personated, be lawful?

Because this is a kind of imagery, the question may be here fitly handled. But I have said so much before of stage-plays, and the sin that is used in them, part i. chap. 18, that I have nothing more to say here, but only to decide this particular case of conscience concerning them.

As I am not willing to thrust any man into extremes, nor to trouble men with calling those sins, which God hath not forbidden; so I have reason to advise men to go, in doubtful cases, on the safer side, much more to dissuade them from undoubted sin, and especially from great and multiplied sins; and therefore I must thus decide the question.

1. It is not absolutely unlawful to personate another man, nor doth the second commandment forbid such living images in this extent. I pass by the instance of the woman of Tekoah, 2 Sam. xiv.; because the bare history proveth not the lawfulness. But Paul's speaking as of himself and Apollos the things which concerned others, was approvable; and as Christ frequently taught by parables, so his parables were a description of good and evil, by the way of feigned history, as if such and such things had been done by such persons as never were. And this fiction is no falsehood; for the hearer knoweth that it is not meant as an historical narrative, but a parable; and it is but an image in words, or a painted doctrine. And if a person and action may be feigned by words, I know not where it is forbidden to feign them by personal representation. Therefore to personate another is not simply a sin.

2. To personate good men in good actions, is not simply unlawful; because, 1. It is not unlawful as it is personating, as is showed. 2. Nor as lying; because it is not an asserting, but a representing; nor so taken.

3. To personate a bad man, in a bad action, is more dubious; but seemeth not in all cases to be unlawful. To pass by David's feigning himself mad, (as of uncertain quality,) it is common with preachers, to speak oft the words of wicked men, as in their names or persons, to disgrace them: and Prov. v. 11, 12, &c. cometh near it. And whether Job be a history, or a dialogue personating such speakers, is doubted by the most learned expositors.

4. I think it possible to devise and act a comedy or tragedy, which should be lawful, and very edifying. It might be so ordered by wise men.

5. I think I never knew or heard of a lawful stage-play, comedy, or tragedy, in the age that I have lived in; and that those now commonly used, are not only sins, but heinous, aggravated sins; for these reasons.

1. They personate odious vices commonly viciously; that is, 1. Without need, reciting sinful words, and representing sinful actions; which as they were evil in the first committing, so are they in the needless repetition. Eph. v. 3, 4, 12, "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, (or lust,) let it not be once named among you as becometh saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient; but rather giving of thanks.—For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." 2. Because they are spoken and acted commonly without that shame, and hatred, and grief which should rightly affect the hearers with an abhorrence of them; and therefore tend to reconcile men to sin, and to tempt them to take it but for a matter of sport.

2. There are usually so many words materially false (though not proper lies) used in such actings of good and evil, as is unsavoury, and tendeth to tempt men to fiction and false speaking.

3. There are usually such multitudes of vain words poured out on the circumstantials, as are a sin themselves, and tempt the hearers to the like.

4. They usually mix such amorous or other such insnaring expressions or actions, as are fitted to kindle men's sinful lusts, and to be temptations to the evils which they pretend to cure.

5. A great deal of precious time is wasted in them, which might have been much better spent; to all the lawful ends which they can intend.

6. It is the preferring of an unmeet and dangerous recreation, before many fitter; God having allowed us so great choice of better, it cannot be lawful to choose a worse. The body which most needeth exercise, with most of the spectators, hath no exercise at all; and the mind might be much more fruitfully recreated many ways, by variety of books, of converse, by contemplating God and his works, by the fore-thoughts of the heavenly glory, &c. So that it is unlawful, as unfitted to its pretended ends.

7. It usually best suiteth with the most carnal minds, and more corrupteth the affections and passions, as full experience proveth: those that most love and use them are not reformed by them, but commonly are the most loose, ungodly, sensual people.

8. The best and wisest persons least relish them, and are commonly most against them. And they are best able to make experiment, what doth most help or hurt the soul. Therefore when the sensual say, We profit by them, as much as by sermons, they do but speak according to their sense and lust. As one that hath the green-sickness may say, coals and clay and ashes do more good than meat; because they are not so fit to judge, as those that have a healthful state and appetite. And it seldom pleaseth the conscience of a dying man, to remember the time he spent at stage-plays.

9. Usually there is much cost bestowed on them, which might be better employed, and therefore is unlawful.

10. God hath appointed a stated means of instructing souls, by parents, ministers, &c. which is much more fit and powerful; therefore that time were better spent.[367] And it is doubtful whether play-houses be not a stated means of man's institution, set up to the same pretended use as the church and ministry of Christ, and so be not against the second commandment. For my part I cannot defend them, if any shall say that the devil hath apishly made these his churches, in competition with the churches of Christ.

11. It seemeth to me a heinous sin for players to live upon this as a trade and function, and to be educated for it, and maintained in it. That which might be used as a recreation, may not always be made a trade of.

12. There is no mention that ever such plays were used in Scripture times by any godly persons.

13. The primitive christians and churches were commonly against them; many canons are yet to be seen, by which they did condemn them. Read but Dr. J. Reignolds against Albericus Gentilis, and you shall see unanswerable testimonies, from councils, fathers, emperors, kings, and all sober antiquity against them.

14. Thousands of young people in our time have been undone by them; some at the gallows, and many apprentices who run out in their accounts, neglect their masters' business, and turn to drunkenness, and whoredom, and debauchery, do confess that stage-plays were not the last or least of the temptations which did overthrow them.

15. The best that can be said of these plays is, that they are controverted and of doubtful lawfulness; but there are other means enough of undoubted and uncontroverted lawfulness, for the same honest ends; and therefore it is a sin to do that which is doubtful without need.

Upon all these reasons, I advise all that love their time, their souls, their God and happiness, to turn away from these nurseries of vice, and to delight themselves in the law and ordinances of their Saviour, Psal. i. 2, 3.