BY THE EDITOR.
The part of Palestine where the celebrated mountains of Lebanon are situated is a border country adjoining Syria, with Sidon as its seaport, and land nearly adjoining the city of Damascus to the north. This metropolitan city of Syria, and capital of the kingdom of Damascus, was strongly fortified; during the border conflicts, it served as cover for the Assyrian army. Bunyan, with good reason, supposes that, to keep them in check, Solomon built a tower house and palace, well furnished with war munitions, called the house in the forest of Lebanon.
As the magnificent temple at Jerusalem was the seat of public worship appointed by God, 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, passions, 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.
Though enemies surround the churches, 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. The scenery is so beautiful, and the air so balmy, that one part is called Eden, or the garden of the Lord. Arabian poets describe it as always bearing winter far above its head, spring on its shoulders, and autumn in its bosom, while perpetual summer lies sleeping at its feet. Upon this beautiful spot, called by Isaiah 'the glory of Lebanon,' 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 a plain, common-sense scriptural account of this building; but he differs greatly from almost all our learned commentators—who imagine this house was near the temple of Jerusalem. The Assembly 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 as Solomon's palace, but calls it the house of Lebanon because of the groves planted about it, or because of the great number of cedar columns brought from Lebanon and used in its construction.
Even Bunyan's favorite 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 bâtit encore le palais appelé la maison du Liban, à cause de la quantité prodigieuse de cèdres qui entraient dans la structure de cet édifice.' [Translation: 'Another thing he did was build the palace which was called the house of Lebanon because of the prodigious quantity 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 believed this house was near Jerusalem because it was a magazine of arms and a court of judicature, and it took its name from being built of the cedars of Lebanon and set 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 a place of 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 a 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 seems to me conclusive.
Lebanon had the most commanding sites for a border fortress, and therefore an admirable depot for arms, enabling Jewish warriors to keep out their most vigilant and dangerous enemies, the Assyrians. The wealth deposited in this house was meant to heighten vigilance to protect such an important pass, while diverting an enemy's attention from the still wealthier 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 support the view Bunyan took, which was far ahead of its time.
The way this building, with the purposes for which it was intended, is spiritualized is ingenious and admirably carried through in the following treatise. Whether the Holy Ghost intended it to be typical must be left to the judgment of the impartial reader. That the inspired writers use Lebanon figuratively is beyond 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 God's saints when relieved from the oppressor. Whether the fine old trees, or the splendid house built as a defense to prevent the approach of enemies to the temple, is intended as a type of Christian warfare is left to the reader's impartial consideration. There is little reason to doubt that we shall adopt Bunyan's view; if we consider the temple typical, we shall also consider the house in the forest of Lebanon typical.
An author of very great repute (Addison) has said 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 unrivaled 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 illustrations of two important subjects. One is that temporal governors have nothing to fear from the spread of vital godliness; the other concerns the nature of the strife and antipathy the world feels 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, superstition, 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 so severely reflect, 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 make persecution perfectly unjustifiable, Bunyan scripturally and plainly shows the harmlessness of the Christian character, bearing with meekness the injuries heaped upon it; his followers, when reviled, reviled not again, but suffered patiently. It is a grievous mistake to suppose that vital godliness 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 through the abominable decisions of the King's judges in the court of Star Chamber; and he attempted to introduce Popery through the Queen and her licentious court, composed principally of the worst class of foreign Papists. When Leighton, Prynne, Bastwick, and some of the most virtuous and enlightened citizens justly but firmly remonstrated, they seized and tortured them in a way that sickens the heart to read.
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, by Divine aid, the country was 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 warriors on both sides were attached to the religion by law established. It is true that many Episcopalians, in the reign of Charles II, charged the Puritans with being the mainspring, and with possessing overwhelming force, in that awful struggle, forgetting that the Nonconformists were then but a handful of men, neither wealthy nor influential.
To attribute victory to so small a band must be to attribute it to the immediate interposition of the Most High, as in Gideon's victory over the Assyrians. 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.' 'God's armor 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 God hath given to the children of men, and his kingdom to the sons of God.' 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 manuscripts' Bunyan prepared for the press, but his unexpected decease prevented him from publishing them. It first appeared in the folio volume of his works, printed in 1692 under the care of Charles Doe. It has since been republished in every edition of Bunyan's work, but with the Scripture references omitted and many errors. The first edition now corrects it.
GEO. OFFOR.









