Green, yellow, blue streaked poison hellish, rank,
Bubs hatched in nature’s nest on serpent’s eggs,
Yelp, chirp, and cry; they set my soul a-cramp
I frown, chide, strike, and fight them, mourn and cry
To conquer them, but cannot them destroy.
Notes:
The poem begins with a pair of contrasting exclamations:
“My sin!” Followed instantly by “May God”. And are the two poles upon which the poet hangs, harangued by sin, pleading to God for help.
The insistence of the language here overcharges the meter. For instance, nearly every syllable must be read as accented, spoiling the iambic form. It is as if man is being attacked from all sides by every sort of monster.
Sin is described in terms of an infestation of vermin:
The sins are “cursed dregs” (cursed is two syllables). The vermin are of every color: “Green, yellow, blue”. The vermin is “streaked poison,” and “hellish.” He cannot contain his disgust, they are “rank,” “bubs” (larvae?). “Nature” has not yet been overtaken by the Romantics sentimental view of the wilderness. This would be particularly for a family on the edge of an immense and often dangerous wilderness, where dangerous animals abound and infection means death. The disgust is so great that the description is not quite clear: the bubs are hatched on (not from) serpent’s eggs.
Serpent serves two purposes: first, a serpent would be dangerous. Second, the Devil is a serpent. The Serpent in Paradise has now overrun the world and the poet’s soul.
When the pests break free, they “yelp, chirp, and cry”. They are of every sort whatsoever.
They injure his soul, “they set my soul a-cramp” (they give him cramps in his soul).
Nothing he does will destroy these sins:
I frown, chide, strike, and fight them, mourn and cry
To conquer them, but cannot them destroy.
In writing like this, he is the vein of John Owen writing in Mortification of Sin:
And, indeed, I might here bewail the endless, foolish labour of poor souls, who, being convinced of sin, and not able to stand against the power of their convictions, do set themselves, by innumerable perplexing ways and duties, to keep down sin, but, being strangers to the Spirit of God, all in vain. They combat without victory, have war without peace, and are in slavery all their days. They spend their strength for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which profiteth not.
This is the saddest warfare that any poor creature can be engaged in. A soul under the power of conviction from the law is pressed to fight against sin, but hath no strength for the combat. They cannot but fight, and they can never conquer; they are like men thrust on the sword of enemies on purpose to be slain. The law drives them on, and sin beats them back. Sometimes they think, indeed, that they have foiled sin, when they have only raised a dust that they see it not; that is, they distemper their natural affections of fear, sorrow, and anguish, which makes them believe that sin is conquered when it is not touched. By that time they are cold, they must to the battle again; and the lust which they thought to be slain appears to have had no wound.
John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 20.
Second Stanza
I cannot kill nor coop them up: my curb
‘S less than a snaffle in their mouth, my reins
They as a twine third, snap: by hell, they’re spurred:
And load my soul with swagging loads of pains.
Black imps, young devils, snap, bite, drag to bring
And pick me headlong hell’s dread whirlpool in.
Notes
The second stanza continues his despair.
I cannot kill nor coop them up: my curb
‘S less than a snaffle
Note the alliteration: Cannot, Kill, coop, curb, which switches to S in the second line. ‘S, less, Snaffle.
He can neither kill, nor can he restrain (coop, as in cooped in or a chicken coop) sins.
When he tries curb them by means of a rein put in their mouth, they “snap” the reins. They are monsters, “spurred” on by “hell” itself.
The damage is upon his soul: “load my soul with swagging loads of pains”.
This is an excellent. First, there is the use of the word “load” as both verb (load my soul) and noun (loads of pain). There is the alliteration on l & s: Load my SouL with Swagging Loads of pain. There is the alliteration on the long O: load, soul, load. The image is marvelous: the load is great that he swaying, staggering, “swagging” under the burden (to move slowly with a great weight, swaying from side-to-side).
These monsters not merely sins, they are devils seeking to kill in him hell’s whirlpool:
Black imps, young devils, snap, bite, drag to bring
And pick me headlong hell’s dread whirlpool in.
The insistence of his enemies is shown by the three quick verbs: snap, bite, drag. The last verb opens an entire clause “young devils … drag to bring and pick me headlong”.
There is also the strange detail: these are “young devils”. This seems to harken back to the image of the sins hatching on serpent eggs.
The language in these two stanzas reminds of phrases from The Tempest:
Daniel Patterson assumes shackeroon to be a variant on “shackerell,” an obsolete word for vagabond.
Swash is to be worthless.
A rangel must obviously be something of a similar sort. Rangle is gravel fed to hawks to help with digestion, so perhaps this is an alternative spelling.
Summary: Should I be a fine thing in name and yet a wretched thing in actuality? This idea chills my heart.
The Comparisons:
He gives a series of six images in contrast: grape vine, olive tree, heir, spouse, dressed with angel-feathers in his cap.
With the exception of the final image, the images are all important pictures of the way the Christian is said to relate to God.
The Grape Vine
This image comes from John 15, and has particular poignancy here. The nature of the image is that the believer is said to abide as a branch in the grape vine of Christ. Christ provides growth and fruitfulness. If one lacks fruitfulness, it is a dead vine to be pruned.
The passage reads:
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.”
John 15:1–8 (ESV)
The Olive Stand
This image comes from the 11th Chapter of Romans, and concerns the complicated issue about the relationship of the Covenant People of Israel from before the coming of Christ with the current church. The details of that theological dispute are not critical for this poem. What is important is that God broke off branches and then grafted in branches onto the olive tree. Someone like Taylor would be a wild branch grafted into the tree. But that grafting again comes with a warning (which I have highlighted):
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Romans 11:17–24 (ESV).
Thus, the first two images do not convey merely the idea that he is not living up to the ideal; they also convey that he may be an imposter. Although not explicitly alluded two in this stanza, there is an idea from the Sermon on the Mount which may be lurking in the choice of these allusions:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Matthew 7:21–23 (ESV)
An Heir
This is a substantially more encouraging image. In the 8th Chapter of Romans, Paul refers to believers as “joint heirs with Christ”; and this is made as a matter of comfort and assurance:
15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Romans 8:15–17 (ESV)
A Spouse
While the language of heir includes a conditional (“if we suffer with him”), the language of the spouse, found in both Ephesians and Hosea is even more encouraging. The spouse will not be lost:
The first example comes the prophet Hosea, who refers to Israel as the Bride of God. Israel’s sin will be put away and she will be reconciled and not lost to God:
16 “And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ 17 For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more. 18 And I will make for them a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety. 19 And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy.
Hosea 2:16–19 (ESV). There is a pun here which makes little sense in English. The words “Baal-i” mean “my Lord, master”. This can be used as a reference to the god “Baal” or can be used of a husband. But it does create a subservient position for the wife. In place of that word, God says you will call me “husband.” Here is the more technical and detailed explanation:
The second level is that of vocabulary at home with Hosea and his audience but not so with modern readers. In classical Hebrew the familiar terms ʾîš (“man”) and ʾiššâ (“woman”) also express what modern readers understand by husband and wife. Thus in 2:2 one could translate quite literally: “She is not my woman and I am not her man.” The noun baʿal means “owner, master, lord,” and in certain contexts “husband.”12 Both senses of the word are presupposed here in 2:16. In the patriarchal, non-Western societies of ancient Canaan, a husband was the owner and master of his household, which included his wife. In a few instances in the OT the related verb bāʿal is used with the meaning “to marry, to take a wife.” A wife, furthermore, could be described as bĕʿûlâ, a feminine passive form, meaning “possessed [by a husband],” i.e., married. And as a noun, baʿal also is used for Canaanite deities. They were masters of certain powers and possessors/owners of property and people. “Baal” is not a proper name, even though in reference to deities it often functions like one. A Canaanite god called upon as Baal would additionally have one or more names and perhaps some epithets. The same thing can be said for a goddess, if called upon as baʿălâ/baʿălat. A modern parallel is the invocation of a deity as “Lord.”
The declaration in 2:16 that Israel will no longer call YHWH ba‘al presupposes that some in Israel had called upon YHWH with this common noun, a term completely at home in the eastern Mediterranean, especially in the Phoenician-influenced areas. To call YHWH ba‘al carried with it, at least in Hosea’s eyes, an unacceptable form of syncretism with the broader Canaanite culture of which Israel was nevertheless a constituent part. YHWH was worshiped as a deity in the land of Canaan, but for Hosea not all attributes of the Canaanite deities could be applied to the one Lord of Israel.
YHWH should no longer be called ba‘al, but it would be a sign of covenant intimacy to call him husband (ʾîš). It is a metaphor, signifying intimacy as well as indicating more mutuality between God and people than was found in the hierarchy and role specificity of a Canaanite pantheon. As the gracious giver of a covenant to Israel, YHWH is the father, husband, and owner of the people. These are his identities in his relationship to Israel, reflecting modes of his self-revelation. And in his household he can be known by the simplest relational term, ʾîš. Nevertheless, YHWH is no more essentially male than collective Israel or Samaria are female. In the comprehensiveness of his being, YHWH had attributes that belonged to various deities in the Canaanite world. These attributes were not uncritically assimilated to him, and as the comprehensive Lord for Israel, YHWH transcends a defining by gender.
J. Andrew Dearman, The Book of Hosea, The New International Commentary on the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 123–124.
The second example would be from Ephesians, where Paul speaks of human marriage and the image of the marriage between Christ and the Church. What is of primary importance for our allusion is not merely the fact that spouse is appropriate, but further that the husband is love and give himself up for the wife:
28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
Ephesians 5:28–31 (ESV)
The love of the spouse is overwhelming, unchanging, and thus should be transformative. As Paul writes in another place, “For the love of Christ controls us.” 2 Cor. 4:14
An Angel Feather
This last image has no parallel in Scripture, but would be an image following upon the first stanza’s references to “livery.” If I graced with an Angel Feather, I am a courtier of the heavenly court, then why?
His Failures
Understanding the images we can easily see the failures:
Shall I thy vine branch be, yet grapes none bear?
A grape vine should grow grapes. If it does not, is it a grape vine?
Graft in thy olive stand; and fatness lack?
Fat would be the oil: If I am an “olive tree” and don’t bear olives, then what am I?
A shackeroon, a rangel, yet an heir?
A joint heir with Christ would own all things. This is underscored by the passage upon which the poem is based, “All things are yours … Christ is yours.” If I have an heirship in all things, then how could I be dressed a homeless vagrant?
Thy spouse, yet, oh! My wedding ring thus slack?
If I am a true spouse, why have I lost my wedding ring?
Should angel-feathers plume my cap, I should
Be swashed?
If I am a courtier of heaven, then why am I worthless?
The conclusion
But oh! My heart hereat grows cold.
The first two images came with startling warnings (You will be burned). The third image came as a conditional. The fourth image came with a promise (but does not that promise apply to me?). The final image comes as a confession by a traitor.
As he contemplates this, it freezes him: am I being judged?
The motto for this poem is again 1 Cor. 3:23, and here he has come to the words, “You are Christ’s.” And so, the poet contemplates what does this mean, I belong to Christ.
In this stanza, he compares himself to an attendant upon a king who wears the king’s uniform and yet seems himself as the ultimate imposture: I belong to this King in all my privilege and uniform, but look at me! I am not what my title claims.
The effect of this incongruity is fear and confession
My soul, Lord, quails
Quail is an archaic if not obsolete word by our day. The root meaning is along the lines of becoming ill. Entymology online gives this useful note: “Sense of “lose heart or courage, shrink before a danger or difficulty, cower” is attested from 1550s. According to OED, the word was common 1520-1650, then rare until 19c., when apparently it was revived by Scott. Related: Quailed; quailing.”
And thus, the word “quail” is especially fitting here: The poet is losing heart, I will be found out and found to be an impostor. It is also interesting that it is his “soul” which quails. My life at its base, the thing I am: I am growing fearful at my core.
The break in the second foot, and the piled accents, opens the poem in a slow, even deliberate manner:
my SOUL [pause] LORD [pause] QUAILS
It frames the whole of the poem.
The poem then moves paradoxically to not a fearful thing but something which would seemingly bring joy:
to think that I should be
So high related, have such colors fair
Stick in my hat, from heaven
He has a claim to relationship with the King. He has fine clothing “colors fair”. Next there is a “stick in my hat.” I don’t know the details of 17th century court dress well enough to know if there was a stick which was displayed in a hat, or whether this was a mistake for “stick in hand,” which would then refer to some sort of cane. The whole is “from heaven.”
What then is the problem?
yet should see
My soul thus blotcht.
Even though I dress so well, my soul – the soul has now returned as the scene of the crime—is “bloched.” His soul is stained. Underneath the heavenly dress, hidden from view in the soul, is a stain. I look like one thing but in my soul, I am another.
The whole is then reversed: Rather than being heaven’s livery, he is bearing the livery of hell! His fearfulness is not merely the fear of the impostor, it is the fear of the traitor. I am in the court of a king and I am showing loyalty to his enemy.
At this point, an aspect of Taylor’s psychology, which is profoundly different from our post-Rousseau, post-Freud world. He does not look at the “natural” bent of his desire as good and “authentic” and his “true” self. That is the posture of therapy which seeks to have us feel good about desires (whatsoever they may be). Instead, Taylor would see this self as “natural” and corrupt. He does not begin with the premise that whatever he happens to want is morally neutral and good only because he wants it (“love is love”).
What is good and true is not defined by the desires of Taylor’s soul, but by the Lord of Taylor’s soul. The Lord has come to raise Taylor up. That is an idea which lies at the heart of Taylor’s project, but it is an idea which utterly foreign to our culture.
Taylor’s calls this rebellion, “Hell’s livery.” And this is the paradox in Christianity: God’s love for his enemies. But it is not a love which merely receives the “prostitutes and sinners,” but a love which transforms them. Our culture would be fine with a God who merely receives but does not forgive (because there is nothing to be forgiven).
And that leads to the conflict in Taylor: God forgives and transforms: this is granted. But then why has God not transformed me:
What thine? New naturalized? Yet this relation
Thus barren, though’t’s a privilege-foundation?
I belong to you? I am a new citizen of this Kingdom? How is it that having received such a privilege, beginning from such a privileged place, I have produced nothing: I have a new relationship and there is nothing to show for it?
This is a struggle with identity: Who am I? I am really in Christ? Do I really belong to Christ?
Summary: These last two stanzas should be taken together. They amount to first a praise to God for his wisdom (in providence). Second a prayer for sight. Third, a prayer for communion with Christ. Rather than examine these elements by stanza, it would be clearer to look consider them by them.
Notes:
Praise of God
But oh! Thy wisdom, Lord! Thy grace! Thy Praise!
The praise of God’s wisdom and grace and frequent in the Bible. But perhaps the most pertinent allusion in these lines comes at the end of Romans 11. In chapters 9-11, Paul has been unpacking the doctrine of election and speaking of the manner in which God so orders the history of humanity as to give display of both his mercy and his judgment.
The poet’s meditation has been sparked on the mystery of being chosen by God:
Lord am I thine? Art thou, Lord, mine? So rich!
How doth thy wealthy bliss branch out thy sweets
Through all things present?
Accordingly, Paul’s spontaneous outburst of praise for God’s mercy in salvation seems particularly relevant here:
Romans 11:32–36 (AV)
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
Petition, Open my eyes:
Open mine eyes to see the same aright.
Take off their film, my sins, and let the rays
Of thy bright glory on my peepholes light
I fain would love and better love thee should,
If ‘fore me thou thy loveliness unfold.
Lord, clear my sight: thy glory then out dart:
And let thy rays beam glory in mine eye
We can segregate the petitions as follows:
First, “Open my eyes to see the same aright”. The “same” is the wisdom of God. This is a prayer to be able to see the wisdom of God in its working out of providence.
This prayer to open my eyes likewise comes in connection with Paul’s understanding of the providence as shown in election, In Ephesians 1, Paul, having spoken of the manner in which believers having been “chosen in [Christ] before the foundations of the world” (Eph. 1:4) Paul launches into a prayer which contains the language of eyes being opened to see the providence of God:
Ephesians 1:15–19 (AV)
15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, 16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
Second, there is a prayer to remove the hinderances to his sight: “Take off their [my eyes] film, their sin.” This is paralleled by “Lord, clear my sight.”
This prayer concerns what in technical parlance is called “noetic effects of sin.” This has to do with the manner in which sin distorts our understanding of the world. A full explication of the doctrine would overwhelm a post. To put it in a summary fashion (based upon Romans 1), sin affects my ability to know/understand; it affects my desires, emotions, and affections; in short it makes me incapable of knowing of what is good and evil, right and wrong. To have a debased mind is to have a mind which cannot probably evaluate anything.
Taylor’s prayer is based upon a close reading of Romans 12:1-2. He is praying for a mind which is conformed to the right understanding provided by God.
Romans 12:1–2 (AV)
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
The reprobate mind of Romans 1:28 is to be the mind which is “able to prove” in Romans 12:2. It is not as clear in English, but the Greek of Romans 1:28 is a mind which is not capable of making judgment. The Spirit transforms the mind to make it capable of making correct judgment.
Taylor’s prayer is that his mind is becomes capable of rightly evaluating the work of God.
If sin did not occlude his sight, he would see
the rays
Of thy bright glory on my peepholes light
I fain would love and better love thee should,
If ‘fore me thou thy loveliness unfold.
The beauty of God is always apparent; it is always showing in the world. The trouble is that we do not rightly see God’s glory. Taylor prays that God would strip the sin from his life so that he could rightly see God.
Second petition
The first petition is object: remove the impediments from my sight. The second petition is subjective: make me receptive to that vision:
And stick thy loveliness upon my heart,
Make me the couch on which thy love doth lie.
Lord make my heart thy bed, thy heart make mine.
Thy love bed in my heart, bed mine in thine.
Think of it like this: Imagine a blind man in an art museum. At first, he would be unable to see anything. He would first need vision to see anything at all. But if he were to see, he would need to see with judgment.
An artist does not paint with the hope that none will see or understand. His hope is to affect someone.
Yet with God the hope is that His artist will transform us: Taylor prays not merely that he will rightly see God’s providence, but that it will “stick upon my heart.” May I see and be transformed: not merely for a moment, but may the transformation be permanent. (I can’t find my copy of Rilke at this moment, but I remember a line – I believe it is from a poem on seeing a bust of Apollo, ‘you shall be changed’)
The prayer is that his heart be transformed.
The third petition
There is a third petition which fits as subsection of the second: he prays not merely that he be capable of being affected by the sight of God but that there be a complete union. The language in this concluding petition is language which sounds, frankly, odd in our Modern way of speaking about salvation: Jesus is thought as a ticket to “Heaven” [the Eddie Money song, Two Tickets to Paradise, comes to mind], but that is not at all the way Taylor is conceiving of the matter: the idea is not that I, as I am at present will go to Heaven, but that I will be radically transformed to be fit for heaven.
The language of marriage sounds “stark mad” to our ears, but I truly hits the point. Marriage requires a radical transformation of the individuals: we must become something different an “us” for marriage to be its intended end. It exposes our selfishness and demands are transformation. How can one raise children and be a loving spouse without dying to self?
But faith requires and demands day-by-day a greater death to self: the good of our Lord supersedes our present hopes and plans. How then can we enact such a death to self? It is only by means of an abiding sight of the beauty for Christ and our desire for Christ’s glory? The language of eros which is the human parlance for loss of selfish ambition for the glory of another which will suffice:
And still thou by the gracious chemistry Dost of his carcass cordials make rich, high, 20 To free from Death makest death a remedy: A curb to sin, a spur to piety. Heaven’s brightsome light shines out in Death’s dark cave. The golden door of glory is the grave.
Summary: The body of Christ is made into a medicine. Death itself is transformed into a good thing: rather than being a final tomb, it is a golden door to glory.
Notes:
Taylor’s concepts and imagery are quite consistent and easy to find in his contemporaries. Indeed, the contemporaries provide excellent comment on his meaning in these short lines.
Thou …his: The poet seems to be directly addressing God. The first line of the poem is addressed to “Lord.” But here there is a distinction being made between God and Christ. This is the place where Christian theology can become extraordinarily stretching. God is tri-personal, a tri-unity. Christ is God and man: two natures, one person. Thus, God who cannot die and man who must die meet in an extraordinary manner.
Gracious chemistry: the concept of alchemy and chemistry are not necessarily well-distinguished at this time. A fundamental goal of alchemy was the transmutation of lead to gold. Here, God performs a transmutation of turning death into a means of life. There are two transformations: the carcass of Christ is made into a “cordial”, i.e., a medicine. Second, death is made into a “remedy”.
An alchemist in his laboratory. David Taisniers
To free from Death: Death is referred to as a sovereign:
For death (in which the Bridegroom first cometh to us) is, in itself, “the king of terrors:” other afflictions—as poverty, reproach, imprisonment, debt, exile, sickness, &c.—are inferior fears, which possibly may be escaped, and out of which there is oftentimes deliverance; but death is the sovereign lord and king of all of them, from whence there is no return. He that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more, but passeth presently unto the highest tribunal, there to receive the eternal judgment, whether of absolution or of condemnation.
James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 684–685. This has it basis in Hebrews 2:14-15 and in Romans 5:14, “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Thomas Boston has a striking use of this concept:
Death reigns among them. See where they sit, Matth. 4:16. ‘In the region and shadow of death.’ The whole society are a parcel of condemned criminals, John 3:18 that know not how soon the sentence shall be executed upon them; their father the devil ready to be the executioner; they are all in a dying condition, their souls have got their death’s wounds, and they are pining away in their iniquity, while in the meantime their eyes are held that they cannot see the preciousness of the Physician. Nay, they are dead already in a spiritual sense; God, the life of the soul, is departed far from them. O! why will ye stay in the congregation of the dead? Come out from among them to the Lord of life.
Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Part 1, ed. Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 1 (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1848), 650.
makest death a remedy: Now rather than being a means of condemnation and loss of God, death has been transformed into a means of good. Taylor names three:
A curb to sin,Thomas Boston explicates this concept:
Consider ye must die: Heb. 9:27, “It is appointed unto men once to die.” Death is certain, and therefore repentance is necessary. O if men would realize death to themselves, sinners would soon find it necessary to turn a new leaf. One hearing Gen. 5. read in the church, was so impressed with the thoughts of death, that he presently betook himself to a new course of life, that he might die well. We must all meet with death, lie down in the grave; let us view it aforehand, and see how it calls us to repent. Look to thy dying hour, and to thy grave, O impenitent sinner, and consider these few things.
Wouldst thou be content to die as thou livest? Thou livest in thy sin, without God; wouldst thou desire to die so? Many indeed entertain Balaam’s wish, for the death of the righteous, while they care not for their life, Num. 23:10, “Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his.” But remember he did not get it, chap. 31:8, “Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.” And while death is so uncertain, it is the hanging of an eternal weight on a hair, to look to get matters mended then, that are not mended now.
Consider, what will a sinful life look like on a death-bed? How will ye be able to look your unrepented-of guilt, and a long eternity in the face together? Ezek. 22:14, “Can thine heart endure, or can thine hands be strong in the days that I shall deal with thee? I the Lord have spoken it, and will do it.” Sin sits easy now on a sleepy conscience, while health and strength lasts, and death appears not. But when death stares thee in the face, and the awakened conscience flies upon thee, it will cut thee to the heart, that thou hast not repented before.
What will it be to die, and go to another world with a load of unrepented-of guilt on thy back? Look to your grave aforehand; think with yourselves, how will it be to lie down there with your bones full of your iniquity? Is it not best now, to shake off and east away your transgressions, as knowing that however ye may live with them, ye cannot die with them well.
At a dying hour ye must part with the world, and the enjoyment of your lusts. The foul feast ye sit at now, death will overthrow the table, and the sad reckoning for it comes in then, and continues for ever. O rise up now, and leave it by repentance. Part with these things at God’s call, which ye must part with ere long, whether ye will or not.
Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: Sermons and Discourses on Several Important Subjects in Divinity, ed. Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 6 (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1849), 434–435.
a spur to piety. Richard Baxter wrote an entire book on the subject published by Banner of Truth as Dying Thoughts. Just as the thought of death drives one to repentance, contemplating death teaches us to prepare for another world. Thomas Brooks (referencing also the King of Terrors):
Look, as a crucified Christ hath taken away the guilt of sin, though he hath not taken away sin itself, so he hath taken away the sting of death, though he hath not taken away death itself. He spake excellently that said, ‘That is not death, but life, which joins the dying man to Christ; and that is not life, but death, which separates the living man from Christ.’5 Austin longed to die, that he might see that head that was crowned with thorns. ‘Did Christ die for me,’ saith one, ‘that I might live with him? I will not, therefore, desire to live long from him.’ All men go willingly to see him whom they love, and shall I be unwilling to die that I may see him whom my soul loves? Bernard would have us never to let go out of our minds the thoughts of a crucified Christ. Let these, says he, be meat and drink unto you, let them be your sweetness and consolation, your honey and your desire, your reading and your meditation, your contemplation, your life, death, and resurrection. Certainly he that shall live up to this counsel will look upon the king of terrors as the king of desires.
Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 5 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1867), 215.
The golden door of glory is the grave. Thomas Brooks uses quite similar imagery. As he explains:
Eighteenth place, Death is nothing but the believer’s inlet into glory. Death is the gate of life, it is the gate of paradise; it is the midwife to bring eternity to bed. When Jacob saw the chariots that were to bring him to Joseph, his spirit revived, Gen. 45:27. Ah, Christian! death is that chariot that will bring thee not only to a sight of Jacob and Joseph, but also to a blessed sight of God, Christ, angels and ‘the spirits of just men made perfect, Heb. 12:23, 24. Here we meet with many inlets to sin, to sorrow, to affliction, to temptation; but death, of all inlets, is the most happy inlet; it lets the soul into a full fruition of God, to the perfection of grace, and to the heights of glory; and why, then, should a gracious soul be unwilling to die?
Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 461–462.
Poor wretched man Death’s captive stood full chuff But thou my gracious Lord didst find relief Thou King of Glory didst, to handy cuff With King of Terrors and dashed out his teeth, 15 Pluckest out his sting, his poison quellest, his head To pieces breakest. Hence cruel death lies dead.
Summary: Having passed his introduction, the poet turns to the explanation of his motto, “Death is yours.” The movement is clear: Humanity was under the sway of Death without escape. God found a way to defeat death. Death is now dead.
Notes
The motto:
“Death is yours.” This needs some explanation. The verse cited, in context reads,
1 Corinthians 3:18–23 (AV) 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23 And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.
The people of Corinth were playing favorites and counting themselves as part of a faction of Paul o Apollos or Cephas (Peter). Such factions are wisdom of the world. And why would claim only Paul or Apollos?
“This turns their slogans completely on their head, with the significant difference that the pronoun is plural, not singular. Thus, they may not say “I belong to Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas,” not only because that is to boast in mere men, but because that is the precise opposite of reality in Christ. In him, as Eph. 1 will say in lofty cadences, God has begun what he will eventually bring to full consummation, namely “to bring all things in heaven and earth under one head, even Christ” (Eph. 1:10); therefore, all things are yours (plural).” Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 153.
The personification of death:Death is here presented as a monster which God defeats: Death has “capatives”; therefore, Death has the capacity to make captive. Death is the “King of Terrors.” Death has teeth, a sting, poison, and a head. Death has also been killed.
Death holding captives:
This comes from Hebrews 2:14–15, “14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (AV) Here is specifically the “fear of death” which is used to hold us captive.
The Defeat of Death
The primary allusion for this stanza comes from 1 Corinthians 15:54-57, where Paul writes that due to the Resurrection of Jesus, the power of death has been destroyed. Taylor takes much of his imagery from this passage: “54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (AV)
The breaking of death’s head comes from Genesis 3:15, “15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
chuff: here morose, sullen. “full chuff”, does he mean “despair”?
Handy cuff: struck with a hand
Dashed out his teeth This seems to be an allusion to Psalm 3:7 “7 Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God: for thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly.” (AV)
King of Terrors, Rosslyn Chapel
King of Terrors This comes from Job 18:14, speaking of one being brought to death as a judgment, “14 His confidence shall be rooted out of his tabernacle, and it shall bring him to the king of terrors.” (AV). This was understood as a reference to death, “Death is of all terribles the most terrible, and is therefore called the king of terrors. But those who have taken God in Christ for their refuge, have what may comfort and establish them, even in that case. Even from the last enemy God it a refuge.” Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: A Soliloquy on the Art of Man-Fishing, ed. Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 5 (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1849), 66.
Rutherford used the image with the idea of ruling over men, “By one man’s offence, there was a cruel king, death the king of terrors, who hath a black sceptre, set over all and every man without exception.” Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying, and Drawing Sinners to Himself (Glasgow: Samuel and Archibald Gardner; Niven, Napier & Khull, 1803), 501.
In this sermon by Matthew Sylvester, we see very similar thoughts and imagery to that used by Taylor: “DIRECTION I. Be thoroughly persuaded of, and heartily affected with, a life to come. (2 Cor. 4:17, 18.)—This is the “poise” and pondus of religion; (Heb. 11:6;) this is the heart and strength of godliness. (Acts 24:14, 15, 25.) It is this that strips that king of terrors, death, of all his frightful looks and strength; this spoils his fatal conquest, gripe, and sting. (2 Tim. 4:6–8; 2 Cor. 5:1–10; 1 Cor. 15:51–58.)”. James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 659.
The phrase itself was remarkably common in Puritan writing, whether Public (such as Sylvester’s sermon) or in private correspondence such as this by Thomas Brooks, “Now you should always look upon death under scripture notions, and this will take off the terror of death; yea, it will make the king of terrors to be the king of desires; it will make you not only willing to die, but even long to die, and to cry out, ‘Oh that I had the wings of a dove, to fly away, and be at rest!’ At death you shall have an eternal jubilee, and be freed from all incumbrances. Now sin shall be no more, nor trouble shall be no more, nor pain nor ailments shall be no more.” Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 5 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1867), 454–455.
King of Glory: This is an allusion to Psalm: 8–10 “8 Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle. 9 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. 10 Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah.” The allusion is quite apt, because the original is a reference to Jesus’ Ascension where he enters having defeated death:
“When Christ ascends into heaven after his sore conflict with his enemies and his glorious victory over them, wherein he appeared to be “the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle” [v. 8], and the word was proclaimed to the gates and doors of that everlasting temple of God, that they should be lift up, that the King of glory may come in, the heavenly hosts are represented as inquiring with wonder and great admiration, “Who is this King of glory?”, as being in their eyes a very wonderful person, and one that had done very wonderful things, as though some very new thing appeared, a remarkable person coming, appearing in such wise as never had been before, a person that appeared with very wonderful glory, and such an one as that it was wonderful that one, with those things that had appeared in him of late and now appeared, should have the title of “the King of glory,” as though it was admirable that such glory should be united with those other things that appeared in this person, which yet it most plainly appeared there had, that appeared in him, by which he appears sufficiently to merit the character of the King of glory, viz. his appearing so strong and mighty in battle, as he had done, and gaining such a glorious victory, as he had done. And therefore it is answered, “The Lord strong and mighty,” etc. [v. 8].” Jonathan Edwards, Notes on Scripture, ed. Harry S. Stout and Stephen J. Stein, vol. 15, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 282.
The Defeat of Death:
Christ before his death had been combating with the powers of darkness and all the subordinate instruments. Death was Satan’s beast of prey that was set upon him; but our Lord foiled it in its own dungeon. The battle between Christ and death was begun upon the cross; he grappled with it there, and they went tugging and wrestling to the grave. Christ, like a prudent warrior, carried the war into his enemy’s country, and there got loose of the grasp of death, foiled it in its own territory. He arose, and left death gasping behind him; so that the quality of the grave is quite altered. Before it was a prison, Satan’s dungeon; now it is a chamber of repose, a bed of ease, ever since Christ slept there.
Thomas Manton, “The Saints Triumph Over Death,” The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 2 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 445
And is it much ‘far better’ to die, that we may be with Christ, than to live here a conflicting life? Why should we then fear death, that is but a passage to Christ? It is but a grim sergeant that lets us into a glorious palace, that strikes off our bolts, that takes off our rags, that we may be clothed with better robes, that ends all our misery, and is the beginning of all our happiness. Why should we therefore be afraid of death? it is but a departure to a better condition? It is but as Jordan to the children of Israel, by which they passed to Canaan. It is but as the Red Sea by which they were going that way. Therefore we have no reason to fear death. Of itself it is an enemy indeed, but now it is harmless, nay, now it is become a friend, amicable to us, a sweet friend. It is one part of the church’s jointure, death. ‘All things are yours,’ saith the apostle, Paul and Apollos, ‘life and death,’ 1 Cor. 3:22. Death is ours and for our good. It doth us more good than all the friends we have in the world. It determines and ends all our misery and sin; and it is the suburbs of heaven. It lets us into those joys above.
Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson, 1862), 340.
Death lies dead: I don’t know if he means an allusion here to either Donne’s “Death thou shalt die” or Owens’ “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.”
Prosody:
The first line is hard to scan. The effect depends upon how one takes the word “poor” at the beginning. It could read solemnly, “POOR WRETched MAN,” with a heavy accent on “poor.” But one could read the line Poor filling in like a connective word introducing the topic.
The interesting effects are in lines 15-18:
With King of Terrors and dashed out his teeth, 15 Pluckest out his sting, his poison quellest, his head To pieces breakest. Hence cruel death lies dead.
There is no way to force these lines into smooth iambs. The pause in line 15 between TERrors – and makes for a run up to DASHED OUT his TEETH. Perphas Taylor had a cheat syllable of DASH-ed to create iambs.
Line 16 I scan:
PLUCKest OUT his STING, his POIson QUELLest, his HEAD – an enjambment: which creates some movement to line 17
Line 17
to PIEces BREAKest.
We get a long pause before when come to the conclusion of death’s death.
The strong initial consonsants:
With King of Terrors and dashed out his teeth, 15 Pluckest out his sting, his poison quellest, his head To pieces breakest. Hence cruel death lies dead.
Summary: The original creation was a well of life: Life was in the seed and would produce into the flower. The glory of humanity was aflame. But this vibrant life was killed by an elf who spat venom into life and brought about death. “So that life is gone”
Notes:
Elf: Since Tolkien (at least) elves and fairies are considered popularly to marvelous and good creatures. It was not so with Taylor. Such things would be thought dangerous or “mad”:
“If a man riding in an open country should afar off see men and women dancing together, and should not hear their music according to which they dance and tread out their measures, he would think them to be a company of fairies and madmen, appearing in such various motions and antic postures; but if he came nearer, and heard the musical notes, according to which they exactly dance, he would find that to be art which before he thought madness.”
Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 21 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1874), 107. They were examples of deception and danger:
“The world, as they say of fairies, deprives of true children, and puts changelings in their room; deprives men of true substantial joy, and gives them shadows in the room; but godliness, on the contrary, deprives of painted poisons, and gives them wholesome and real pleasures.”
George Swinnock, The Works of George Swinnock, M.A., vol. 3 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1868), 185. But this does not mean that he would have believed such were real:
“Yet here I cannot but disallow the indoctrinating of children with superstitious notions, which nuzzle them up in vulgar errors that lead unto unbelief; the affrighting of them with silly tales of bugbears, stories of hobgoblins and fairies, &c., “profane and old wives’ fables,” not tending to godliness, (1 Tim. 1:4, 6; 4:7,) which occasion needless and groundless fears, that afterwards, when they should have more brains, are not easily corrected, or not without great difficulty.”
James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 331.
The elf is the Serpent of Genesis 3; that is, the Devil. By “spitting venom”, he tempted the couple to sin which brought about death.
Glory lined out a paradise
The Genesis account describes the earth in three categories. First, there was Eden, which was a place from whence water flowed out and in the Garden. Second, was the Garden where God placed Adam and Eve with instruction to keep this garden. Third, was the field, the world outside the Garden. That “glory lined out” means that God laid out a garden (“paradise”).
Seeds and flowers/ light and life
Glory lined out a paradise in power
Where e’ery seed a royal coach became 20
For Life to ride in, to each shining flower.
And made man’s flower with glory all o’re flame.
In Genesis 1:11, a particular type of plant is note, “plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed.” In verse 29, God says, “Behold I have given you every plant yielding see that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in in its fruit. You shall have them for food.” Seed is thus bound up with living.
Taylor takes that emphasis in a slightly different direction, speaking of the flower which comes from the seed.
The picking of life riding through seed to flower (to seed) bearing along life like a coach is quite striking.
The whole discussion of life is filled with light: First, it was “glory” which lines out the Garden. The flowers are “shining” and man’s flower has “glory all o’re flame”. This is a bright burning light of life.
This combination of light and life comes from the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” John 1:1–5 (AV)
Prosody:
Glory lined out a paradise in power
Where e’ery seed a royal coach became 20
For Life to ride in, to each shining flower.
And made man’s flower with glory all o’re flame.
Hell’s ink-faced elf black venom spit upon
The same and killed it. So that life is gone.
The two major sections of the stanza begin with an accented syllable: Glory in line 19 and Hell’s in line 23.
Line 23 is difficult to scan because it seems that one could accent every syllable. Certainly, one could not read the line out-loud and read it quickly.
The final line is such plan speech as to be striking in this poem. The final sentence has a remarkable finality. “So that life is gone.” It is not rhythmic, nor is there much music in it. Typically, such a line would be “bad” poetry, but here it works because of it appearing out of place. (We could say that this line sounds like a line of contemporary poetry in terms of rhythm, but of such Taylor could have no concept._
The repetition of “glory” creates a sort of inclusion: Glory lines out the garden and glory is flaming in the flower. The repetition of “fl” in flower, flower, and “flame” as well as the “L” of life and in “gLory” works well. L’s work well with “m” in “made man’s”
Summary: The poem ends with the words of God to the poet: This grace you have received and more – “all [these things] are thine”. This final stanza breaks the form of the previous stanzas in that the prayer is found in the fourth & fifth lines, rather than the final couplet: Here he prays that God will repeat the promise, “all are thine.” It then ends with a final promise of future praise.
Notes:
The image here is of one who bestows the feast: God speaks to the cups which hold this grace and he bids them continually be filled with grace.
Indeed, the entire stanza is about speaking: And since it is God is speaking the words are efficacious (And God let there be light, etc.)
Thou to the cups dost SAY (that catch this wine)
This liquor, golden pipes, and wine-vats plain,
“Whether Paul, Apollos, Cephas, all are thine.”
Oh golden WORD! Lord SPEAK it o’re again
Lord SPEAK it home to me, SAY these are mine.
My bells shall then thy praises bravely CHIME.
This stanza is a plea for God to speak directly to Taylor, “Say, these are mine.”
But there is an interesting shift in the address of the first three lines of the stanza. Poet speaks to and of God speaking
You, God, say to the cups, “All [these things] are thine.” The cups are not something separate from the poet, he does not take up a cup: he is the cup. God blesses the cup – who is the poet – and says to him: All these things are yours.
So far, the emphasis in the poem has been on grace of salvation. But here the scope and breadth of that salvation is made plain: It is not a bare escape from hell but rather a great promise.
Now, there is something interesting in the section of the promise which Taylor selects, the three names Paul, Apollos, Cephas (Peter). In the passage selected, Paul has been speaking to the Corinthians concerning their fighting one-another under the banner of this or that preacher: Some say they follow Paul, some Apollos, I follow Peter. Paul explains that God does all the work and the ministers are merely those who serve God in his work. Immediately after the passage quoted by Taylor, Paul will go onto state that ministers are “stewards of the mysteries of God.” They are those delivering someone else’s property.
Thomas Watson, an English Puritan and near contemporary of Taylor, gave this sense of the clause quoted by Taylor: “Under these words, ‘Paul and Apollos,’ by a figure are comprehended all the ministers of Christ, the weakest as well as the eminentest. ‘Paul and Apollos are yours,’ viz. their labours are for edifying the church. They are the helpers of your faith; the parts of a minister are not given for himself, they are the church’s.” Thomas Watson, The Christian’s Charter of Privileges.
Taylor hiself was a minister. And while I have no idea of how he felt or thought upon the day this poem was drafted (beyond the poem itself), I could see some peculiar encouragement to a pastor in these words. God has redeemed Taylor – God has also given Taylor all things. He has given Taylor the work of other Christian ministers.
But God has also given Taylor for others in this particular capacity.
And Taylor states that having received this grace from God, he will turn around praise this grace of God, As he hears these words over again, he will in turn chime the praise of God to others. Thus, in a manner, Taylor is taken up into the promise of Paul’s letter.
This meditation being a preparation for the service which Taylor would lead for his congregation, this promise of “all things are thine” and the promise that he will praise God works out in the fact of Taylor’s ministry.
Moreover, the poem itself answers to this promise to praise God. By writing the poem, Taylor is in fact praising God.
Musical
The accents are interesting: I have marked the irregular lines:
THOU to the CUPS dost SAY (that CATCH this WINE)
This liquor, golden pipes, and wine-vats plain,
WHEther Paul, Apollos, Cephas, all are thine.
OH GOLDen WORD! LORD SPEAK it O’RE aGAIN
LORD SPEAK it HOME to ME, SAY THESE are MINE.
My bells shall then thy praises bravely chime.
The accents help to direct the attention of the speech. The first line of the stanza accents “Thou”: it gets attention and functions like a greeting. The fourth and fifth lines of the stanza are over-accented. Each word must be said separately and slowly which creates substantial emphasis. This makes sense, because they two lines are the petition of the prayer. The last line is part of the prayer, but it is a promise of future praise, not a request from God.
The repetition of the phrase, “Lord speak” coupled with the strongly emphasized syllables creates an impassioned plea: Lord, say these words, give me assurance this is true: I know it is so, I just want to hear it again. This is the sort of intensity of the lover saying, “Say you love me again.” Or the pardoned criminal, “Say it again, I can hardly believe I have been freed.”
Hast done the deed: and’t makes the heavens ring. (30)
Summary: The poet undertakes an interesting distance from himself throughout this poem. First, he has been operating from an interesting psychological point of view because he sees himself addicted helpless to sin and simultaneously sees himself from the outside as some sort of loathsome beast. He is an addict who cannot put down the needle and who in the same moment wretches for the vile creature he has become.
In this stanza the looks to find some relief, but knows it is impossible:
We e’re want [that is, whatever it is we lack] we cannot cry for.
There is something we need but there is no way to fulfill this need: we cannot even cry for it.
We cannot look to angels, because we need is from God, and angels cannot convey this to us. Only God himself can do so – and has done so. This unwarranted and unobtained benefit is a cause for joy.
Notes:
We cannot cry: Crying out in distress is the refrain of the book of Judges. The people of Israel repeatedly turn to idolatry. In response, God leaves them to their unfriendly neighbors. The Israelites then cry out to God, who in turn says them. In the beginning of chapter 2 (the book is not chronological), the Angel of the Lord “went up from Gilgal to Bochim.” Bochim is a Hebrew word which means “weeping.” The Angel tells the people that since they have refused to keep their covenant with God, God will no longer hear their cries and defend them.
Later in Judges 10:14, God again confronts the people who have turned from him. “God and cry out to the gods whom you have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress.”
Taylor seems to have an illusion to these passages: I am so deeply embedded in sin that I cannot cry for help. In particular, the end of line 26 underscores this point: our cry – were able to make such a cry would be of no use, “we cannot have it thus.”
The Angels cannot convey: Even though angels are given as “ministering spirits set out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:14) there are limits on the help they can convey.
The degree help needed by Taylor in his state of sin exceeds the assistance of angels. The lack of the human being in the state of sin exceeds some external aid. The language used to describe the condition of sin speaks to an irremediable condition.
The angels are said to have conveyed the law (Heb. 2:2, “the message declared by angels”). This seems to put something into human hands, but “by works of the law, no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”
The “golden pipes” of the angels in end only could convey knowledge of guilt.
But thou my Lord … hast done the deed: This speaks to the work of Jesus who destroyed sin and death, and him who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14).
Heart leap for joy and sing … “Rejoice in the Lord always and again I will say rejoice.” (Phil. 4:4)
And’t makes the heavens ring: “Let all God’s angels worship him.” Heb. 1:6.
Psalms 118:23-24
This is the Lord’s doing
It is marvelous in our eyes.
This is the day the Lord has made
Let us rejoice and be glad in it.
Musical
What e’re we want, we cannot cry for, nay
If that we could, we could not have it thus.
These lines have an interesting rhetorical structure: A conditional, followed by an unconditional rejection: Whatever it is we need, we cannot have it. And even if we could have it, we cannot. The structure of the clauses is held together by the repetition of the word “we”: we want, we cannot cry, we could, we could.
Summary: Now every experience, everything which the poet experiences has been imbued with sin, which he refers to as “poison” or “venom.”
Notes: That Satan is referred to as a serpent is undisputed. In Genesis 3, the Tempter – although not explicitly referred to as Satan – is referred to as the Serpent, the most crafty of subtle beasts of the field (the field was the world outside the Garden). In Revelation 20:2, Satan is explicitly referred to as “that ancient serpent.”
The imagery of Satan as a cook is interesting and unusual. I cannot find any references to Satan as a cook. But, the image is on point because the original sin was brought about through eating. He did provide a dish for Adam and Eve.
Use of this image then makes for a fascinating overlay with original sin. That fruit from the Garden has now become an overlay for all subsequent human action.
All life must be lived in a manner which entails loving God with all heart, soul, mind, and strength. And no action of a human being ever approximates such a level of devotion. It is impossible for post-fall human conduct to ever be perfect.
This actually makes for a fascinating contrast with the current social mobs which attack any deviancy from orthodox thought and conduct. These mobs allow for zero tolerance, zero grace. But in contrast: Paul persecuted the Church; Peter denied Christ; David committed adultery and murder; et cetera. These are our saints. Taylor will get to the inexplicable grace of God – which so contrasts with the judgment of human beings.
Note also that this is not merely sinful but is poisonous: it is filled with venom. Thus, while it is food and desirable; it is also poisonous and spells my death.
Of special note must be the word “sopped”:
Oh! Sad-sad thing! Satan is now turned cook:
Sin is the sauce he gets for every dish.
I cannot bite a bit of bread or root
But what is sopped therein and venomish.
What is so perfect about the word is not merely the sound, but the meaning. Sin as a sauce has been poured over all of his food. He is not merely content to the sauce as it happens to be on his meat: he next uses bread to sop up all the remainders. What a vicious and brilliant vision of sin.
Musical: I rather like this stanza.
Look at all the alliteration on “s”:
Sad, sad, satan, sin, sause, diSh, sopped, venomISH, rightS, lost,
The phrase, “Sin is the Sause” is wonderfully balanced in concept, rhythm, and sound
SIN is the SAUCE
The first line SAD SAD THING SATan: the slow beat, the repetition of not merely S, but SA. “Sad thing” is a near rhyme to “Satan”
The third line of the santza switches to B and R and makes for a wonderful contrast to the sibilant S
I cannot bite a bit of bread or root
But
The alliteration draws the words together. The near rhyme of bite-bit, the movement from B to R in Bite, Bit, BRead, Root is brilliant.
memoirandremains 