SECTION 1.

THE 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 onely whilest divine duties are performed therein, as some erroneously affirme, 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 sancti­tie, so long as that relation they have unto [Page 4] 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 Gods appoint­ment at Mount Sinai; but was much more ancient. Noah built an Altar, as soone as he came out of the Ark: Abraham, Isaak, and Iacob, (wheresoever they came to pitch their Tents) erected places for divine worship, (that is, Altars with their septs and enclosures) without any speciall ap­pointment from God. Iaakob in particular vowed a place for divine worship, by the name of Gods House, where he would pay the tithes of all that God should give him, Gen. 28. Loe here a Church endowed! Yea Moses himselfe, Exod. 33. 7. before the Ark and that glorious Tabernacle were yet made, pitched a Tabernacle, for the same purpose, without the Campe, ‘ whi­ther [Page 5] every one that sought the Lord’ was to go. And all this was done tanquā recepti mo­ris, as a thing of custome, and as mankinde 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 honoured and dignified by the peculiarnesse of the place appointed for the same, and that if any work were so to be honoured, there was nothing it more beseemed, than the wor­ship and service of Almightie God, the most peculiar and incommunicable act of all other.

Nay more than this: It was beleeved in those elder times, that that Country or Territory, wherein no Place was set apart for the worship of God, was unhallowed and uncleane. Which I think, I rightly ga­ther from that Story in the Book of Josua, of the Altar built by Reuben, Gad, and the half Tribe of Manasseh upon the bank of the River Jordan: which Iosua and the Elders, as their words intimate, supposed they had done, lest the land of their pos­session, [Page 6] being by the River Jordan cut off from the land of Canaan, where the Lords Tabernacle was, and so having no place therein consecrated to the worship of their God, might otherwise be an uncleane and unhallowed habitation. Heare the words of Phineas and the Princes sent to disswade them, Iosua 22. 19 and judge whether they import not as I have said. ‘ If the land (say they) of your possession be Note that our Copies of the Lxx here corruptly read [...] for [...]. uncleane, then passe ye over unto the Land of the possession of the LORD where the LORDS Ta­bernacle dwelleth, and take possession a­mongst us: but rebell not against the LORD, nor against us, in building you an Altar, be­sides the Altar of the LORD your God.’

Now concerning the condition and propertie of Places thus sanctified or hal­lowed, what it is; whence can we learne 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 ‘ should not make with Him gods of gold and gods of silver; but that they should [Page 7] make him an Altar of earth (as namely their ambulatory state then permitted, otherwise of stone) and thereon sacrifice their burnt offerings and peace-offerings: he addes; In all places where I record my Name, I will come unto thee and blesse thee, [...] In every place where the remembrance or memoriall of my Name shall be;’ or, wheresoever that is, which I have, or shall appoint to be the remembrance or memoriall of my Name and presence, there I will come unto thee, and blesse 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 blesse them. Two things are here specified; the monument, record or memoriall of Gods Name: secondly, His coming or meeting there with men. Of both let us enquire distinctly, what they meane.

I know, it would not be untrue, to say in generall, that Gods Name is recorded or remembred in that place upon which his Name is called, or which is called by [Page 8] his Name (as the Scripture speakes) that is, which is dedicate to his worship and ser­vice: but there is some more speciall thing intended here; namely, the Memoriall or Monument of Gods 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 Testimonie (wherein lay the two Tables [...]i. Heb. 9 4. 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 Gods Name and presence with his people yet cannot that be here, either onely, or specially aimed at; because when these words were spoken, it had no being, nor was there yet any commandement given concerning the making thereof. Where­fore the Record here mentioned, I under­stand with a more generall reference to any Memoriall, whereby Gods Covenant and commerce with men was testified: Such as were the Sacrifices, immediately before spoken of, and the seat of them the Altar; [Page 9] which therefore may seeme 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 Syrach tels us, c. 45. 16. ‘ that Aaron was chosen out of all men living, to offer Sacrifices to the Lord, incense and a sweet savour, for a Memoriall, to make re­conciliation for his people.’ Adde also that, ‘ Isay 66. 3. Qui recordatur thure, quasi qui benedicat Idolo.’ 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 Gospell? I answer, Yes. For did not Christ ordaine the holy Eu­charist to be the Memoriall of his Name in [Page 10] the New Testament? ‘ This (saithe he) is my Body, [...], Doe this for my commemoration, or in Memoriall of me.’ And what if I should affirme, that Christ is as much present here, as the Lord was upon the Mercy-seat be­tween the Cherubins. Why should not then the Place of this Memoriall under the Gospell have some semblable sanctitie to that, where the Name of God was record­ed in the Law? And thogh we be not now tyed to one onely Place, as those under the Law were; and that God heareth the faith­full prayers of his Servants, wheresoever they are made unto him, (as also hee 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; Christs Bodie and Bloud in the Eucharist being all these unto us in the New Testa­ment, agreeably to that of the Apostle, Rom. [Page 11] 3. 25. ‘ God hath set forth Iesus Christ to bee our [...] through faith in his bloud,’ 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, unlesse in Ezech. 43. for the Settle of the Altar.

But you will say, This Christian Memo­riall is not alwaies actually present in our Churches, as some one 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 Chaire of estate loses not its relation and due respect, though the King be not alwaies 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 meane that sacred Cabinet made by Moses) all the time of the second (or Zorobabels) 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 [Page 12] by divine Law and Command­ment; but in the New we finde no such thing. I answer, in things for which we finde 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 Gospell, 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 analogie of Circumcision: The hallowing of every first day of the week, as one in every seven, from the analogie of the Jewish Sabbath, and other the like. S ^t. Hierome witnesseth the same in that say­ing of his, Ad Evegrium. ‘ Vt sciamus, traditiones Apostoli­cas sumptas ex Vet. Test. quod Aaron, & Fi­lii ejus, at que Levitae in Templo fuerunt; hoc sibi Episcopi, Presbyteri, at que Diaconi ven­dicant in Ecclesia. That we may know (saith he) that the Apostolick traditions were deri­ved from the Old Testament: that which Aaron, his Sons, and the Levites were in the [Page 13] Temple, the same doe Bishops, Priests and Deacons claime in the Church.’ For we are to consider, that the end of Christs coming into the world was not properly to give new lawes unto men, but to accomplish the Law already given, and to publish the Gospell of reconciliation, Matth. 5. 17, 18 through his Name, to those who had transgressed it. Whence it is that we finde not the style of the New Testament to carry a forme of enacting Lawes, almost any where: but those vvhich are there mentioned, to be brought in occasionally, onely by vvay of proofe, of interpretation, exhortation, application, or the like, and not as by vvay of constitution or re-enacting. Meane vvhile, lest I should be mistaken, mark vvell that I said not, the Old Testament vvas to be our rule simply in the case mentioned, but the Analogy thereof onely; that is, this regulation is to be made according to that proportion, vvhich the difference of the two Covenants, and the things in them admits, and no further; the more particu­lar application and limitation of vvhich [Page 14] Analogy, is to be referred to the judge­ment and prudence of the Church.

There comes here very fitly into my minde a passage of Clemens (a man of the Apostolick age, Philip. 4. 3. 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. ‘ [...] (saith he) [...] that is; All those duties, which the Lord hath commanded us to doe, wee ought to doe them regularly and orderly: Our Obla­tions and divine Services to celebrate them on set and appointed times. For so he hath or­dained, not that we should doe them at hap ha­zard, and without order, but at certaine de­termined daies & times. Where also, & by whō he will have them executed, himself hath de­fined according to his supreme will.’ But where hath the Lord defined these things, [Page 15] unlesse he hath left us to the Analogy of the Old Testament?

It followes in the text alledged; There I will come unto thee, and blesse thee. In the Place where the Lords Memoriall is, where his Colours, as I may so speak, are display­ed and set up, there, in a speciall manner, he vouchsafes his presence with the sons of men to blesse them: or to speak rotundè, Where his memoriall is, there His [...] SHECINAH or [...] is (as the Hebrew Masters terme 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. Hermes Trism. in Asclepio. Athenag. Legat. pro Christ. Origen contra Cels. lib. 7. & 3. Euseb. Praepar. Ev. lib. 5. c. 15. But such personall similitudes the God of Israel abhorres, 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 owne ap­pointment, not of mans devising. For thus, I suppose, is the text there to be un­derstood, and to be construed by way of Antithesis or opposition: ‘ You shall not make with me gods of silver, nor gods of gold: [Page 16] An Altar onely of earth or of Vers. 25. stone shalt thou make unto me, to offer thy Sacrifices upon. For in every place, where I shall record my Name, I will come unto thee, and blesse thee.’ And here take notice, that for this reason the Tabernacle of the Lord was called [...] The Tabernacle of meeting; not of mens meeting together, as is commonly suppo­sed, when we translate it, Tabernacle of the Congregation, but of Gods meeting there with men. I have a good author for it. For so the Lord himself gives the reason of the name in three severall places of the Law; [...] ‘ The Tabernacle of meeting, where I will meet with you.’ See Exod. 29. 42. | 30. | 36. Num. 17. 4. and Masius in Ios. c. 18.

SECTION 2.

THus WE have seene, what is the condition and property of that Place, which in my Text is called Gods House. But before I proceed to speak of the Duty of those [Page 17] 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 fils every place, heaven being his throne, and the whole earth his footstoole. For although we read often in holy Scrip­ture of such a SHECINAH or speciali­tie of the divine presence, and have it often in our mouthes; yet, what it is, and where­in the Ratio thereof consisteth, is seldome, if at all, enquired into. When we speak of Churches, we content our selves to say, that Gods speciall 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 seemes 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 [Page 18] of Gods 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 Iaacob at Bethel, and the like. The true Ratio therefore of this SHECINAH or Speciality of divine presence must bee sought, and defined by something which is common to al these, and not by that which is proper to some onely.

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 traine or re­tinue. A King is there where his Court is, where his traine 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 [Page 19] of holy Scripture, I shew first from the collection of inference which the Patri­arch Iacob makes, upon that divine vision of his at Bethel: Gen. 28. where having seen a lad­der reaching from heaven to earth, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon it: ‘ Surely (saith he) the Lord is in this place, and I knew it not. How dreadfull is this place! It is no other but the House of God, even the gate of heaven;’ that is, Hea­vens Guildnall, Heavens Court; namely be­cause of the Angels. For the Gate was wont to be the Judgement 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 Lords 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 Angelicall retinue there encamping. For so S ^t. Steven, Act. 7. 53. ‘ You who have received the Law by the disposition of Angels, and have not kept it.’ S ^t. Paul twice; First, [Page 20] Gal. 3. 19. ‘ The Law was added because of transgressions, [...], ordained by Angels in the hand of a mediator.’ And againe, Heb. 2. 2. hee cals the Law, ‘ [...], the word spoken by Angels.’ Howbeit in the story it selfe we find no such thing expres­sed, but onely 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. VVhence then should this expression of S ^t. Steven and the Apostle proceed, but from a supposition, that the speciall 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, hee, 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 dayes co­ming to judgement, Dan. 7. 10. ‘ Thou­sand [Page 21] thousands ministred unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him;’ to wit, of Angels. VVhence we reade in the Gospell, that Christ our Saviour shall come in the glory of his Father, that is, with an host of Angels, as the Holy Ghost him­selfe in the same places expounds it. For [...] 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. Iude. ‘ [...], Behold, the Lord cometh with his holy Myriads, or ten thou­sands.’ For so it ought to be rendred, and not as we have it, with ten thousand of his Saints. VVherefore here the vulgar Latine 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. ‘ The Lord (saith he) came That is, came unto them re­sting upon Si­nai. Compare Psal. 68. vers. 17. or 18. from Sinai unto them, (.i. unto Israel) and rose up from Seir unto them, he shined forth from mount Paran, he came with his holy ten thousands, or holy [Page 22] myriads, (for so it should be translated; then it followes) from his right hand went a fiery law for them.’ 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 speciall presence of the Divine Majesty is (as I suppose) defined, that is, wherein it consists; namely, such as is applyable to all places, wherein hee is said to be thus present, even to Heaven it selfe his throne and seat of glory, the proper place (as eve­ry one knowes) of Angelicall 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 Gospell; namely, that the heavenly Guard there attend, and keep their rendevous, as in their Masters House: according to that vision which the Prophet Isay had thereof, Isay 6. ‘ I saw [Page 23] the Lord (saith he) sitting upon a Throne high and lifted up, and his traine filled the Temple,’ [Lxx, and Iohn 12. [...] that is, the Angels and Seraphims his stipatores; as may be gathered from that which im­mediately followes, where it is said, ‘ The Seraphims cried one unto another, Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God of hoasts; the whole earth is full of his Glory.’

This King Agrippa in De Bello Iud. lib. 2. cap. 16. Josephus inti­mates, in that Oration he is said to have made unto the Jewes, a little before that fatall 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: ‘ [...], I call to witnesse your sacred Temple, and To whom some think that voice may be referred be­fore the destru­ction of the Temple, Mi­gremus hinc. the holy Angels of God;’ namely, which encampe there.

The same is imployed in that of the 138. Psalme, according to the translation of the Lxx. and Vulgar: ‘ [...], In con­spectu Angelorum psallam tibi, adorabo ad Templum sanctum tuum, & confitebor No­mini [Page 24] tuo .i. Before the Angels I will sing praise unto thee, I will worship towards thy holy Temple, and praise thy Name.’

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 vowes to bee made in Gods House: ‘ When thou vowest a vow, deferre not to pay it—Better it is, thou should'st not vow, than vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin, neither say thou BEFORE THE ANGEL, It was an errour’—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 Angell may be taken As tree for trees, leafe for leaves, Gen. 3. 2, 7, &c. col­lectively, for more than one.

For this cause all the curtaines of the Tabernacle were filled with the pictures of Cherubins, and the wals of Solomons Tem­ple within with carved Cherubins; the Ark of the Testimony overspread and co­vered with two mighty Cherubins, ha­ving their faces looking towards it and the Mercy-seat ( [...]) with their [Page 25] wings stretched forth on high, called Heb. 9. 5. The Cherubins of glory, that is, of the di­vine Presence: all to signifie, that where Gods sacred Memoriall is, the ensigne 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 memoriall of his there, than an imitative one onely; to wit, a Chest with a volume or roll of the Law therein, in stead of the Ark with the two Tables. For thus speaks the Seder Tephil­loth or Forme of prayer used by the Jewes of Portugal: ‘ O Lord our God, the Angels that supernall company, gathered together with thy people Israel here below, doe crowne thee with praises, and all together doe thrice redouble and cry that spoken of by thy Prophet: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hoasts, the whole [Page 26] earth is full of his glory.’ 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 Gospell? No? why? Are the Memo­rials of Gods Covenant, his Insignia in the Gospell, lesse 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 beleeve him, supposes the contrary, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 11. vers. 10. where treating of a comely and decent accommodation to be obser­ved in Church assemblies, and in particu­lar of womens being covered or veiled there, he enforces it from this presence of Angels. ‘ For this (saith he) ought the wo­man to have a covering on her head, [...], because of the Angels;’ namely, which are there present. For otherwise [Page 27] the reason holds not, that she should more be covered in the Place of Prayer, than any where else, unlesse 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 lesse venerably of their Christian Ora­tories in this particular, than the Jews did of their Temple, appeares by St. Chry­sostome, who is very frequent in urging an awfull and reverent behaviour in Gods house from this motive of Angelicall pre­sence. As in his Homily In Morali. 36. in 1 Cor. where reproving the irreverent behaviour 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: ‘ Non tonstrina, inquit, neque unguentaria of ficina, neque ulla alia opificum qui sunt in fo­ro, taberna, est Ecclesia; sed Locus Angelo­rum, [Page 28] Locus Archangelorum,regia Dei, ipsum coelum. The Church ( saith he) is no Bar­bers, or Drug-sellers shop, nor any other crafts­mans or merchants workhouse or warehouse in the market place; but the place of Angels, the place of Archangels, the palace of God, hea­ven it selfe.’

And in his 4. Hom. de incomprehensibili Dei natura, towards the end; ‘Cogita a­pud quem proximè stas, quibuscum invoces Deum; scil. cum Cherubim, cum Seraphim, cum omnibus coeli Virtutibus: animadverte quos habeas socios: satis hoc tibi sit ad sobrie­tatem, cum recorder is te corpore constantem, & carne coagmentatum admitti cum Virtu­tibus incorporeis celebrare omnium Dominum. Think neare whom thou standest, with whom thou invocatest God; namely, with Cherubims and Seraphims, and all the Power of heaven: consider but what companions thou hast: let it bee sufficient to perswade thee to sobriety, when thou remembrest, that thou, who art com­pounded of flesh and bloud, art admitted with the incorpore all Powers, to celebrate the com­mon Lord of all.’ But all this you will say, [Page 29] the Angels may doe 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 Hebrewes, against those that laughed in the Church: ‘Regiam qui­dem ingrediens, & habitu, & aspectu, & in­cessu, & omnibus aliis te ornas & componis. Hîc autem verè est Regia, & planè hîc talia qualia coelestia, & rides? Atque scio quidem, quod tu non vides. Audi autem, quod ubi (que) adsunt Angeli, & maxime in Domo Dei ad­sistunt Regi, & omnia sunt impleta incorpo­reis illis Potestatibus. When thou goest into a Kings Palace, thou composest thy selfe to a comelinesse in thy habit, in thy look, in thy gate, and in all thy whole guise. But here is indeed the Palace of a King, and the like at­tendance to that in heaven, and doest thou laugh? I know well enough thou seest it not. But heare thou me, and know, that Angels are every where, and that, chiefly in the house of God, they attend upon their King, where all is filled with incorporeall Powers.’;

[Page 30] The like unto this you shall find in his 24. Homily upon the Acts of the Apostles. ‘Knowest thou not, that thou standest here with Angels, that with them thou singest, with them thou laudest God with hymnes? and dost thou laugh?’ See the rest.

I will alledge 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: ‘ [...] (saith he) Then the Angels stand by the Priest, and the whole Quire re­sounds with celestiall Powers, and the place about the Altar is filled with them, in honour of him who is laid thereon,’ 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. ‘Non dubites assistere Angelum, quando Christus assistit, Christus immolatur.’

[Page 31] Yea Tertullian (in whose time, which was within 200. yeares after Christ, some will scarcely beleeve, 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: ‘ Siquidem (saith he) irreverens est assidere sub conspe­ctu, contraque conspectum ejus, quem cum ma­ximè reverearis ac venereris: quanto magis sub conspectu Dei vivi, ANGELO adhuc ORATIONIS adstante, factum illud irreligiosissimum est; nisi exprobramus Deo, quod nos oratio fatigaverit? If it bee an irre­verent thing to sit in the sight and before him, whom thou in a speciall manner honourest and reverencest: how much more is it an act most irreligious to doe it in the presence of the li­ving God, the ANGEL OF PRAYER yet standing by; unlesse we upbraid God, that wee have wearied our selves with praying?’ Marke, 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 [Page 32] 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 An­gell, It was an errour: yet I beleeve not bor­rowed thence; forasmuch as the Lxx, whose translation Tertullian was onely ac­quainted with, and every where followes, have no mention of Angel in that place, but of God; rendring it, [...] , Say not before the presence of God. Which shewes how they understood it.

I cite the passages of these Fathers thus at large, lest I might to some seeme to broach a novelty. And though some of those of S ^t. Chrysostome be hyperbolically expressed; yet for the maine and substance of what he intended, I beleeve it to bee true, and ground my beleefe upon the authority of S ^t. Paul before alledged, [...], Because of the Angels. If any shall say, what­soever were then, they will not beleeve there is any such kinde of presence in our Churches now: I must tell them; If it be so, it is because of our irreverent and un­seemly behaviour in them, which makes [Page 33] those blessed spirits loath our companie. For though they be invisible and incorpo­reall creatures, yet can they not look into our hearts, (that is God their Masters pre­rogative) but are witnesses of our outward behaviour and actions onely; and it was a case of externall decorum, wherein the Apostle mentions this presence of theirs for a motive or reason: ‘ For this cause ought the woman to have a covering on her head, be­cause of the Angels.’ For they love not to behold any thing that is uncomely and unbeseeming, but flye 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 Gods House. Who now that considers and beleeves this, (and there was a time when it was beleeved) will not say with the Patriarch Iacob, 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 [Page 34] ascending and descending, that is, God in a special manner present and meeting with men. How seemly therefore, orderly and awfully should we compose our selves in them? how reverent should our manner be at our coming into them? which is the second thing I propounded to speake of. Thus much therefore of Gods House; I come now to the Duty of those who come thither; Looke to thy feet when thou comest to the House of God.

SECTION 3.

LOOK TO THY FEET, [...]: for so the Cethib or textuall reading hath it; the Ma­sorites in the margine note ano­ther reading [...] in the singular number. But which way soever of the two it bee 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 symbolicall application of this precept to the purifying and ridding the minde of [Page 35] corrupt and fleshly thoughts, though it be usefull, and the thing it selfe true, yet I will let passe, as being not argumentative; and betake my self wholly to the [...] or literall meaning, which the symbolicall or tropologicall signification destroyeth not, but presupposeth. The meaning therefore in generall 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 Aben Ezra) compare it with that which is said of Mephibosheth, 2 Sam. 19. [...] 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 Gods 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 againe to Iosua, Ios. 5. ‘ Exue calcea­menta tua de pedibus tuis; locus enim in quo [Page 36] stas, terra sancta est. Put thy shooes from off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.’

For although the verb [...] here used, sig­nifies properly motum à loco, that is, to goe; 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 alwayes so used: besides, it is an usuall trope in Scripture, ex anteceden­te intelligere consequens; which hath place here. That whereby I gather it, is because the precepts following my text, whereun­to this word of motion belongs [...], (.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, ‘ when thou comest to the House of God, be not rash nor hasty to utter any thing before God, &c. When thou comest to the House of God, and makest a vow before him, defer not to pay it,—neither say thou before the Angel, &c.—’ To which may be added the latter part of my text, When thou comest to the House of God, be more ready to heare, or [Page 37] obey, than to offer the sacrifice of fooles. All, as you see, are of things to be done, when we are come unto Gods house. Therefore [...] 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; Accordingly the vulgar La­tin hath ingre­diens Domum Dei. 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 shooes, still u­sed and continued amongst them unto this day, when they come into their Temples and sacred places.

Which that I affirme not without good warrant, in case any one shall doubt ther­of, these testimonies following will suffi­ciently evidence; First, that symbole of Pythagoras, Apud I amblich. Protrept. 21. [...]; OF­FER SACRIFICE AND WOR­SHIP WITH THY SHOOES OFF. What mysticall or symbolicall sense [Page 38] he intended, I enquire not: but it is plaine, his expression alludes to some such cu­stome then used by those who came to worship in the Temples of their gods.

Wherein that my collection failes mee not, Edit. Paris. p. 95. Iustin Martyr will beare me witnesse in his second Apol. where he tels us, That those who came to worship in the Sanctu­aries and Temples of the Gentiles, were commanded by their Priests [...], .i. to put off their shooes. Which their gods lear­ned (saith he) by way of imitation, from that which the Lord spake to Moses out of the flaming Bush: ‘ Loose thy shooes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.’ 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 onely 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 [Page 39] tradition from the Patriarchs before Moses; of whom both the Jews, and those Nati­ons of the Orient, which agreed with them in this custome, were descended. Concer­ning whose present custome, Drusius in his notes upon Iosua affirmeth, ‘ Quod etiam nunc apud plerásque Orientis gentes, piacu­lum sit, calceato pede Templorum pavimenta calcasse: That even to this day, among most of the nations of the Orient, it is reputed a pia­culary crime, to tread upon the pavements of their Temples with their shooes on their feet.’

For the Jews in particular, that this rite of veneration was anciently used by them in places sanctified by the divine presence, Maymonides puts us out of doubt, telling us in his Bech habechirah, cap. 7. ‘ That it was not lawfull for a man to come into the moun­taine of Gods House, with HIS SHOOES ON HIS FEET, or with his staffe, or in his working garment, or with dust on his feet,’ and the like. The same hath Rabbi Solomon upon the 19. of Leviticus, vers. 30.

It is further confirmed by their modern practice in their Synagogues; even here in [Page 40] these Westerne and colder parts of the world: where though no such custome be in use, as in the Orient, nor our manners with conveniencie capable thereof; yet they still observe it, as farre 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: ‘ Ante Syna­gogam vel Scholam ipsorum ferrum quoddam habent immuratum; ad quod quilibet calceos immundos, aut coenosos abstergere tenetur; id­que Solomonis authoritate, qui, Custodi, ait, pedem tuum—Quis quis crepidis indutus est, is eas immundas de pedibus suis detrahere enetur—prout scriptum est; Solve cal­ceamenta tua de pedibus tuis, &c. .i. Before their Synagogues they have a certaine iron fastned in a wall; whereat every one is bound to make cleane his foule or dirty shooes; and that by the authority of Solomon, who saith, Look to thy foot, &c. Whosoever hath slippers on, is bound, they being foule, to put them quite off, (viz. before he enters into the Syna­gogue) [Page 41] according as it is written: Loose thy shooes from off thy feet, &c.’

And for the Mahumetans, what they doe in their Mosquees, Bartlemew Georgi­vez, who was a long time a captive a­mongst them, can best informe us, in his Book de ritu & ceremoniis Turcarum. ‘ Qui­cunque (saith he) veniunt ad orationem, de­bent abluere manus, pedes, &c. postremò ter spargunt aquam super capita, recitando haec verba, ELHEMDV LILLANI, (.i. gloria Deo meo:) Deinde exutis calcea­mentis Patsmagh dictis, iísque ante ja­nuam Templi relictis, introeunt, alii NV­DIS PEDIBVS, alii habentes munda calceamenta Mesth dicta. .i. Such as come to pray, their duty is first to wash their hands, feet, &c. at last they sprinkle water over their heads thrice, repeating these words, ELHEM­DV LILLANI, that is, Glory be to my God. Then putting off their shooes, called Patsmagh, and leaving them before the doore of the Temple, they enter, some bare­footed, others having a cleane kinde of San­dall, which they call Mesth:’ namely as the [Page 42] custome is with us, when we pull off our hats, to weare a cap.

Lastly, that wee may not want an in­stance among Christians: Zaga Zabo an Aethiopian Bishop, sent Ambassador from David King of the Abyssines to Iohn the 3. King of Portugal, above an hundred years since; in his Description of the Religion and rites of the Abyssine Christians, thus informes us: ‘Prohibitum est apud nos ( saith he) ne aut gentes, aut canes, aut alia hujus­modi animalia, in Templa nostra intrent. Item non datur potestas nobis adeundi Templum, nisi NVDIS PEDIBVS; neque licet no­bis inipso Templo ridere, obambulare, aut de rebus prophanis loqui, neque spuere, aut screa­re in ipso Templo. Quia Ecclesiae Aethiopum non sunt similes terrae illi, ubi populus Israel comedit Agnum paschalem decedens ab Aegyp­to (in quo loco, propter terrae pollutionem, jus­sit eos Deus comedere indutos calceamentis & zonis accintos) sed similes sunt monti Sinai, ubi Dominus locutus est Mosi, dicens: Exue calceamenta tua de pedibus tuis, quoniam ter­ra quam pedes tui premunt, sancta est. .i. It is [Page 43] prohibited amongst us, that either Pagans or dogs, or any other beasts should come into our Churches. Moreover, it is not permitted to us to goe into the Church, but BARE FOO­TED; nor is it lawfull for us in the Church Eadem planè Iudaeorum ma­gistri prohibent a suis in Syna­gogis fieri, apud Maimoniem Misnae Part. 1. lib. 2. Tract. 7. De benedictio­nibus & con­se [...]r. per preces quae & in Tem­plo olim obser­vari solita. Et Greg. Na­zian. i [...] orat. fun. pro patre laudat matrem suam Nonnam, quòd in Templo D [...]ine vocem quadem emitte­ret nisi de rebus mysticis & di­vinis neq [...]e un­quam tergum altari obverte­ret, aut sacrum pa [...]i nentum conspueret. De quibus L [...] ­ctor pro pr [...] ­dentia sua sta­tuat, an & q [...] ­ [...]s (que) nobis [...]. conducat. to laugh, or to walk up and down, or to speak of secular matters; no not to spit, hauk or hem in the Church. Because the Churches of Ae­thiopia are not like unto that Land, where Moses, ready to depart out of Aegypt, eat the Paschal Lamb (where, because of the pollu­tion of the country, God commanded them to eat it with their shooes on their feet, and their loynes girded) but they are like unto Mount Sinai, where God spake unto Moses, saying; Put off thy shooes from thy feet, for the ground whereon thy feet treadeth is holy.’ Thus Za­ga Zabo of the Abyssine Christians, where­of he was a Bishop. And till the contrary be shewed me, I am prone to beleeve that some other Christians of the Jacobite sect may have the like custome, as it is certain that in most of their rites they agree with them.

Now the religious guise of the Jewes [Page 44] and other Nations of the Orient, having anciently beene (and still being) such as you have heard, when they entred 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 goe with it; according to that usuall trope of Scripture, by a part, or that which is more notable or obvious in any kinde 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 [Page 45] leading ceremonie to the other gestures of sacred veneration then used, as that of put­ting off the hat (in civill use at least) is wont to be with us. Not as if Solomon or the Ho­ly Ghost in this Admonition intended the outward ceremonie onely, 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 originall law, Levit. 19. 30. Sanctuarium meum reve­remini, Reverence my Sanctuary; which Io­nathans Targum explaineth; Ye shall goe 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 maner of Scripture almost everywhere, under the name of the gesture onely, to un­derstand and imply the whole dutie 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 shal from hence collect, [Page 46] That therefore the outward worship may securely bee 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 onely named, as it is granted; is it not then absurd to imagine, that where that which is not expresly 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 kinde or other, is a part of the dutie com­manded, whatsoever besides it bee inten­ded. And because it is a disease almost pro­per to our time (for our forefathers were mostly sick of the other extreme) so farre to sleight and disesteeme (that I may not say, disdaine) the worship of God by the body, as to think it may be omitted and neglected, even in time and place conve­nient, as in Gods House and publick ser­vice, without all guilt of sinne: Give me therefore leave to propound a few consi­derations, [Page 47] for the cure of such as are sick of that maladie. For as that which seemes but some lighter symptome at the first, if the cure thereof be neglected and contem­ned, often times proves fatal, and destroyes life it selfe; so may this. I would have them therefore consider;

1. That we all looke not onely for the glorification of our soules, 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 glorifie God here in this life with the bodie as wel as the soule, if we looke that God should one day glorifie 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 soule separate from the bodie is not, nor shall not be consummate, till the bodie be againe 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 Ido­latrie [Page 48] a sin farre lesse hainous in degree than it is. For is not Idolatrie to communicate that honour with a creature, which is due unto the Creator alone? By how much therefore the worship of gesture and po­sture is lesse due unto God, whē we do our homage unto him; by so much is the sin the lesse hainous and grievous, when the same is given unto an Idol. For I beleeve, they vvill not deny, but part of the sin of Idola­trie 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 it self, be one of the minor a legis, of the lesser things of the law, and the honour done unto God ther­by 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 hainous sin; because such a neglect proceeds from a prophane disposi­tion and election of the heart. For a sin is not alwayes to be esteemed according to the value of the duty omitted, but from the [Page 49] hearts election in omitting it. Non est bo­num per se (saith Seneca) munda vestis, Epist. 93. sed mundae vestis electio, quia non in re bonum est, sed in electione: that is, A cleane garment hath no goodnesse of it selfe, but it is the election of a cleane garment which commendeth; because the goodnesse 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 ther­of, but the election not to doe it.

Now therefore to returne to my hypo­thesis. By that which hath beene delivered it appeares, That it is not onely lawfull to use some reverentiall gesture, when wee come into Gods House (which yet some think, they are very liberall, if they grant) but that it is a duty commanded by God himselfe, and so no will-worship: As namely in that divine admonition given first to Moses, and afterwards to Iosua; Put thy shooes 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 [Page 50] people of God in the old Testament, and Christians in the New, have used such re­verence: That the neglect thereof is con­demned of prophanenesse, by the practice of Jews, Seneca 2 lib. 7. nat. qq. c. 30. Intramus Tem­pla compositi, ad sacrificium accessuri vul­tum submitti­mus, togam adducimus, in omne argu­mentum mode­stiae fingimur. Gentiles, Pagans, Mahumetans, all Religions whatsoever. If any be to bee excepted ( proh pudor & dolor) it is our selves.

But without doubt, in this we are not in the right, nor was it so from the begin­ning. Whatsoever is dedicated unto God, in generall, or (to speake 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 Gods House (as you have heard) hath something singu­lar from the rest. Should wee then come into it, as into a Barne or Stable? It was not once good manners so to come into a mans house. For our blessed Saviour, when he sent forth his Disciples to preach the Gospel, Mat. 10. said, [...], when ye enter into an house, salute it. Why should we not thinke it a part of religious manners to doe some­thing [Page 51] answerable, when we come into the House of God? that is, to blesse the Master thereof (you know, how farre that word extendeth) and if not to say, God be here, (which hath beene the forme, and is somewhere still, when we enter into a mans House) yet to say with Jacob at Beth­el, God is here, and to testifie in some man­ner or other, as the Saints of God were wont to doe, that we acknowledge it; and that both at our first coming thither, and while we continue there; for the one fol­lowes from the other. And because I pa­ralleled before that Orientall rite of Discal­ceation (whereunto I supposed the words of my Text to have reference) vvith ours of uncovering the head, by the name of a lea­ding ceremonie: if any shall therefore ask me, what other gesture I implyed thereby, as fitting to accompany this, in the case we speak of: I answer, That belongs to the discretion of our Superiours, and the au­thority of the Church to appoint, not to me to determine. For here, as in other ce­remonies, the Church is not tyed, but hath [Page 52] liberty to ordaine (having respect to the analogy of the old Testament) what she shall judge most sutable and agreeable to the time, place, and manners of the people where she lives. But if I may without of­fence 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 minde have done at their ingresse into their Churches) is of all other the most seemly, ready and fitting to our maners: which yet I submit: name­ly, according to that of the 132. Psal. ver. 7. ‘ Introibimus in Tabernacula ejus, incurvabi­mus nos scabello pedum ejus: We will goe in­to his Tabernacle, and worship before (or to­ward) his Footstoole;’ that is, the Ark of the Covenant of Mercy seat; which you shall finde thus styled, 1 Chron. 28. 2.

And according to that Psal. 5. 8. ‘ I will enter into thine House in the multitude of thy mercies; in thy feare will I worship toward [Page 53] thy holy Temple,’ (.i. [...]; for they stood in the Courts when they worshipped) which is the forme the Jewes use at this day, when they come first into their pla­ces of worship, and so might we too, for any thing I know. The ordinary forme among the Greekes is that of the publican, God be mercifull to me a sinner: yet sometimes they premise this of the Psalme before it.

SECTION 4.

ANd 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; ‘ Be more ready to obey, than to offer the sacrifice of fooles:’ as much as to say, Preferre not the secundary service of God before the first and principall. Our translation hath, Be more ready to heare, than, &c. whereby some have taken occasion childishly to apply this Scripture against that custome of a short and private prayer at our first com­ing [Page 54] into the Church, before we joine with the congregation. For we should (say they) rather heare 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 fooles. 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 wherin he spake) must needs meane of another kinde 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 signe of reverence when we come into the house of God; such, as according to the custome 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 practicall, that is, obedi­ence [Page 55] to Gods commandments, according as the Vulgar hath, ‘ Melior est obedientia quàm victimae stultorum.’ For it is the same with that proverbial sentence of Scripture, Obedience is better than sacrifice; which Sa­muel used in that bitter reproofe of K. Saul, for sparing Agag, 1 Sam. 15. and the best of the spoile of the Amalekites, upon a pretence of sa­crificing to the Lord in Gilgal. ‘ Hath the Lord (saith he) as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? behold, to obey is better than sa­crifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.’ The word here twice rendered obey, is [...] the same which is in my text, and it is an ordinary signification thereof in Scripture. The case is cleere.

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 mee leave therefore, before I give my full explication of this passage, to enquire and consider of some others, of much more difficultie in this respect, yet [Page 56] their meaning conducing to the understan­ding of this.

There are divers places in Scripture dis­paraging and vilifying sacrifices; yea so farre, as if sacrifice were a service, which God neither appointed nor approved. As Psal. 51. ‘Thou desirest not sacrifice ( saith David,) else would I have given it thee; but thou delightest not in burnt-offerings. The sa­crifice of God is a troubled spirit: a broken and contrite heart, O God thou wilt not despise. Hosea 6. 6. I will have mercy and not sacri­fice. Michah 6. vers. 6, 7, 8. Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow my selfe before the most High? shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a yeare old? 7. Will the Lord be pleased with thou­sands of rams, and with ten thousands of ri­vers of oyle? shall I give my first borne for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soule? 8. He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?’ Nay Ier. 7. ver. 21, 22. he seemes to say ex­presly, [Page 57] that he never commanded them: ‘Put ( saith he) your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your Fathers, nor commanded them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Aegypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walke ye in the wayes that I have commanded you, that it may bee well with you.’

Yet nothing is more plaine, 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 intentione Dei; but were (as they call them) [...], superinducta, afterwards imposed upon them, when they had committed idolatry in making and worshipping the golden Calfe. But the contrary to this is al­so apparant. For to passe by Cain and Abels sacrifices, and the sacrifices of Noah and A­braham; when the Lord pronounced the [Page 58] Decalogue from Mount Sinai, he added this, as it were an appendix thereto: ‘ Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold: Onely an Altar thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sa­crifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen, &c.’ and this before Moses came downe from the Mount, or the Calfe was yet made. Nay, more than all this, when Moses and Aaron were sent unto Pharaoh, the effect of their Embassie was, Exod. 3. 18. & 5. 1, 3, 8. ‘ The God of the He­brewes saith, Let my people go, that they may sacrifice unto me, three dayes journey in the wildernesse.’; And when Pharaob would have given them leave to have sacrificed to their God in the Land: Exod. 8. 27. No (saith Moses) ‘ we will go three dayes journey into the wil­dernesse, and there sacrifice to the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.’ What shall we answer then to those passages of Scripture, where God disclaimeth sacrifice, saying, hee required no such service at his peoples hands; yea, that hee com­manded them no such thing, when hee [Page 59] brought them out of the Land of Aegypt?

For the assoyling of this difficultie, ac­cording to the differing qualitie of the pas­sages, which are, or may be produced to this purpose, I lay downe these three pro­positions. 1. That, according to the pro­prietie and genius of the Hebrew tongue, a Comparative sense is often expressed af­ter the forme of an Antithesis: As in that of Ioel, ‘ Rent your hearts, and not your gar­ments:’ that is, more, or rather than your garments. Prov. 8. 10. ‘ Receive my instru­ction, and not silver:’ that is, rather than sil­ver; as the words following teach us to construe it: ‘ And knowledge rather than choice gold.’ Likewise in the New Testa­ment: ‘ Lay not up treasures for your selves on earth, but lay up for your selves treasures in heaven.’ i. Treasures in heaven, rather than treasures on earth; have more care to lay up the one, than the other.

According to this construction onely, without more adoe, some of the aforesaid passages will be discharged of their diffi­culty: as namely that of Hosea, ‘ I desired [Page 60] mercy and not sacrifice,’ .i. more or rather than sacrifice; as the following words give us to understand, which are: ‘ And the knowledge of God more than burnt offer­ings;’ and according as the same sense is elsewhere expressed; as Prov. 21. 3. ‘ To do justice and judgement is more acceptable to the Lord, than sacrifice.’ 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 onely. For the understan­ding whereof, we must know, That Sa­crifice was a rite whereby men renewed a covenant with God, by making attone­ment for their sinne. Therefore it presup­posed a breach and transgression of the Law. But the will of God was not, that men should transgresse 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 [Page 61] place. This is that I meane, when I say, That God required not, nor commanded sacrifice antecedently, but that men should keep his Commandments. But in case sinne 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 attonement and red­integration of his covenant with men: that is, he commanded Sacrifice onely con­sequenter, as a remedy if sinne were com­mitted. And if those Ancients could bee 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 onely, 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 Ieremy chap. 7. to be understood, (or if there bee any other like it:) ‘ I spake not unto your Fa­thers, nor commanded them, in the day that I brought them out of the Land of Aegypt, con­cerning [Page 62] burnt-offerings and sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them; Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my peo­ple: and walke yee in all the wayes that I have commanded you, that it may bee well with you.’

My third proposition is this: That when sacrifice was to be offered, in case of sinne; yet even then God accepted not thereof primariò, primarily and for it selfe; as though any refreshment or emolument accrued to him thereby, (as the Gentiles fondly supposed of their gods) but secun­darily onely, as a testimony of the consci­ence of the offerer, desiring, with humble repentance, to glorifie 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 re­newes a covenant with, or receiveth a­gaine into his favour, 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 [Page 63] 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 sinne, and keep his commandments, which are the parts of repentance. So is to bee taken that in the first of Isay: ‘ To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices?—Bring no more vaine oblations; incense is an abomi­nation unto me—Wash ye, make you cleane, put away the evill of your doings from before mine eyes, cease to do evill—then (if you offer sacrifice unto me) though your sinnes be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow, &c.— And that Isay the last: To this man I look, to him that is poore and of a contrite spirit. Hee that killeth an oxe (namely otherwise) is as if he slew a man: be that sacrificeth a lamb (unlesse he comes with this disposition) as if he cut off a dogs neck, he that offereth an oblation, as if he of­fered bloud, he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an Idoll.’ And surely, he that bles­seth an Idoll, is so farre from renewing a [Page 64] covenant with the Lord his God, that he breakes it. So did they, who without con­science of repentance presumed to come before him with a sacrifice, not procure attonement, 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 owne them for any ordinance of his; nor indeed in that disguise put upon them were they. I will except onely one passage out of the number, which I suppose to have a singular meaning; to wit, that of David in the 51. Psalme, which the ancient translations thus expresse: ‘ Quoniam si vo­luisses sacrificium, dedissem utique; sed holo­caustis non oblectaberis (vel, holocaustum non acceptabis.) Sacrificium Deo spiritus contri­bulatus, &c.—If thou wouldest have [Page 65] had a sacrifice, I would have offered it; but thou wilt accept no burnt-offering, &c.—’ For this seemes to be meant of that speciall case of adulterie and murder, which Da­vid here deploreth: for which sinnes the Lord had provided no sacrifice in his law. Wherefore David in this his poenitentiall confession tells him, That if hee had ap­pointed any sacrifice for expiation of this kinde of sinne, hee would have given it him: but he had ordained none, save one­ly 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: Bee more readie to obey, than to offer the sacrifice of fooles; or as the words in the Originall im­port, Be more approaching God with a purpose and resolution of obedience to his commandments, than with the sacri­fice of fooles; that is, Have a care, rather to [Page 66] approach the Divine Majesty with an of­fering of an obedientiall 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 finde favour in his sight. Solomon therefore gives them here a caveat, not to place their religion, either onely or chiefly in the externall rite, but in their readinesse to heare and keepe the Commandements of GOD; without which, that rite alone would availe them nothing, but bee no better than the sacri­fice of fooles, who when they doe evill, thinke they doe well. For without this readinesse to obey, this purpose of heart to live according to his Commandements, God accepts of no sacrifice from those who approach him, nor will pardon their transgressions when they come before him. Hee therefore that makes no con­science of sinning against God, and yet [Page 67] thinks to bee expiate by sacrifice, is an ig­norant foole; how wise and religious so­ever he may thinke himselfe to be, or ap­peare unto men, by the multitude or great­nesse of his sacrifices. The reason, be­cause the Lord requires obedience ante­cedently and absolutely, but sacrifice con­sequently onely: and then too, not prima­riò, or chiefly and for it selfe, but secunda­rily onely, as a testimony of contrition, and a ready desire and purpose in the of­ferer, to continue in his favour by obe­dience.

This is Solomons the Preachers meaning Wherein behold, as in a glasse, the con­dition of all externall service of God in ge­nerall; as that which he accepteth no o­therwise than secundarily; namely, as is­suing from a heart respectively affected with that devotion it importeth. For God, as hee is a living God, so he requires a li­ving worship. But as the body without the soule is but a carcasse; so is all externall and bodily worship, wherein the pulse of the hearts devotion beats not.

[Page 68] But if this bee so, you will say, it were better to use no externall worship at all of course, as we doe the worship of the bo­die in the gestures of bowing, kneeling, standing, and the like, than to incurre this danger of serving God with a dead and hypocriticall service; because it is not like, the heart will be alwayes duely affected, when the outward worship shall bee re­quired. I answer; Where there is a true and reall intent to honour God with out­ward and bodily worship, there the act is not hypocrisie, though accompanied with many defects and imperfections. Here therefore that rule of our Saviour touch­ing the greater and lesser things of the law must have place: Matth. 23. 23. & Luke 11. 42. [...], [...], These things (.i. the greater things of the Law) we ought to doe, 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 himselfe from comming to Church upon the dayes and times appointed, or come thither but now and then, alledging [Page 69] the indisposition of his heart to joyne with the Church in her publicke 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 doe. For all these are externall services; and the service of the voice and gesture are in this respect all one, there is no difference. But who would not thinke this to be ve­ry absurd? We should rather upon every such occasion rouze and stirre 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 doe devoutly and acceptably. These things we ought to doe, and not leave the other undone.

But you will say, What if I cannot bring my heart unto that religious feare and de­votion, which the outward worship I should performe requireth? I could say that some of the outward worship which a man performes in a Church-assembly, he [Page 70] 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, feare, and esteeme of his Divine Ma­jesty thou oughtest to have, but hast not. For though to come before God with­out that inward devotion requisite, bee a sinne: yet to confesse 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 sinne. For our worship, in such a case, if we will so in­tend it, is an act of repentance: and as the moderne Greekes are wont to call their A­dorations [...], Repentances; so may we in this case make ours to be; namely, as if wee said, Lord, I ought to come before thee with that religious feare, humble re­verence, and lifting up of heart, which the gesture, the posture, I here present, impor­teth: but Lord be mercifull to me a sinner. If any mans heart be so prophane and irre­ligious, [Page 71] as not to acknowledge thus much: I yeeld, that such a one might better spare his labour, and not come into the presence of God at all. Otherwise I conclude still with our blessed Saviours determinati­on in the like case, Those greater things we ought to doe, and not to leave the other undone. *⁎*