thy furniture so fine

Shakespeare's sonnets were published in 1609. The following year, the 17-year old George Herbert wrote this sonnet (sent in a letter to his mother, "to declare my resolution to be, that my poor abilities in Poetry, shall be all and ever consecrated to God’s glory"):

My God, where is that ancient heat towards thee,
Wherewith whole shoals of Martyrs once did burn,
Besides their other flames? Doth Poetry
Wear Venus livery? only serve her turn?
Why are not Sonnets made of thee? and lays
Upon thine Altar burnt? Cannot thy love
Heighten a spirit to sound out thy praise
As well as any she? Cannot thy Dove
Out-strip their Cupid easily in flight?
Or, since thy ways are deep, and still the same,
Will not a verse run smooth that bears thy name?
Why doth that fire, which by thy power and might
 Each breast does feel, no braver fuel choose
 Than that, which one day, Worms, may chance refuse?

[It might be fanciful to suppose that the young Herbert had just been reading Shakespeare's sonnets. But surely the phrase "as any she" is bound to trigger belied with false compare in many readers' minds (Sonnet 130)? Or what about sonnets like "Not marble, nor the gilded monuments" (55) in the background of Herbert's closing lines?

The rhyme scheme is ababcdcdeffegg; so the octet is like a Shakespeare/Daniel sonnet (sometimes termed an English sonnet), but the sestet's form is Petrarchan. Herbert used it again in the other sonnet in the 1610 letter, and would use it again in later sonnets like "Prayer" and "Love (I)"; "Sin", however, is in the pure Shakespearean form ababcdcdefefgg. (If you compare the two schemes, the only difference is the switch of lines 11-12, but the impact is huge.) I haven't yet found anyone else using the "Herbertian" form in his own time. It has been used in later times by e.g. Charlotte Smith, Wilfred Owen, Edna St Vincent Millay... ]

Serving God by repurposing the secular to other ends turned out to be not so simple. Nor, in his own life, could service to God be treated as merely an add-on.

When first thou didst entice to thee my heart,
I thought the service brave;
So many joys I writ down for my part
Besides what I might have
Out of my stock of natural delights,
Augmented with thy gracious benefits.

I lookèd on thy furniture so fine,
And made it fine to me;
Thy glorious household-stuff did me entwine,
And 'tice me unto thee.
Such stars I counted mine: both heaven and earth
Paid me my wages in a world of mirth.

(Opening of "Affliction (I)")

This win-win arrangement is shattered by the troubles that follow. Serving God can be no other than a complete transformation, and it can't be defined in secular terms.

Yet, though thou troublest me, I must be meek;
In weakness must be stout;
Well, I will change the service, and go seek
Some other master out.
Ah my dear God! though I am clean forgot,
Let me not love thee, if I love thee not.

(End of "Affliction (I)")

I've seen several attempts to explain these lines, but I'm not sure if they can be settled down into any one interpretation.

Here are two shots at it:

1. Well, I will stop serving you and seek another master (in other words, a worldly career, where I might win some favour and recognition).
Ah my dear God, (No, I won't do that). Even though you appear to have completely forgotten me
(I acknowledge the validity of you treating me like this, for)
Heaven forbid that I should go through the motions of loving you unless I (have been proven to) really love you.

2. I am tired of this existence and will seek another master: the extinction of death. (Job 3:19 -- The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master)
Ah my dear God (goodbye). Even though I'll be utterly forgotten when I'm dead*
That is better than persisting in (the pretence of) loving you when (it's been proven by my evident uselessness and wretchedness that) I don't love you enough.

* This interpretation overlooks the strict implications of the little word "am", taking it loosely as a subjunctive "be".

But if I were to self-critique these interpretations, both of them are at odds with a certain jauntiness in the poem and its plain (if elusive) words. Despite the poem's title of "Affliction", it doesn't really wallow in pain but exemplifies being "stout" in "weakness". And I even register a sort of submerged twirling moustachio in the final half-line ("if I love thee not"), --- its natural inference, "I do love thee" ... (Excellent rogue, beshrew me if I love thee not...)