a study of bible-第26章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


t　long　before　this　day　men　had　found　its　true　spirit。　England　had　abolished　slavery　（1808）　under　the　insistence　that　it　was　foreign　to　all　right　understanding　of　God's　Word。　Lincoln　knew　its　letter　well；　he　cared　for　its　spirit　more；　and　he　found　his　strength　not　in　the　familiar　saying　that　God　was　on　his　side；　but　in　the　more　forceful　one　that　he　believed　himself　to　be　on　God's　side。　So　he　became　a　point　around　which　the　great　fluid　idea　crystallized　into　strengtha　point　made　and　sustained　by　the　influence　of　the　Bible；　which　he　knew　only　in　the　King　James　version。


We　have　spoken　of　some　wide　movements　and　of　men　around　whom　they　crystallized；　finding　in　them　the　influence　of　the　Bible。　It　will　be　well　to　note　two　outstanding　traits　of　the　Bible　which　in　English　or　any　other　tongue　would　inevitably　tend　to　strong　and　favorable　influence　on　the　history　of　men。　Those　two　traits　are；　first；　its　essential　democracy；　and；　secondly；　its　persistent　moral　appeal。

Here　must　be　recalled　that　century　before　the　King　James　version；　when　by　slow　filtration　the　fundamental　ideas　of　the　Bible　were　entering　English　life。　Surely　it　is　beyond　words　that　the　Bible　made　Puritanism；　though　it　was　in　strong　swing　when　James　came　to　the　throne。　Now　John　Richard　Green　is　well　within　the　fact　when　he　says　that　〃Puritanism　may　fairly　claim　to　be　the　first　political　system　which　recognized　the　grandeur　of　the　people　as　a　whole。〃＇1＇　It；　was　the　magnifying　of　the　people　as　a　whole　over　against　some　people　as　having　peculiar　rights　which　marked　Puritanism；　and　which　is　democracy。　Shakespeare　knew　nothing　of　it；　and　had　no　influence　on　the　movement　for　larger　democracy。　After　we　have　said　our　strong　word　of　Shakespeare's　powerful　influence　upon　literature　it　yet　must　be　said　that　it　is　difficult　to　lay　finger　on　one　single　historical　movement　except　the　literary　one　which　Shakespeare　even　remotely　influenced。　The　Bible；　meanwhile；　was　absolutely　creating　this　movement。　Under　its　influence　〃the　meanest　peasant　felt　himself　ennobled　as　the　child　of　God；　the　proudest　noble　recognized　a　spiritual　equality　with　the　meanest　saint。〃　That　was　the　inevitable　result　of　a　fresh　reading　of　the　Bible　in　every　home。　It　assured　each　man　that　he　is　a　son　of　God；　equal　in　that　sonship　with　all　other　men。　It　assured　him　no　man　has　right　to　lord　it　over　others；　as　though　his　relation　to　God　were　peculiar。　The　Bible　constantly　impresses　men　that　this　relation　to　God　is　the　essential　one。　Everything　else　is　incidental。　Granted　now　a　people　freshly　under　the　influence　of　that　teaching；　you　have　a　large　explanation　of　the　movement　which　followed　the　issuance　of　this　version。


＇1＇　Short　History　of　the　English　People；　chap。　vii；　sec。　vii。


James　opened　his　first　parliament　（1604）　with　a　speech　claiming　divine　right；　a　doctrine　which　had　really　been　raised　to　meet　the　claim　of　the　right　of　the　pope　to　depose　kings。　James　argued　that　the　state　of　monarchy　is　the　supremest　thing　on　earth；　for　kings　are　not　only　God's　lieutenants　on　earth　and　set　upon　God's　throne；　but　even　by　God　Himself　are　called　gods。　（He　never　found　that　in　the　Genevan　version　or　its　notes！）　As　to　dispute　what　God　may　do　is　blasphemy；　so　it　is　sedition　in　subjects　to　dispute　what　the　king　may　do　in　the　height　of　his　power。　〃I　will　not　be　content　that　my　power　be　disputed　on。〃　The　House　of　Commons　sat　by　his　grace　and　not　of　any　right。

Set　that　idea　of　James　over　against　the　idea　which　the　Bible　was　constantly　developing　in　the　mind　of　the　people；　and　you　see　why　Trevelyan　says　that　the　Bible　brought　in　democracy；　and　why　he　thinks；　as　we　have　already　seen；　that　the　greatest　contribution　England　has　made　to　government　is　its　treatment　of　the　Stuarts；　when　it　transferred　sovereignty　from　the　king　to　Parliament。　Among　the　men　who　listened　to　that　kind　of　teaching　were　Eliot；　Hampden；　Pym；　all　Puritans　under　the　spell　of　the　Bible。　But　the　strife　grew　larger　than　a　merely　Puritan　one。　The　people　themselves　were　strongly　feeling　their　rights。　〃To　the　devout　Englishman；　much　as　he　might　love　his　prayer…book　and　hate　the　dissenters；　the　core　of　religion　was　the　life　of　family　prayer　and　Bible　study；　which　the　Puritans　had　for　a　hundred　years　struggled　not　in　vain　to　make　the　custom　of　the　land。〃　It　was　this　spirit　which　James　met。

We　have　already　thought　sufficiently　of　the　events　which　actually　followed。　The　final　rupture　of　Charles　I。　with　parliamentary　institutions　was　due　to　the　religious　situation。　There　were　many　Bible…reading　families；　learning　their　own　rights；　while　kings　and　favorites　were　plotting　war。　Laud　and　the　bishops　forbade　non…conforming　gatherings；　but　they　could　not　prevent　a　man's　gathering　his　household　about　him　while　he　read　the　great　stories　of　the　Bible；　in　which　no　king　ruled　when　he　had　ceased　to　advance　his　kingdom；　in　which　each　man　was　shut　up　to　God　in　the　most　vital　things　of　his　life。　The　discussion　of　the　time　grew　keen　about　predestination　and　free…will。　One　meant　that　only　God　had　power；　the　other　meant　that　men；　and　if　men；　then　specially　kings；　might　control　other　men　if　only　they　could。　Not　fully；　but　vaguely；　the　crowd　understood。　Very　fully；　and　not　vaguely；　the　leaders　understood。　Predestination　and　Parliament　became　a　cry。　That　is；　control　lifted　out　of　the　hands　of　the　free…will　of　some　monarch　into　the　hands　of　a　sovereign　God　to　whom　every　man　had　the　same　access　that　any　other　man　had。　Laud　decreed　that　all　such　discussion　should　cease。　He　revived　an　old　decree　that　no　book　could　be　printed　without　consent　of　an　archbishop　or　the　Bishop　of　London。　So　the　books　became　secret　and　more　virulent　each　year。　The　civil　war　（1642…46）　between　Charles　and　Parliament　was　a　war　of　ideas。　It　is　sometimes　called　a　war　of　religion；　not　quite　fairly。　It　was　due　to　the　religious　situation；　but　actually　it　was　for　the　liberties　of　the　people　against　the　power　of　the　king。　And　that　question　rooted　far　down　in　another　regarding　the　rights　of　men　to　be　free　in　their　religious　life。　Charles　struck　his　coin　at　Oxford　with　the　Latin　inscription：　〃The　Protestant　religion；　the　laws　of　England；　the　liberties　of　Parliament。〃　But　he　struck　it　too　late。　He　had　been　trifling　with　the　freedom　of　the　people；　and　they　had　learned　from　their　fireside　Bibles　and　from　their　pulpits　that　no　man　may　command　another　in　his　relation　to　God。　It　was　long　after　that　Burns　described　〃The　Cottar's　Saturday　Night〃；　but　he　was　only　describing　a　condition　which　was　already　in　vogue；　and　which　was　having　tremendous　influence　in　England　as　well　as　in　Scotland：

　〃The　cheerfu'　supper　done；　wi'　serious　face；　　　　　　They；　round　the　ingle；　form　a　circle　wide；　　The　sire　turns　o'er；　wi'　patriarchal　grace；　　　　　　The　big　ha'　Bible；　ance　his　father's　pride：　　His　bonnet　rev'rently　is　laid　aside；　　　　　　His　lyart　haffets　wearing　thin　an'　bare；　　Those　strains　that　once　did　sweet　in　Zion　glide；　　　　　　He　wales　a　portion　with　judicious　care；　　And　'Let　us　worship　God！'　he　says；　with　solemn　air。〃


Under　such　guidance　as　this　the　people　of　England；　Puritans　and　others；　relaxed　the　power　of　the　Stuarts　and　became　a　democracy。　For　democracy　is　not　a　form　of　government。　It　can　exist　under　monarchy；　provided　the　monarchy　is　a　convenience　of　the　will　of　the　people；　as　it　is　in　England。　It　can　exist　under　institutions　like　our　own；　provided　they　also　are　held　as　a　convenience　of　the　people。　This　was　no　rebellion　against　some　form　of　monarchy。　It　was　simply　a　claim　of　every　man　to　have　his　rights　before　God。　Under　the　Parliament　of　eighteen　years　duration；　the　Independensts；　Presbyterians；　and　all　other　non…conforming　bodies　suffered　as　heavily　as　under　James　and　Charles；　yet　they　did　not　flee　the　land。　Their　battle　was　really　won。　They　believed　the　time　would　come　when　they　as　part　of　〃the　people〃　who　now　governed　should　assert　themselves。　If　they　were　persecuted；　it　was　under　a　government　where　yet　they　might　hope　for　their　rights。　Fleeing　from　England　in　1620　was　heroism；　fleeing　in　1640　would　have　been　cowardly。　It　is　impossible　to　calculate　what　was　the　revelation　to　the　readers　of　the　English　Bible　of　their　rights。

Let　Trevelyan　tell　the　story：　〃While　other　literary　movements；　however　noble　in　quality；　affect　only　a　few；　the　study　of　the　Bible　was　becoming　the　national　education。　Recommended　by　the　king；　translated　by　the　Bishops；　yet　in　chief　request　with　the　Puritans；　without　the　rivalry　of　books　and　newspapers；　the　Bible　told　to　the　unscholarly　the　story　of　another　age　and　race；　not　in　bald　generalization　and　doctrinal　harangue；　but　with　such　wealth　of　simple　narrative　and　lyrical　force　that　each　man　recognized　his　own　dim　strivings　after　a　new　spirit；　written　clear　in　words　two　thousand　years　old。　A　deep　and　splendid　effect　was　wrought　by　the　monopoly　of　this　Book　as　the　sole　reading　of　common　households；　in　an　age　when　men's　minds　were　instinct　with　natural　poetry　and　open　to　receive　the　light　of　imagination。　A　new　religion　arose；　of　which　the　mythus　was　the　Bible　stories　and　the　pervading　spirit　the　direct　relations　of　man　with　God；　exemplified　in　the　human　life。　And　while　imagination　was　kindled；　the　intellect　was　freed　by　this　private　study　of　the　Bible。　For　its　private　study　involved　its　private　interpretation。　Each　reader；　even　if　a　Churchman；　became　in　some　sort　a　church　to　himself。　Hence　the　hundred　sects　and　thousand　doctrines　that　astonished　foreigners　and　opened　England's　strange　path　to　intellectual　liberty。　The　Bible　cultivated　here；　more　than　in　any　other　land；　the　growth　of　intellectual　thought　and　practice。〃＇1＇


＇1＇　England　under　the　Stuarts。


All　that　has　seemed　to　refer　only　to　England；　but　the　same　essential　democracy　of　the　Bible　came　to　America　and　founded　the　new　nation。　It　was　a　handful　of　Puritans　turned　Pilgrims　who　set　out　in　the　Mayflower　to　give　their　Bible　ideas　free　field。　In　a　dozen　years　（1628…40）；　under　Laud's　persecution；　twenty　thousand　Englishmen　fled　to　join　those　Pilgrims。　And　how　much　turned　on　that！　Suppose　it　had　not　happened。　Then　the　French　of　the　North　and　the　cavaliers　of　Virginia；　with　the　Spanish　of　the　South；　would　have　had　only　the　Dutch　between　them。　And　of　the　four；　only　the　Dutch　had　free　access　to　the　Bible。　The　new　land　would　not　have　been　English。　It　is　an　English　writer　who　says　that　North　America　is　now　preparing　the　future　of　the　world；　and　English　speech　is　the　mold　in　which　the　folk　of　all　the　world　are　being　poured　for　their　final　shaping。＇1＇　It　is　the　democracy　of　the　Bible　which　is　the　fundamental　democracy　of　America；　in　which　every　man　has　it　accented　to　him　that　he　is　so　much　a　child　of　God　that　his　rights　are　inalienable。　They　cover　life　and　liberty　and　the　pursuit　of　happiness。　And　though　we　have　held　that　principle　of　democracy　inconsistently　at　times；　and　have　paid　a　terrible　price　for　our　inconsistency　in　the　past；　and　may　pay　it　in　the　future　again；　it　is　still　true　that　the　fundamental　democracy　of　our　American　life　is　only　that　essential　democracy　of　the　Bible；　where　every　man　is　made　the　equal　of　his　fellow　by　being　lifted　into　the　same　relation　with　Almighty　God。


＇1＇　Trevelyan；　England　under　the　Stuarts；　p。　174。


The　Bible　makes　its　moral　appeal　on　the　same　basis。　If　a　man　is　a　child　of　God；　then　he　is　shut　up　to　duties　which　cannot　be　avoi