Works of John Bunyan Volume III Part 97

[16] The line means the text. The marginal reading agrees with the puritan version 'overlayed.' Tyndale renders it, 'And he paved the house with precious stones goodly.' Coverdale, 'And overlayed the house with precious stones to beautify it.'--Ed.

[17] A bath was a Hebrew measure containing about seven gallons and a half.--Ed.

[18] The moral law of ten commandments.--Ed.

[19] This is from the Genevan or puritan versions. Our translation has 'on the right side.'--Ed.

[20] The candlesticks mentioned in 2 Chronicles 4:7, Zechariah 4, and Revelation 1, appear to have been of one pattern. A stem, with a bowl bearing a centre and six branches--three on each side.

Of these there were ten in the temple. The prophets Zechariah and John, in their holy visions, saw but one, with its seven lamps secretly supplied by living olive trees. These lights 'are the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth'; the seven lamps 'are the seven churches.' What a source for reflection is here opened.--Ed.

[21] Oil called golden, from its representing that which is better than thousands of gold and silver. So pure that, in the golden bowl, it would look like liquid gold.--Ed.

[22] A malignant was a term of reproach given to those who, in the civil wars, opposed Divine truth, and promoted popery and arbitrary domination. Clarendon calls it 'a term imposed upon those that the puritans wished to render odious to the people.'--Ed.

[23] A tenth deal is the tenth part of a Hebrew measure, called the ephah, containing about a bushel.--Ed.

[24] Daniel Burgess published a curious sermon, in 1697, on the golden snuffers, showing that they are a type or emblem of spiritual snuffing or reproving; and of pure gold, to show that reprovers should be holy and unblameable. His directions and cautions are valuable, but Bunyan says much more in his few lines than Burgess does in his eighty pages.--Ed.

[25] Great was the fatherly care felt by Bunyan for his own children, especially for his blind Mary; and judging by the lessons he draws from the temple spoons, those feelings extended to his church. It must be a severe trial to a minister's temper, when teased with babes in religion at three score and ten years of age, especially if they are old professors. Thus Bunyan, in addressing the readers of his emblems, says--

'We now have boys with beards, and girls that be 'Huge as old women wanting gravity.'--Ed.

[26] The degraded state of the poor, when the religious houses (so called) distributed food to all comers, was long felt after the suppression of those hot-beds of vice, from the encouragement they gave to idleness, pauperism, and the most vicious habits. Even in Bunyan's days the beggar, carrying a bowl to receive the fruit of their industrious neighbours' toil, was still remembered. At intervals, plague and famine swept away the helpless wretches, to the terror of all cla.s.ses. How severely is this curse still felt in Ireland.--Ed.

[27] How careful ought churches to be in casting out an offending member, seeing that their sentence should be as 'the judicial judgment of G.o.d.' It is not revenge, hatred, malice, or the mere exercise of power, that is to lead to it; it is the good of the individual that is to be pursued and sought. While the church endeavours to remain pure, its aim and object should be mainly to correct and reform the offender, that his spirit may be saved. When discipline is undertaken from any other motive than this; and when it is pursued from private pique, or rivalship, or ambition, or the love of power, it is wrong. The salvation of the offender, and the glory of G.o.d, should prompt to all the measures which should be taken in the case. 'Restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted' (Gal 6:1).--Ed.

[28] In Bunyan's 'now-a-days,' it was much debated whether singing ought to be introduced in a mixed a.s.sembly. It was contended that a voice and talent for singing does not accompany the new birth; that it might tend to hypocrisy and vanity; and that it was not expressly commanded. The Quakers rejected it, but all other sects adopted that delightful part of public worship. See Keach's Breach Repaired.--Ed.

[29] The olive wood is used, with ivory and mother of pearl, in ornamenting the most sumptuous apartments in oriental palaces. It is exceedingly durable and elegant. 'The choosing olive out of every other kind of wood, for the adorning these sumptuous apartments, shows the elegance and grandeur of the taste in which Solomon's temple was built, where the doors of the oracle, and some other parts, were of olive wood.'--Harmer, Scheuzer, Lady M. W. Montague.--Ed.

[30] As the mercy-seat covered the law deposited in the ark, so Christ covers the transgressions of his people; while Christ sits upon the mercy-seat, the law cannot rise up in judgment against them.--Jennings.

[31] In Bunyan's edition this is called the 'new tabernacle,'

a typographical error which is corrected by restoring the true reading.--Ed

A DISCOURSE

OF

THE HOUSE OF THE FOREST OF LEBANON.

ADVERTIs.e.m.e.nT BY THE EDITOR.

That part of Palestine in which the celebrated mountains of Lebanon are situated, is the border country adjoining Syria, having Sidon for its seaport, and Land, nearly adjoining the city of Damascus, on the north. This metropolitan city of Syria, and capital of the kingdom of Damascus, was strongly fortified; and during the border conflicts it served as a cover to the a.s.syrian army. Bunyan, with great reason, supposes that, to keep them in check, Solomon built a tower house and palace, well furnished with munitions of war, called the house in the forest of Lebanon.

As the magnificent temple at Jerusalem was the seat of public worship appointed by G.o.d, it was considered typical of the gospel dispensation, which was intended to supersede it. All its parts and utensils, sacrifices and services, have been described, in their typical meaning, in Solomon's Temple Spiritualized; but as the lovely system of the gospel had, with slow and irresistible steps, to conquer the prejudices, pa.s.sions, and wickedness of mankind, those who bore the brunt of this battle were considered as the church militant in the wilderness: and Bunyan has, in this treatise, endeavoured to show that this palace and fortress was typical of the churches of Christ while in a state of holy warfare, defending their Divine dispensation, and extending the line of defence by progressive spiritual conquests. While the churches are surrounded by enemies, they have inexhaustible internal comfort, strength, and consolation. Like the house in the forest of Lebanon, they are also pleasantly, nay, beautifully situated. If Mount Zion was the joy of the whole earth, the mountains of Damascus were a picture of the earthly paradise. So beautiful is the scenery, and balmy the air, that one part is called Eden, or the garden of the Lord. It is described by Arabian poets as always bearing winter far above upon his head, spring on its shoulders, and autumn in his bosom, while perpetual summer lies sleeping at his feet. It was upon this beautiful spot, called by Isaiah 'the glory of Lebanon,'

that Solomon built his house in the forest.

This is the plain matter of fact which Bunyan establishes from the sacred Scriptures, but he was, as to lettered lore, an unlearned man; at all events, no man could say of him that 'much learning has made thee mad.' Bunyan's is the plain common-sense scriptural account of this building; but he differs greatly from almost all our learned commentators--they imagining that this house was near the temple of Jerusalem. The a.s.sembly of Divines, in their valuable annotations, suggest that it was so called 'because great store of trees, as in Lebanon, were planted about it; and gardens, orchards, and all manner of delightful things were added thereto': to aid this conjecture, they quote Ecclesiastes 2:4, 6. Poole says that it was 'a house so called, either, first, because it was built in the mountain and forest of Lebanon, for recreation in summer time; but generally held to have been near Jerusalem; or rather, secondly, from some resemblance it had with Lebanon for its pleasant shades and groves.' Diodati considers it the same with Solomon's palace, but called the house of Lebanon by reason of the groves planted about it; or of the great number of cedar columns brought from Lebanon, and used in its construction. Even Bunyan's favourite translation, made at Geneva by the Puritans, while it gives two wood-cuts of 'The King's house IN the wood of Lebanon,' a marginal note is added--'For the beauty of the place, and great abundance of cedar trees that went to the building thereof, it was compared to Mount Lebanon.' Calmet, in his very valuable translation, accompanied by the Vulgate Latin, gives the same idea: 'Il bat.i.t encore le palais appelle la maison du Leban, a cause de la quant.i.te prodigeuse de cedres qui entraient dans la structure de cet edifice.' [Translation: 'Another thing he did was build the palace which was called the house of Lebanon because of the prodigious quant.i.ty of cedars used in its construction.']

Bishop Patrick places this house in or near to Jerusalem, 'In a cool, shady mountain, which made it resemble Mount Lebanon.' Dr.

Gill was of opinion that this house was near Jerusalem; because it was a magazine of arms, and a court of judicature, and had its name from being built of the cedars of Lebanon, and among groves of trees. Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, book 8, chapter 6, section 5, states that when the Queen of Sheba came to Judea, she was amazed at the wisdom of Solomon, and surprised at the fineness and largeness of his royal palace; 'but she was beyond measure astonished at the house which was called the forest of Lebanon.' Matthew Henry follows the opinion of Bunyan; 'I rather incline to think it was a house built in the forest of Lebanon itself, whither, though far distant from Jerusalem, Solomon having so many chariots and horses, and those dispersed into chariot cities, which probably were his stages, he might frequently retire with ease.' Express notice is taken of Lebanon, as the place of a warlike building, in 2 Kings 19, and in Canticles 7:4.

The tower of Lebanon is described as looking towards Damascus.

The ruins of this house and tower, in the forest of Lebanon, are probably those seen by Benjamin of Tudela, who describes the stones of which it was built as twenty palms long, and twelve wide. Gabriel Sionits describes the tower as an hundred cubits high, and fifty broad. Maundrel saw the ruins in the mountains of Lebanon at a distance. The objections made by our commentators to the plain testimony of the Scriptures are, that Solomon would not have built this beautiful house at so great a distance from the capital--that he would not have risked so much treasure nor the munitions of war in a forest--and that he would not, on the extreme border of the kingdom of Judea, have set up a throne, or seat of judgment. The answer to these objections appears to me to be conclusive. Lebanon possessed the most commanding sites for a border fortress, and therefore an admirable depot for arms, to enable the Jewish warriors to keep out their most vigilant and dangerous enemies, the a.s.syrians. The wealth that was deposited in this house was calculated to excite greater vigilance to protect so important a pa.s.s, while it would divert the attention of an enemy from the still more wealthy temple and fortress at Jerusalem.

A throne of justice was well placed there, to save a long journey to the capital, for the trial of offenders, and the settlement of disputes on the borders of the empire. It appears to me that common sense and the soundest evidence supports the view which Bunyan took, which was far in advance of the age in which he lived.

The way in which this building, with the purposes for which it was intended, is spiritualized, is very ingenious, and admirably carried through in the following treatise. Whether it was intended by the Holy Ghost to be typical, must be left to the judgment of the impartial reader. That Lebanon is used figuratively by the inspired writers there can be no doubt. 'Lebanon is ashamed and hewn down,' must be intended as a type of the church, when under the malice of her enemies. So also when Babylon, a type of Antichrist, fell, 'the cedars of Lebanon rejoiced'; doubtless referring to the joy of G.o.d's saints when relieved from the oppressor. Whether the fine old trees, or the splendid house built as a defence to prevent the approach of enemies to the temple, is intended as a type of the Christian warfare, is left to the impartial consideration of the reader. There is very little reason to doubt but that we shall adopt Bunyan's view; if we consider the temple to be typical, we shall consider the house in the forest of Lebanon to be typical also.

It has been said, by an author of very great repute (Addison), that had Bunyan lived in the times of the Christian fathers, he would have been as great a father as the best of them. He stands unrivalled for most extraordinary mental powers for allegory and for spiritualizing, but to compare him with the best of the fathers is faint praise indeed. He was as much their superior, as the blaze of the noon-day sun excels the glimmer of a rushlight.

In this treatise we find many very admirable ill.u.s.trations of two important subjects. One is, that temporal governors have nothing to fear from the spread of vital G.o.dliness: the other is upon the nature of the strife and antipathy felt by the world against Christ and his spiritual seed. They are sweet-scented; the fragrant smell of their graces excites the enmity of Satan and his followers, who would burn these cedars, because they are pillars of, and angels for, the truth. 'Reason, history, and experience all confirm this truth; that a people, whose profession is directly in opposition to the devil, and antichrist, and to all debauchery, inhumanity, profaneness, superst.i.tion, and idolatry,' will be hated, persecuted, and, if possible destroyed by Satan and his adherents. The secret is, that the world cannot bear such 'living epistles, known and read of all men,' which reflect so severely by their conduct upon the vice and profligacy of the worldling.

This was a stinging censure upon the profligate court of Charles II, and therefore the Nonconformists were hated and persecuted; while conformity to soul-benumbing rites and ceremonies was cherished and rewarded. To render persecution perfectly unjustifiable, Bunyan scripturally and plainly exhibits the harmlessness of the Christian character bearing with meekness the injuries heaped upon it; followers of him who, when reviled, reviled not again, but suffered patiently. It is a grievous mistake to suppose that vital G.o.dliness caused the great rebellion, and consequent beheading of King Charles I. It was frightful and most insupportable tyranny that drove a nation, headed by their parliament, to arms.

The King levied severe taxes without the consent of the people's representatives; he perverted justice by the abominable decisions of the King's judges in the court of Star Chamber; and attempted to introduce Popery through the medium of the Queen and her licentious court, composed princ.i.p.ally of the worst cla.s.s of foreign Papists.

And when Leighton, Prynne, Bastwick, and some of the most virtuous and enlightened citizens, justly but firmly remonstrated, they were seized and tortured in a way that the heart sickens with the narrative. It was an attempt to reduce the whole nation to the most abject slavery of both body and soul, that roused the spirit of the people to resistance. The solemn league and covenant was taken, Cromwell appeared, and the country was, by Divine aid, saved from utter desolation. It was not a war of religious sects; the Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and others, could never have coalesced; it was a war for liberty or despotism, and the princ.i.p.al of the warriors on both sides were attached to the religion that was by law established. It is true that many Episcopalians, in the reign of Charles II, charged the Puritans, not only as being the mainspring, but as possessing the overwhelming force in that awful struggle, forgetting that the Nonconformists were then but a handful of men, neither possessed of wealth nor influence. To attribute victory to so small a band, must refer it to the immediate interposition of the Most High, as in the case of Gideon in his victory over the a.s.syrians. But it was no sectarian fight, except those two great sects of freemen against despots. Bunyan fully proves that no state has anything to fear from religion: 'She moveth no sedition, she abideth in her place; let her temple-worshippers but alone, and she will be as if she were not in the world'; 'neither she nor her Jesus are for doing them any hurt.' 'G.o.d's armour is no burthen to the body, nor clog to the mind, and it being only spiritual, the slaughter must needs be spiritual also.' 'All her privileges are soul concerns, they make no infringement upon any man's liberties. Let but faith and holiness walk the streets without control, and you may be as happy as the world can make you.'

'Let not kings, and princes, and potentates be afraid; the saints that are such indeed, know their places, and are of a peaceable deportment; the earth G.o.d hath given to the children of men, and his kingdom to the sons of G.o.d.' The Christian is a pilgrim bound to a far more glorious inheritance: with so bright and glorious a prospect, he may well apply the encouraging language of Bunyan to his own soul; 'I have a bad master, but I have only a year to serve under him, and that makes me serve him with patience. I have but a mile to go in this dirty way, and then I shall have my path pleasant and green, and this makes me tread the dirty way with patience.'

This treatise is one of the ten 'excellent ma.n.u.scripts' which Bunyan had prepared for the press, when his unexpected decease prevented his publishing them. It first appeared in the folio volume of his works, printed under the care of Charles Doe, in 1692. It has since been re-published in every edition of Bunyan's work, but with the omission of the Scripture references, and many errors.

It is now accurately corrected by the first edition.

GEO. OFFOR.

THE HOUSE OF THE FOREST OF LEBANON.

CHAPTER I.

As Solomon built a house for Pharaoh's daughter, and that called the temple of the Lord; so he built a house in Lebanon, called 'the house of the forest of Lebanon' (1 Kings 7:2).

Some, I perceive, have thought that this house, called 'the house of the forest of Lebanon,' was none other than that called the temple at Jerusalem, and that that was called 'The house of the forest of Lebanon,' because built of the wood that grew there. But that Solomon built another than that, even one in Lebanon, called 'the house of the forest of Lebanon,' is evident, and that from these reasons:--

First, That in the forest of Lebanon is mentioned as another, besides that called the temple of the Lord; and that too when the temple and its finishing is spoken of; yea, it is mentioned with an 'also,' as an additional house, besides the temple of the Lord.

'In the fourth year,' saith the text, 'was the foundation of the house of the Lord laid in the month Zif;[1] and in the eleventh year in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it; so he was seven years in building it.' 'But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house. He built also the house of the forest of Lebanon,'

&c. (1 Kings 6:37,38; 7:1,2).

Can there now be any thing more plain? Is not here the house of the forest of Lebanon mentioned as another besides the temple? he built the temple, he built his own house, he built also the house of the forest of Lebanon.

Second. It is evident by the difference of their measures and dimensions. The length of the temple was threescore cubits; but the length of the house of the forest of Lebanon was an hundred cubits; so that the house of the forest of Lebanon was forty cubits more than was that called Solomon's temple: The breadth of Solomon's temple was twenty cubits, but the breadth of the house of the forest of Lebanon was fifty cubits: And as there is odds between threescore and fivescore, so there is also between twenty and fifty.

As to their height, they were both alike; but equality in height can no more make them the same, than can a twenty years' age in two, make them one and the same person.

Their porches also differed greatly; the porch of the temple was in length but twenty cubits, but the length of that of the house of the forest of Lebanon was fifty cubits. So that here also is thirty odds.[2] The porch of the temple was but ten cubits broad; but the porch of the house of the forest of Lebanon thirty cubits.

Now, I say, who that considereth these disproportions, can conclude that the house of the forest of Lebanon was none other than that called the temple of Jerusalem. For all this compare 1 Kings 6:2, 3 with 7:2, 6.