The Reverence of Gods House

SECTION 1.

T HE House of God is the place set apart for his worship and service, and so hath peculiar Relation unto him: wherewith being invested, it becomes sacred & holy; not only whilst divine duties are performed therein, as some erroneously affirm, but as long as it is for such use: namely according to the nature of other sacred things, which continue their state of separatenesse and sanctity, so long as that relation they have unto God (wherein this Sanctity consists) be not quite abolished.

To erect and set apart such places as these for the exercise of the Rites of Religion, is derived from the instinct of nature, and approved of God from the beginning. It began not with that Tabernacle or ambulatorie Temple which Moses caused to be made by God's appointment at Mount Sinai; but was much more ancient. Noah built an Altar, as soon as he came out of the Ark: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (wheresoever they came to pitch their Tents) erected places for divine worship, (that is, Altars with their septs and enclosures) without any special appointment from God. Jacob in particular vowed a place for divine worship, by the name of God's House, where he would pay the tithes of all that God should give him, Gen. 28. Loe here a Church endowed! Yea Moses himself, Exod. 33. 7. before the Ark and that glorious Tabernacle were yet made, pitched a Tabernacle, for the same purpose, without the Campe,

was to go. And all this was done tanquā recepti moris, as a thing of custom, and as mankind by tradition had learned to accommodate the worship of their God, by appropriating some place to that use; nature teaching them, that the work was honored and dignified by the peculiarnesse of the place appointed for the same, and that if any work were so to be honored, there was nothing it more beseemed, than the worship and service of Almighty God, the most peculiar and incommunicable act of all other.

Nay more than this: It was believed in those elder times, that that Country or Territory, wherein no Place was set apart for the worship of God, was unhallowed and unclean. Which I think, I rightly gather from that Story in the Book of Joshua, of the Altar built by Reuben, Gad, and the half Tribe of Manasseh upon the bank of the River Jordan: which Joshua and the Elders, as their words intimate, supposed they had done, lest the land of their possession, being by the River Jordan cut off from the land of Canaan, where the Lord's Tabernacle was, and so having no place therein consecrated to the worship of their God, might otherwise be an unclean and unhallowed habitation. Hear the words of Phineas and the Princes sent to dissuade them, Joshua 22. 19 and judge whether they import not as I have said.

Now concerning the condition and property of Places thus sanctified or hallowed, what it is; whence can we learn better, than from that which the Lord spake unto Moses, Exod. 20. immediately after he had pronounced the Decalogue from Mount Sinai: where premising, that they

or, wheresoever that is, which I have, or shall appoint to be the remembrance or memorial of my Name and presence, there I will come unto thee, and bless thee. Loe here a description of the Place set apart for divine worship: It is the Place where God records his Name, and comes unto men to bless them. Two things are here specified; the monument, record or memorial of God's Name: secondly, His coming or meeting there with men. Of both let us inquire distinctly, what they mean.

I know, it would not be untrue, to say in general, that God's Name is recorded or remembered in that place upon which his Name is called, or which is called by his Name (as the Scripture speaks) that is, which is dedicate to his worship and service: but there is some more special thing intended here; namely, the Memoriall or Monument of God's Name, is that token or Symbole whereby he testifieth his Covenant and commerce with men. Now although the Ark called the Ark of the Covenant, or Testimony (wherein lay the two Tables • i. the Book or Articles of the Covenant, and Manna, the Bread of the Covenant) were afterwards made for this purpose, to be the standing Memoriall of God's Name and presence with his people yet cannot that be here, either only, or specially aimed at; because when these words were spoken, it had no being, nor was there yet any commandment given concerning the making thereof. Wherefore the Record here mentioned, I understand with a more general reference to any Memoriall, whereby God's Covenant and commerce with men was testified: Such as were the Sacrifices, immediately before spoken of, and the seat of them the Altar; which therefore may seem to be in some sort, the more particularly here pointed unto. For that these were Rites of remembrance, whereby the Name of God was commemorated or recorded, and his Covenant with men renewed and testified, might be easily proved. Whence it is, that that which was burned upon the Altar is so often called the Memoriall; as in Leviticus the 2. 5. 6. and 24. chapters. Accordingly the son of Sirach tells us, c. 45. 16.

Add also that, He that without true contrition and humiliation before the Lord) recordeth, or maketh remembrance, with incense, is as if he blessed an Idol. But I must not stay too long upon this.

You will say; What is all this to us, now in the time of the Gospel? I answer, Yes. For did not Christ ordain the holy Eucharist to be the Memoriall of his Name in the New Testament?

And what if I should affirm, that Christ is as much present here, as the Lord was upon the Mercy-seat between the Cherubims. Why should not then the Place of this Memoriall under the Gospel have some semblable sanctity to that, where the Name of God was recorded in the Law? And though we be not now tied to one only Place, as those under the Law were; and that God heareth the faithful prayers of his Servants, wheresoever they are made unto him, (as also he did then:) yet should not the Places of his Memoriall be promiscuous and common, but set apart to the sacred purpose. In a word, all those sacred Memorials of the Jewish Temple are both comprehended and excelled in this One of Christians, the Sacrifices, Shew-bread, and Ark of the Covenant; Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist being all these unto us in the New Testament, agreeably to that of the Apostle, Rom. 3. 25. that is, our Propitiatory or Mercy seat, for so it is called in the Greek both of the old and New Testament, nor is the word I think ever used but in that sense, unless in Ezech. 43. for the Settle of the Altar.

But you will say, This Christian Memoriall is not always actually present in our Churches, as someone or other at least of those in the Law were in the Temple. I answer; It is enough, it is wont to be; as the Chair of estate loses not its relation and due respect, though the King be not always there. And remember, that the Ark of the Covenant was not in Jerusalem, when Daniel opened his windows and prayed thitherward; yea that it was wanting in the Holy Place (I mean that sacred Cabinet made by Moses ) all the time of the second (or Zerubbabel's ) Temple, and yet the place esteemed notwithstanding as if it had been there.

You will yet except and say; That in the Old Testament those things were appointed by divine Law and Commandment; but in the New we find no such thing. I answer, in things for which we find no new Rule given in the New Testament, there we are referred and left to the analogy of the Old. This the Apostles proof taken from thence for the maintenance of the Ministers of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9. [ viz. Thus were they, Ergo so God hath ordained that we] will give us to understand: likewise the practice of the Church in baptizing Infants, derived surely from the analogy of Circumcision: The hallowing of every first day of the week, as one in every seven, from the analogy of the Jewish Sabbath, and other the like. S ^t . Jerome witnesseth the same in that saying of his,

For we are to consider, that the end of Christ's coming into the world was not properly to give new laws unto men, but to accomplish the Law already given, and to publish the Gospel of reconciliation, through his Name, to those who had transgressed it. Whence it is that we find not the style of the New Testament to carry a form of enacting Laws, almost anywhere: but those which are there mentioned, to be brought in occasionally, only by way of proof, of interpretation, exhortation, application, or the like, and not as by way of constitution or re-enacting. Mean while, lest I should be mistaken, mark well that I said not, the Old Testament was to be our rule simply in the case mentioned, but the Analogy thereof only; that is, this regulation is to be made according to that proportion, which the difference of the two Covenants, and the things in them admits, and no further; the more particular application and limitation of which Analogy, is to be referred to the judgment and prudence of the Church.

There comes here very fitly into my mind a passage of Clemens (a man of the Apostolic age, he whose name S ^t . Paul saith was written in the Book of life) in his genuine Epistle Ad Corinthios, lately set forth, pag. 52.

But where hath the Lord defined these things, unless he hath left us to the Analogy of the Old Testament?

It follows in the text alleged; There I will come unto thee, and bless thee. In the Place where the Lord's Memoriall is, where his Colours, as I may so speak, are displayed and set up, there, in a special manner, he vouchsafes his presence with the sons of men to bless them: or to speak rotunde, Where his memorial is, there His 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 SHECINAH or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is (as the Hebrew Masters term it) that is, His GLORY. The Gentiles ascribed the presence of their gods to the places where Images and Statues were erected & consecrated for them. But such personal similitudes the God of Israel abhors, and forbids to be made unto Him; yet promiseth his presence in every place where the Memoriall or record of his Name shall be; but of his own appointment, not of man's devising. For thus, I suppose, is the text there to be understood, and to be construed by way of Antithesis or opposition:

And here take notice, that for this reason the Tabernacle of the Lord was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Tabernacle of meeting; not of men's meeting together, as is commonly supposed, when we translate it, Tabernacle of the Congregation, but of God's meeting there with men. I have a good author for it. For so the Lord himself gives the reason of the name in three several places of the Law; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 See Exod. 29. 42. 30. 36. Num. 17. 4. and Masius in Ios. c. 18.

SECTION 2.

T Hus WE have seen, what is the condition and property of that Place, which in my Text is called God's House. But before I proceed to speak of the Duty of those who come thither (which was the second thing I propounded) there is one thing yet to be cleared, concerning that which I last mentioned; namely, How God is said to come unto, to be present with men in one place more than another; seeing his Presence fills every place, heaven being his throne, and the whole earth his footstool. For although we read often in holy Scripture of such a SHECINAH or specialitie of the divine presence, and have it often in our mouths; yet, what it is, and wherein the Ratio thereof consisteth, is seldom, if at all, inquired into. When we speak of Churches, we content ourselves to say, that God's special presence there is in his Word and Sacraments: But though it be true, that the Divine Majesty is there specially present where his Word and Sacraments are; yet seems not this speciality of presence to be the same with his Word and Sacraments, but a diverse relation from them. This may be gathered, in some sort, out of those words of Exodus, whereupon we have so long dwelt, as where the recording of God's Name, and his coming thither, are spoken of as two: but is more strongly evinced by such instances of Scripture, where the Lord is said to have been specially present in places where this Record of his Word and Sacraments was not; as for example, to Moses in the Bush, to Jacob at Bethel, and the like. The true Ratio therefore of this SHECINAH or Speciality of divine presence must be sought, and defined by something which is common to all these, and not by that which is proper to some only.

Well then, to hold you no longer in suspense: this Specification of the divine presence, whereby God is said to be in one place more than another; I suppose (under correction) to consist in his train or retinue. A King is there where his Court is, where his train and retinue are: So God the Lord of Hosts is there specially present, where the heavenly Guard, the blessed Angels keep their sacred station and rendevous.

That this is consonant to the revelation of holy Scripture, I show first from the collection of inference which the Patriarch Jacob makes, upon that divine vision of his at Bethel: where having seen a ladder reaching from heaven to earth, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon it:

that is, Heavens Guildnall, Heavens Court; namely because of the Angels. For the Gate was wont to be the Judgment Hall, and the Place where Kings and Senators used to sit, attended by their guard and ministers.

Secondly, I prove it from that interpretative expression used in the New Testament of the Lord's descent upon Mount Sinai, when the Law was given; intimating that the specification of the presence of the Divine Majesty there, also consisted in the Angelical retinue there encamping. For so S ^t . Steven, Act. 7. 53.

S ^t . Paul twice; First, Gal. 3. 19. And again, Heb. 2. 2. he calls the Law, Howbeit in the story it self we find no such thing expressed, but only that the Lord descended upon the Mount in a fiery and smoking cloud, accompanied with thunders and lightnings, with an earthquake, and the voice of a trumpet. Whence then should this expression of S ^t . Steven and the Apostle proceed, but from a supposition, that the special presence of the Divine Majesty, wheresoever it is said to be, consisted in the encamping of his sacred retinue the Angels: for that of himself, he, who filleth the heaven and the earth, could not descend, nor be in one place more than another?

Yea all the Apparitions of the Divine Majesty in Scripture are described by this retinue: That of the Ancient of days coming to judgment, Dan. 7. 10.

to wit, of Angels. Whence we read in the Gospel, that Christ our Savior shall come in the glory of his Father, that is, with an host of Angels, as the Holy Ghost himself in the same places expounds it. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Glory here signifies the presence of the Divine Majesty.

In the same style, of the same Appearing prophecieth Enoch, the seventh from Adam, in the Epistle of S ^t . Jude.

For so it ought to be rendered, and not as we have it, with ten thousand of his Saints. Wherefore here the vulgar Latin comes nearer, which hath, Ecce, Venit Dominus in sanctis millibus suis. A like expression whereunto of the Divine presence we shall find in Moses Blessing, Deut. 33. From whence perhaps that notion of the Jewish Doctors, followed by S ^t . Steven and the Apostle, that the Law was given by Angels, had its beginning. And thus you have heard out of Scripture, what that is, whereby the special presence of the Divine Majesty is (as I suppose) defined, that is, wherein it consists; namely, such as is appliable to all places, wherein he is said to be thus present, even to Heaven it self his throne and seat of glory, the proper place (as every one knows) of Angelical residence.

Now, according to this manner of presence, is the Divine Majesty to be acknowledged present, in the Places, where his Name is recorded: as in his Temple under the Law, and in our Christian Oratories, or Churches under the Gospel; namely, that the heavenly Guard there attend, and keep their rendevous, as in their Masters House: according to that vision which the Prophet Isaiah had thereof, Isaiah 6.

[Lxx, and John 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, the Angels and Seraphims his stipatores; as may be gathered from that which immediately follows, where it is said,

This King Agrippa in Josephus intimates, in that Oration he is said to have made unto the Jews, a little before that fatal siege, dehorting them from rebelling against the Romans. Where speaking to the people hard by, and in view of that sacred Temple, he hath these words:

namely, which encamp there.

The same is employed in that of the 138. Psalm, according to the translation of the Lxx. and Vulgar:

And according to this sense I understand that of Solomon in this Book of Ecclesiastes within a two or three verses of my Text, concerning vows to be made in God's House:

—that is, Let not such a foolish excuse come from thee in the house of God, before the holy Angels. For note, that the word Angel may be taken collectively, for more than one.

For this cause all the curtains of the Tabernacle were filled with the pictures of Cherubims, and the walls of Solomon's Temple within with carved Cherubims; the Ark of the Testimony overspread and covered with two mighty Cherubims, having their faces looking towards it and the Mercy-seat ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) with their wings stretched forth on high, called Heb. 9. 5. The Cherubims of glory, that is, of the divine Presence: all to signify, that where God's sacred Memoriall is, the ensign of his Covenant and commerce with men; there the blessed Angels out of duty give their attendance.

Nor is it to be overpassed, that the Jews at this day continue the like opinion of their moderne places of worship: namely, that the blessed Angels frequent their assemblies, and praise and laud God with them in their Synagogues: notwithstanding they have no other memorial of his there, than an imitative one only; to wit, a Chest with a volume or roll of the Law therein, instead of the Ark with the two Tables. For thus speaks the Seder Tephilloth or Form of prayer used by the Jews of Portugal:

They allude to Isayes Vision of the Glory of God, abovementioned.

You will say; Such a presence of Angels perhaps there was in that Temple under the Law; but there is no such thing in the Gospel? No? why? Are the Memorials of God's Covenant, his Insignia in the Gospel, less worthy of their attendance, than those of the Law? or have the Angels, since the nature of man, Jesus Christ our Lord, became their Head and King, gotten an exemption from this service? Surely, not. S ^t . Paul, if we will understand and believe him, supposes the contrary, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 11. verse. 10. where treating of a comely and decent accommodation to be observed in Church assemblies, and in particular of women's being covered or veiled there, he enforces it from this presence of Angels.

namely, which are there present. For otherwise the reason holds not, that she should more be covered in the Place of Prayer, than any where else, unless the Angels be more there, than elsewhere. This place much troubleth the Expositors: But see, what it is, to admit a truth: for now there is no difficulty in it.

And that the ancient Fathers conceived no less venerably of their Christian Oratories in this particular, than the Jews did of their Temple, appears by St. Chrysostom, who is very frequent in urging an awful and reverent behavior in God's house from this motive of Angelical presence. As in his Homily 36. in 1 Cor. where reproving the irreverent behavior of his Auditory in that Church, in talking, walking, saluting, and the like, (which he saith, was peculiar unto them, and such as no Christians elsewhere in the world presumed to do) he enforces his reproof, with words that come home to our purpose:

And in his 4. Hom. de incomprehensibili Dei natura, towards the end;

But all this you will say, the Angels may do in Heaven? well, let it be so, yet is it not altogether out of our way: but the next places I shall bring, will not be so eluded.

Namely that in his 15. Homily upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, against those that laughed in the Church:

;

The like unto this you shall find in his 24. Homily upon the Acts of the Apostles.

See the rest.

I will allege but one passage more of his, lest I should grow tedious, and that is out of his 6. Book de Sacerdotio, not very far from the beginning, where speaking of the time when the holy Eucharist is celebrated:

that is, of his Memoriall. Compare with it a like passage in his 3. Hom de incompreben sibili Det natura; Item Hom. 1. de verbis Isaiae.

S ^t . Ambrose acknowledgeth the same in c. 1. Luc.

Yea Tertullian (in whose time, which was within 200. years after Christ, some will scarcely believe, that Christians had any such places as Churches at all) if I understand him, intimates as much in his lib. de Oratione c. 12. where reprehending the irreverent gesture of some in sitting at the time of prayer in the Church:

Mark, In the presence of the living God, the Angel of prayer standing by ] that is, in the presence of the living God specified by his Angel; the latter being an explanation of the former. It is like unto that in this chapter of my Text; Say not thou before the Angel, It was an error: yet I believe not borrowed thence; forasmuch as the Lxx, whose translation Tertullian was only acquainted with, and everywhere follows, have no mention of Angel in that place, but of God; rendering it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Say not before the presence of God. Which shows how they understood it.

I cite the passages of these Fathers thus at large, lest I might to some seem to broach a novelty. And though some of those of S ^t . Chrysostom be hyperbolically expressed; yet for the main and substance of what he intended, I believe it to be true, and ground my belief upon the authority of S ^t . Paul before alleged, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Because of the Angels. If any shall say, whatsoever were then, they will not believe there is any such kind of presence in our Churches now: I must tell them; If it be so, it is because of our irreverent and unseemly behavior in them, which makes those blessed spirits loath our company. For though they be invisible and incorporeal creatures, yet can they not look into our hearts, (that is God their Masters prerogative) but are witnesses of our outward behavior and actions only; and it was a case of external decorum, wherein the Apostle mentions this presence of theirs for a motive or reason:

For they love not to behold anything that is uncomely and unbeseeming, but fly from it: and if we lose their company, the best members of our congregation are wanting.

Thus you have heard what is the dignity and prerogative of God's House. Who now that considers and believes this, (and there was a time when it was believed) will not say with the Patriarch Jacob, when he saw the Angels ascending and descending at Bethel, Quam reverenda sunt haec loca! How reverend are these places! For every Place where the Name of God is recorded is Bethel, where the Angels of God are ascending and descending, that is, God in a special manner present and meeting with men. How seemly therefore, orderly and awfully should we compose ourselves in them? how reverent should our manner be at our coming into them? which is the second thing I propounded to speak of. Thus much therefore of God's House; I come now to the Duty of those who come thither; Look to thy feet when thou comest to the House of God.

SECTION 3.

L OOK TO THY FEET, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : for so the Cethib or textuall reading hath it; the Masorites in the margin note another reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the singular number. But which way soever of the two it be read, the sense is still the same; Look to thy foot being to be expounded plurally Look to thy feet, as in other places of Scripture. The symbolical application of this precept to the purifying and ridding the mind of corrupt and fleshly thoughts, though it be useful, and the thing it self true, yet I will let pass, as being not argumentative; and betake myself wholly to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or literal meaning, which the symbolical or tropologicall signification destroyeth not, but presupposeth. The meaning therefore in general is: Have a care, that thy feet be as they should be, when thou goest, (or comest) to the house of God. But what is that? Most of the Interpreters (saith Ibn Ezra ) compare it with that which is said of Mephibosheth, 2 Sam. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He did not his feet, that is, He washed them not. So here, Look to thy feet, when thou goest to the House of God, is as much as to say, Come not into God's House illot is pedibus, with unwashed feet. This is true, but goes not far enough. For I suppose here is an allusion in particular to that rite of Discalceation used by the Jews and other nations of the Orient, at their coming into sacred places; namely, that whereof the Lord spake to Moses, Ex. 3. and again to Joshua, Ios. 5.

For although the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here used, signifies properly motum à loco, that is, to go; and not in locum, to come, (in which respect the rite of washing the feet perhaps, being a preparatory act, might agree better with it) yet is it not always so used: besides, it is an usual trope in Scripture, ex antecedente intelligere consequence; which hath place here. That whereby I gather it, is because the precepts following my text, whereunto this word of motion belongs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (.i. in common ) are, not of things to be done, when we are going to the House of God, but when we are come thither: as,

To which may be added the latter part of my text, When thou comest to the House of God, be more ready to hear, or obey, than to offer the sacrifice of fools. All, as you see, are of things to be done, when we are come unto God's house. Therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is common to them, should rather note motū in termino ad quem; not when thou goest, but when thou comest to the House of God; and accordingly this admonition of care to be had of the feet, to intend something to be observed, when we come there, rather than when we are going thither. Which was, as I have said, among the Jews and other Nations, of the Orient especially, that rite of Discalceation, or putting off their shoes, still used and continued amongst them unto this day, when they come into their Temples and sacred places.

Which that I affirm not without good warrant, in case any one shall doubt thereof, these testimonies following will sufficiently evidence; First, that symbol of Pythagoras, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; OFFER SACRIFICE AND WORSHIP WITH THY SHOOES OFF. What mystical or symbolical sense he intended, I inquire not: but it is plain, his expression alludes to some such custom then used by those who came to worship in the Temples of their gods.

Wherein that my collection fails me not, Justin Martyr will bear me witness in his second Apol. where he tells us, That those who came to worship in the Sanctuaries and Temples of the Gentiles, were commanded by their Priests 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , .i. to put off their shoes. Which their gods learned (saith he) by way of imitation, from that which the Lord spake to Moses out of the flaming Bush:

This testimony for the antiquity of the practice is without exception. Yet by the Fathers good leave I am prone to think, that those words unto Moses gave not the first beginning unto it; but were an admonition only of the divine presence, thereby commanding the rite then accustomed in places so hallowed: and that therefore it was rather, as other religious rites, derived unto the Gentiles by tradition from the Patriarchs before Moses; of whom both the Jews, and those Nations of the Orient, which agreed with them in this custom, were descended. Concerning whose present custom, Drusius in his notes upon Joshua affirmeth,

For the Jews in particular, that this rite of veneration was anciently used by them in places sanctified by the divine presence, Maimonides puts us out of doubt, telling us in his Bech habechirah, cap. 7.

and the like. The same hath Rabbi Solomon upon the 19. of Leviticus, verse. 30.

It is further confirmed by their modern practice in their Synagogues; even here in these Western and colder parts of the world: where though no such custom be in use, as in the Orient, nor our manners with conveniency capable thereof; yet they still observe it, as far as the guise of the West will permit them; an argument it descends unto them by a strong and rooted tradition from their forefathers. My author is Buxtorf Synagog. Iudaic. lib. 5. c. 5. where he hath these words:

And for the Mohammedans, what they do in their Mosquees, Bartlemew Georgivez, who was a long time a captive amongst them, can best inform us, in his Book de ritu & ceremoniis Turcarum.

namely as the custom is with us, when we pull off our hats, to wear a cap.

Lastly, that we may not want an instance among Christians: Zaga Zabo an Ethiopian Bishop, sent Ambassador from David King of the Abyssines to John the 3. King of Portugal, above an hundred years since; in his Description of the Religion and rites of the Abyssine Christians, thus informs us:

Thus Zaga Zabo of the Abyssine Christians, whereof he was a Bishop. And till the contrary be shown me, I am prone to believe that some other Christians of the Jacobite sect may have the like custom, as it is certain that in most of their rites they agree with them.

Now the religious guise of the Jews and other Nations of the Orient, having anciently been (and still being) such as you have heard, when they entered into their Temples, or remained in them; the words of my text, Look to thy foot or feet, being taken for an expression borrowed from, and alluding thereto, will have the same sense; as if we, inflecting them to our manners, should say; Look unto thy head (.i. have a care thy head be fitted as it ought to be) when thou comest into the House of God; meaning that he should put off his hat, or be uncovered, when he comes thither, and use such other reverence, as is wont to accompany it. For know, that the Holy Ghost, mentioning or specifying but one rite, is yet so to be understood, as implying therewith the rest of the same order accustomed to go with it; according to that usual trope of Scripture, by a part, or that which is more notable or obvious in any kind or rank of things to imply the rest; the rule whereby we interpret the Decalogue, and is the more fitly appliable here, because this guise of Discalceation was a leading ceremony to the other gestures of sacred veneration then used, as that of putting off the hat (in civil use at least) is wont to be with us. Not as if Solomon or the Holy Ghost in this Admonition intended the outward ceremony only, and no more, (that were ridiculous to imagine) but the whole act of sacred reverence commenced in the heart and affection, whereof this was the accustomed and leading gesture: to wit, the very same, and all that which the Lord commandeth in that original law, Levite. 19. 30. Sanctuarium meum reveremini, Reverence my Sanctuary; which Jonathan's Targum explaineth; Ye shall go to the House of my Sanctuary with reverence; Solomon paralleleth here with, Look to thy foot when thou goest to the House of God. For so is the manner of Scripture almost everywhere, under the name of the gesture only, to understand and imply the whole duty of veneration, which such gesture representeth and importeth.

But as this is most true, so is it on the other side as false, if any shall from hence collect, That therefore the outward worship may securely be neglected (in time and place where and when it may be done) so the inward be performed. Nay the contrary follows. For if the inward worship be chiefly intended, when the outward or bodily is only named, as it is granted; is it not then absurd to imagine, that where that which is not expressly named is meant, there that which is only mentioned should be excluded? Nay surely, where the outward is mentioned (as here in my Text) there no doubt, but the outward, in one kind or other, is a part of the duty commanded, whatsoever besides it be intended. And because it is a disease almost proper to our time (for our forefathers were mostly sick of the other extreme) so far to sleight and disesteem (that I may not say, disdain) the worship of God by the body, as to think it may be omitted and neglected, even in time and place convenient, as in God's House and public service, without all guilt of sin: Give me therefore leave to propound a few considerations, for the cure of such as are sick of that malady. For as that which seems but some lighter symptom at the first, if the cure thereof be neglected and contemned, often times proves fatal, and destroys life it self; so may this. I would have them therefore consider;

1. That we all look not only for the glorification of our souls, but of our bodies in the life to come: Now a reward presupposeth a work. It is meet and right therefore we should worship and glorify God here in this life with the body as well as the soul, if we look that God should one day glorify both.

2. That as the outward worship without the inward is dead, so the inward without the outward is not complete; even as the glorification of the soul separate from the body is not, nor shall not be consummate, till the body be again united unto it.

3. That those who derogate so much from bodily worship, in the service of the true GOD, as kneeling, bowing, and the like, make by consequent Idolatry a sin far less heinous in degree than it is. For is not Idolatry to communicate that honor with a creature, which is due unto the Creator alone? By how much therefore the worship of gesture and posture is less due unto God, whē we do our homage unto him; by so much is the sin the less heinous and grievous, when the same is given unto an Idol. For I believe, they will not deny, but part of the sin of Idolatry consists even in the outward worship given unto an Idol, as kneeling, bowing, and falling down before it, and the like.

4. Lastly, that although bodily worship, being considered in itself, be one of the minor a legis, of the lesser things of the law, and the honor done unto God thereby of no great value (though not of none) in his fight: yet may a voluntary and presumptuous neglect, even of so small a duty, be a great and heinous sin; because such a neglect proceeds from a profane disposition and election of the heart. For a sin is not always to be esteemed according to the value of the duty omitted, but from the hearts election in omitting it. Non est bonum per se (saith Seneca) munda vestis, sed mundae vestis electio, quia non in re bonum est, sed in electione: that is, A clean garment hath no goodness of it self, but it is the election of a clean garment which commendeth; because the goodness consists not in the thing, but in the election thereof. So say I here: it is not the value of merit of the work, which aggravates the sin in omitting the doing thereof, but the election not to do it.

Now therefore to return to my hypothesis. By that which hath been delivered it appears, That it is not only lawful to use some reverential gesture, when we come into God's House (which yet some think, they are very liberal, if they grant) but that it is a duty commanded by God himself, and so no will-worship: As namely in that divine admonition given first to Moses, and afterwards to Joshua; Put thy shoes from off thy feet, &c. in that Law, Reverence my Sanctuary; in this instruction by Solomon, Look to thy feet when thou comest to the House of God: That the Saints and people of God in the Old Testament, and Christians in the New, have used such reverence: That the neglect thereof is condemned of profaneness, by the practice of Jews, Gentiles, Pagans, Mohammedans, all Religions whatsoever. If any be to be excepted ( proh pudor & dolor ) it is ourselves.

But without doubt, in this we are not in the right, nor was it so from the beginning. Whatsoever is dedicated unto God, in general, or (to speak in the phrase of Scripture) whatsoever is called by his Name, that is, is His by peculiar relation, ought to be used with a different respect from things common: and God's House (as you have heard) hath something singular from the rest. Should we then come into it, as into a Barn or Stable? It was not once good manners so to come into a man's house. For our blessed Savior, when he sent forth his Disciples to preach the Gospel, Mat. 10. said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when ye enter into an house, salute it. Why should we not think it a part of religious manners to do something answerable, when we come into the House of God? that is, to bless the Master thereof (you know, how far that word extendeth) and if not to say, God be here, (which hath been the form, and is somewhere still, when we enter into a man's House) yet to say with Jacob at Bethel, God is here, and to testify in some manner or other, as the Saints of God were wont to do, that we acknowledge it; and that both at our first coming thither, and while we continue there; for the one follows from the other. And because I paralleled before that Oriental rite of Discalceation (whereunto I supposed the words of my Text to have reference) with ours of uncovering the head, by the name of a leading ceremony: if any shall therefore ask me, what other gesture I implied thereby, as fitting to accompany this, in the case we speak of: I answer, That belongs to the discretion of our Superiors, and the authority of the Church to appoint, not to me to determine. For here, as in other ceremonies, the Church is not tied, but hath liberty to ordain (having respect to the analogy of the Old Testament) what she shall judge most suitable and agreeable to the time, place, and manners of the people where she lives. But if I may without offense or presumption, speak what I think; then I say, That adoration, or bowing of the body, with some short ejaculation, (which the Church of Israel used in their Temple, together with discalceation, and which the Christians of the Orient use at this day, and time out of mind have done at their ingress into their Churches) is of all other the most seemly, ready and fitting to our manners: which yet I submit: namely, according to that of the 132. Psal. ver. 7.

that is, the Ark of the Covenant of Mercy seat; which you shall find thus styled, 1 Chron. 28. 2.

And according to that Psal. 5. 8.

(.i. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; for they stood in the Courts when they worshipped) which is the form the Jews use at this day, when they come first into their places of worship, and so might we too, for anything I know. The ordinary form among the Greeks is that of the publican, God be merciful to me a sinner: yet sometimes they premise this of the Psalm before it.

SECTION 4.

A Nd thus I have done with the first part of my text, which for distinction sake I called the Admonition: I come now to the second, which I termed a Caution;

as much as to say, Preferre not the secondary service of God before the first and principal. Our translation hath, Be more ready to hear, than, &c. whereby some have taken occasion childishly to apply this Scripture against that custom of a short and private prayer at our first coming into the Church, before we join with the congregation. For we should (say they) rather hear and listen to what the Minister is reading or speaking (as Solomon here bids us) than at such a time to betake our selves to any private devotion; which, say they, is but the sacrifice of fools. But I would themselves who thus argue, were as wise as they should be. For if they were, they would consider, both that Solomon (according to the time wherein he spake) must needs mean of another kind of Sacrifice, than what so loose a notion importeth; namely of such as were then used in the Temple he had built; and besides that this sense of theirs directly thwarts the purport and meaning of the words going before: which is, that we ought to use some sign of reverence when we come into the house of God; such, as according to the custom of the West, is this. But though none of these things were, yet would this text be nothing to their purpose. Forasmuch as by Hearing in this place is not meant auricular hearing, but practical, that is, obedience to God's commandments, according as the Vulgar hath, For it is the same with that proverbial sentence of Scripture, Obedience is better than sacrifice; which Samuel used in that bitter reproof of K. Saul, for sparing Agag, and the best of the spoil of the Amalekites, upon a pretence of sacrificing to the Lord in Gilgal. The word here twice rendered obey, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the same which is in my text, and it is an ordinary signification thereof in Scripture. The case is clear.

But was not the offering of Sacrifice, will some man say, part of the obedience due unto the divine Law? How come they then to be thus opposed one to the other? Give me leave therefore, before I give my full explication of this passage, to inquire and consider of some others, of much more difficulty in this respect, yet their meaning conducing to the understanding of this.

There are divers places in Scripture disparaging and vilifying sacrifices; yea so far, as if sacrifice were a service, which God neither appointed nor approved. As Psal. 51.

Nay Ier. 7. ver. 21, 22. he seems to say expressly, that he never commanded them:

Yet nothing is more plain, than that God ordained Sacrifices at Mount Sinai. How then shall this difficulty be resolved? Some, and those of the ancients too, have affirmed, that these ordinances of Sacrifice were not given to Israel at first, nor prima intention Dei; but were (as they call them) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , superinducta, afterwards imposed upon them, when they had committed idolatry in making and worshipping the golden Calf. But the contrary to this is also apparent. For to pass by Cain and Abel's sacrifices, and the sacrifices of Noah and Abraham; when the Lord pronounced the Decalogue from Mount Sinai, he added this, as it were an appendix thereto:

and this before Moses came down from the Mount, or the Calf was yet made. Nay, more than all this, when Moses and Aaron were sent unto Pharaoh, the effect of their Embassy was, ; And when Pharaob would have given them leave to have sacrificed to their God in the Land: No (saith Moses ) What shall we answer then to those passages of Scripture, where God disclaimeth sacrifice, saying, he required no such service at his people's hands; yea, that he commanded them no such thing, when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt?

For the assoyling of this difficulty, according to the differing quality of the passages, which are, or may be produced to this purpose, I lay down these three propositions. 1. That, according to the propriety and genius of the Hebrew tongue, a Comparative sense is often expressed after the form of an Antithesis: As in that of Joel,

that is, more, or rather than your garments. Prov. 8. 10. that is, rather than silver; as the words following teach us to construe it: Likewise in the New Testament: i. Treasures in heaven, rather than treasures on earth; have more care to lay up the one, than the other.

According to this construction only, without more ado, some of the aforesaid passages will be discharged of their difficulty: as namely that of Hosea,

.i. more or rather than sacrifice; as the following words give us to understand, which are: and according as the same sense is elsewhere expressed; as Prov. 21. 3. But all will not be thus salved.

Wherefore I lay down this second proposition; That antecedenter it is true, that God commanded not sacrifice should be offered unto him, neither when the Law was given, nor before; but consequenter, consequently only. For the understanding whereof, we must know, That Sacrifice was a rite whereby men renewed a covenant with God, by making atonement for their sin. Therefore it presupposed a breach and transgression of the Law. But the will of God was not, that men should transgress his Law, and violate the covenant he had made with them, but that they should observe and keep it; which if they did, sacrifice would have no place. This is that I mean, when I say, That God required not, nor commanded sacrifice antecedently, but that men should keep his Commandments. But in case sin were committed, and the Articles of his covenant violated, then and in such a state God ordained, and admitted of Sacrifice for a rite of atonement and redintegration of his covenant with men: that is, he commanded Sacrifice only consequenter, as a remedy if sin were committed. And if those Ancients could be thus understood, who say, that sacrifice was not ordained when the Law was first given, but after it was transgressed; namely, if their meaning were only, that the ordinance of sacrifice presupposed a transgression of the Law, then their assertion were true; but otherwise historically taken, it cannot be defended. Now according to this proposition is that of Jeremiah chap. 7. to be understood, (or if there be any other like it:)

My third proposition is this: That when sacrifice was to be offered, in case of sin; yet even then God accepted not thereof primario, primarily and for it self; as though any refreshment or emolument accrued to him thereby, (as the Gentiles fondly supposed of their gods) but secondarily only, as a testimony of the conscience of the offerer, desiring, with humble repentance, to glorify him with a present, and by that rite to renew a covenant with him. For Sacrifice (as I have said) was oblatio foederalis. Now Almighty God renews a covenant with, or receiveth again into his favor, none but the repentant sinner, and therefore accepts of sacrifice in no other regard, but as a token and effect of this. Otherwise it is an abomination unto him, as whereby men professed a desire of being reconciled unto God, when they had offended him, and yet had no such meaning. Hence God rejects all sacrifices wherein there is no contrition, nor purpose to forsake sin, and keep his commandments, which are the parts of repentance. So is to be taken that in the first of Isaiah:

And surely, he that blesseth an Idol, is so far from renewing a covenant with the Lord his God, that he breaks it. So did they, who without conscience of repentance presumed to come before him with a sacrifice, not procure atonement, but aggravate their breach.

According to one of these three senses are all passages in the Old Testament, disparaging and rejecting sacrifices, literally to be understood: Namely, when men preferred them before the greater things of the law; valued them out of their degree, as an antecedent duty; or placed their efficacy in the naked rite, as if ought accrued to God thereby: God would no longer own them for any ordinance of his; nor indeed in that disguise put upon them were they. I will except only one passage out of the number, which I suppose to have a singular meaning; to wit, that of David in the 51. Psalm, which the ancient translations thus express:

For this seems to be meant of that special case of adultery and murder, which David here deploreth: for which sins the Lord had provided no sacrifice in his law. Wherefore David in this his poenitentiall confession tells him, That if he had appointed any sacrifice for expiation of this kind of sin, he would have given it him: but he had ordained none, save only a broken spirit and a contrite heart: which, thou O God (saith he) wilt not despise, but accept that alone for a sacrifice in this case, without which, sacrifice in no case, is accepted.

Now out of this discourse we are sufficiently furnished for the understanding of this caution of Solomon in my Text: Be more ready to obey, than to offer the sacrifice of fools; or as the words in the Original import, Be more approaching God with a purpose and resolution of obedience to his commandments, than with the sacrifice of fools; that is, Have a care, rather to approach the Divine Majesty with an offering of an obediential disposition, than with the bare and naked rite; but the sense is still the same, namely, the House of God at Jerusalem was an House of sacrifice, which they who came thither to worship, offered unto the Divine Majesty, to make way for their prayers and supplications unto him, or to find favor in his sight. Solomon therefore gives them here a caveat, not to place their religion, either only or chiefly in the external rite, but in their readiness to hear and keep the Commandments of GOD; without which, that rite alone would avail them nothing, but be no better than the sacrifice of fools, who when they do evil, think they do well. For without this readiness to obey, this purpose of heart to live according to his Commandments, God accepts of no sacrifice from those who approach him, nor will pardon their transgressions when they come before him. He therefore that makes no conscience of sinning against God, and yet thinks to be expiate by sacrifice, is an ignorant fool; how wise and religious soever he may think himself to be, or appear unto men, by the multitude or greatness of his sacrifices. The reason, because the Lord requires obedience antecedently and absolutely, but sacrifice consequently only: and then too, not primario, or chiefly and for it self, but secondarily only, as a testimony of contrition, and a ready desire and purpose in the offerer, to continue in his favor by obedience.

This is Solomon's the Preachers meaning Wherein behold, as in a glass, the condition of all external service of God in general; as that which he accepteth no otherwise than secondarily; namely, as issuing from a heart respectively affected with that devotion it importeth. For God, as he is a living God, so he requires a living worship. But as the body without the soul is but a carcass; so is all external and bodily worship, wherein the pulse of the hearts devotion beats not.

But if this be so, you will say, it were better to use no external worship at all of course, as we do the worship of the body in the gestures of bowing, kneeling, standing, and the like, than to incur this danger of serving God with a dead and hypocritical service; because it is not like, the heart will be always duly affected, when the outward worship shall be required. I answer; Where there is a true and real intent to honor God with outward and bodily worship, there the act is not hypocrisy, though accompanied with many defects and imperfections. Here therefore that rule of our Savior touching the greater and lesser things of the law must have place: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , These things (.i. the greater things of the Law) we ought to do, and not to leave the other (though the lesser) undone. For otherwise, if this reasoning were admitted, a man might upon the same ground absent himself from coming to Church upon the days and times appointed, or come thither but now and then, alleging the indisposition of his heart to join with the Church in her public worship at other times: Or if he came thither, act a mute, and when others sing and praise God, to be altogether silent, and not open his mouth, nor to say Amen, when others do. For all these are external services; and the service of the voice and gesture are in this respect all one, there is no difference. But who would not think this to be very absurd? We should rather upon every such occasion rouse and stir up our affections with fit and seasonable meditations, that what the order and decency of a Church-assembly requires to be done of every member outwardly, we may likewise do devoutly and acceptably. These things we ought to do, and not leave the other undone.

But you will say, What if I cannot bring my heart unto that religious fear and devotion, which the outward worship I should perform requireth? I could say that some of the outward worship which a man performs in a Church-assembly, he does not as a singular man, but as a member of the Congregation. But howsoever, I answer: Let the worship of thy body, in such a case, be at least a confession and acknowledgement before God, of that love, fear, and esteem of his Divine Majesty thou oughtest to have, but hast not. For though to come before God without that inward devotion requisite, be a sin: yet to confess and acknowledge, by what our outward gesture importeth, the duty we owe unto him, but are defective in, I hope is not; no more than the confession of any other sin. For our worship, in such a case, if we will so intend it, is an act of repentance: and as the moderne Greeks are wont to call their Adorations 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Repentances; so may we in this case make ours to be; namely, as if we said, Lord, I ought to come before thee with that religious fear, humble reverence, and lifting up of heart, which the gesture, the posture, I here present, importeth: but Lord be merciful to me a sinner. If any man's heart be so profane and irreligious, as not to acknowledge thus much: I yield, that such a one might better spare his labor, and not come into the presence of God at all. Otherwise I conclude still with our blessed Savior's determination in the like case, Those greater things we ought to do, and not to leave the other undone. {inverted ⁂}