IV.

EMPHASIS IN RELIGION AND LIFE.

WE all recognize the importance of true em

phasis in speech and reading. A person who reads or speaks without emphasis is monotonous, and monotony wearies. A person who has too much emphasis in his speech also wearies us; by emphasizing everything, important or unimportant, he makes every part of his sentence equally important, therefore equally unimportant. Emphasis placed on the wrong word changes the meaning of the passage. Or, as is more frequently the case, there may be different modes of emphasizing a sentence, all more or less correct, but some better than the others. Thus in pronouncing a sentence consisting of only two words, in the play of " Macbeth," it is said that Mrs. Siddons changed her mode of emphasizing them twice. It is in the scene where Macbeth and his wife are discussing the murder of the old king. Macbeth says, "If we should fail?" Lady Macbeth replies, "We fail!" She first emphasized "fail," uttering these words as though failure were impossible - "We fail!"

Afterwards she emphasized the "we," as though failure by such people as they was impossible"We fail!" Finally she found a still better emphasis, implying that if they failed, they failed, and that was the end of it- We fail."

Nothing needs more care and emphasis in reading than the Bible. If emphasis can change the very meaning of a passage, substituting a false meaning for a true one, or one less true for one of more importance, it is clear that even an inspired book loses its inspiration if read the wrong way. The same passage, read by different persons, may mean different things. A bad reader may change the sense of the words of Paul, or the words of Christ himself, and make them say what was not intended. Or, what happens more frequently, a poor emphasis may leave the sense vague and obscure, while a different stress on the words will make the meaning simple and clear. Indeed, a wrong emphasis may change the sense as much as a wrong translation.

Take that familiar passage from Paul commonly read thus: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." The meaning then is that no man can always be peaceful, even in his own spirit. But suppose we emphasize the "you." "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Then it would mean that you can, at any rate, be peaceable toward others, though you may not be able always to make them peaceable toward you.

When Paul says, "We are laborers together with God; ye are God's husbandry; ye are God's building," how much deeper does the meaning become by laying the emphasis on "God." "Ye are God's husbandry; ye are God's building."

In another place Paul says, "Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have defrauded no man." But the true meaning appears by a little change of emphasis, "Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have defrauded no man," for they were receiving those who had wronged and defrauded, and yet would not receive him.

"All things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might, through the thanksgiving of many, redound to the glory of God." If the emphasis be laid on the three words, "abundant," "many," and "redound," how much more full of meaning the passage becomes !

In the last conversation of Jesus with his disciples there is a passage which we often hear read thus: "Now, ye are clean through the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you." But read it thus: "Now, ye are clean through the word that I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you." His influence and words had made their souls pure at that moment; but they must abide in him in order to continue so.

For many years I read a passage of the Sermon on the Mount thus: "Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted?"

I think most persons will agree with me that a better rendering is this: "Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted?"

I will give only one more example. In that noble passage of Paul, read so often in the burialservice, I think the force is frequently weakened by too much emphasis: "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." A better way, more natural, more simple, more effective, I think, is this: "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

But true and false emphasis apply not only to language, but also to thought, to action, to life.

True emphasis in thought consists in seeing what is central, fundamental, vital, in any subject, and bringing that out distinctly. You listen to two lawyers arguing a case. One emphasizes the main point, the pivot on which all depends, and makes that so clear and so convincing that it is impossible to question or doubt it. The other may say many true and strong things; but they are so mixed up with weaker reasons, so tangled with secondary considerations, that they lose half their weight. This power of intellectual emphasis was very marked in Daniel Webster, and was the secret of much of his force. It often makes a great difference