{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_1592/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_1592","id":"gutenberg_1592","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1592","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- History","Bible -- Influence","Bible and literature","Bible. English -- Versions -- Authorized","Category: British Literature","Category: History - British","Category: History - Religious"],"text":"Ver.04.29.93*END*\n\n\n\n\nScanned by Charles Keller with OmniPage Professional OCR software\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE GREATEST\nENGLISH CLASSIC\n\nA STUDY OF THE\nKING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE\nAND ITS INFLUENCE ON LIFE\nAND LITERATURE\n\nBY\nCLELAND BOYD McAFEE, D.D.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n LECTURE\n PREFACE\n I.  PREPARING THE WAY--THE ENGLISH BIBLE BEFORE KING JAMES\n II. THE MAKING OF THE KING JAMES VERSION; ITS CHARACTERISTICS\n III. THE KING JAMES VERSION As ENGLISH LITERATURE\n IV. THE INFLUENCE OF THE KING JAMES VERSION ON\n     ENGLISH LITERATURE\n V.  THE KING JAMES VERSION--ITS INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH\n     AND AMERICAN HISTORY\n VI. THE BIBLE IN THE LIFE OF TO-DAY\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nTHE lectures included in this volume were\nprepared at the request of the Brooklyn\nInstitute of Arts and Sciences, and were delivered\nin the early part of 1912, under its\nauspices. They were suggested by the tercentenary\nof the King James version of the Bible. The\nplan adopted led to a restatement of the history\nwhich prepared for the version, and of that which\nproduced it. It was natural next to point out its\nprincipal characteristics as a piece of literature.\nTwo lectures followed, noting its influence on\nliterature and on history. The course closed with\na statement and argument regarding the place\nof the Bible in the life of to-day.\n\nThe reception accorded the lectures at the time\nof their public delivery, and the discussion which\nensued upon some of the points raised, encourage\nthe hope that they may be more widely useful.\n\nIt is a pleasure to assign to Dr. Franklin W.\nHooper, director of the Institute, whatever credit\nthe work may merit. Certainly it would not\nhave been undertaken without his kindly urgency.\n                    CLELAND BOYD McAFEE.\n\n Brooklyn, New York, May, 1912.\n\n\n\nTHE GREATEST\nENGLISH CLASSIC\n\nLECTURE I\n\nPREPARING THE WAY--THE ENGLISH BIBLE BEFORE KING JAMES\n\nTHERE are three great Book-religions--\nJudaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism.\nOther religions have their sacred writings,\nbut they do not hold them in the same regard as\ndo these three. Buddhism and Confucianism\ncount their books rather records of their faith\nthan rules for it, history rather than authoritative\nsources of belief. The three great Book-religions\nyield a measure of authority to their\nsacred books which would be utterly foreign to\nthe thought of other faiths.\n\nYet among the three named are two very distinct\nattitudes. To the Mohammedan the language\nas well as the matter of the Koran is\nsacred. He will not permit its translation. Its\noriginal Arabic is the only authoritative tongue\nin which it can speak. It has been translated\ninto other tongues, but always by adherents of\nother faiths, never by its own believers. The\nHebrew and the Christian, on the other hand,\nbut notably the Christian, have persistently\nsought to make their Bible speak all languages at\nall times.\n\nIt is a curious fact that a Book written in one\ntongue should have come to its largest power in\nother languages than its own. The Bible means\nmore to-day in German and French and English\nthan it does in Hebrew and Chaldaic and Greek--\nmore even than it ever meant in those languages.\nThere is nothing just like that in literary history.\nIt is as though Shakespeare should after a while\nbecome negligible for most readers in English,\nand be a master of thought in Chinese and Hindustani,\nor in some language yet unborn.\n\nWe owe this persistent effort to make the Bible\nspeak the language of the times to a conviction\nthat the particular language used is not the\ngreat thing, that there is something in it which\ngives it power and value in any tongue. No book\nwas ever translated so often. Men who have\nknown it in its earliest tongues have realized that\ntheir fellows would not learn these earliest\ntongues, and they have set out to make it speak\nthe tongue their fellows did know. Some have\nprotested that there is impiety in making it\nspeak the current tongue, and have insisted that\nmen should learn the earliest speech, or at least\naccept their knowledge of the Book from those\nwho did know it. But they have never stopped\nthe movement. They have only delayed it.\n\nThe first movement to make the Scripture\nspeak the current tongue appeared nearly three\ncenturies before Christ. Most of the Old Testament\nthen existed in Hebrew. But the Jews had\nscattered widely. Many had gathered in Egypt\nwhere Alexander the Great had founded the city\nthat bears his name. At one time a third of the\npopulation of the city was Jewish. Many of\nthe people were passionately loyal to their old\nreligion and its Sacred Book. But the current\ntongue there and through most of the civilized\nworld was Greek, and not Hebrew. As always,\nthere were some who felt that the Book and its\noriginal language were inseparable. Others revealed\nthe disposition of which we spoke a moment\nago, and set out to make the Book speak\nthe current tongue. For one hundred and fifty\nyears the work went on, and what we call the\nSeptuagint was completed. There is a pretty\nlittle story which tells how the version got its\nname, which means the Seventy--that King\nPtolemy Philadelphus, interested in collecting all\nsacred books, gathered seventy Hebrew scholars,\nsent them to the island of Pharos, shut them up\nin seventy rooms for seventy days, each making\na translation from the Hebrew into the Greek.\nWhen they came out, behold, their translations\nwere all exactly alike! Several difficulties appear\nin that story, one of which is that seventy men\nshould have made the same mistakes without\ndepending on each other. In addition, it is not\nhistorically supported, and the fact seems to be\nthat the Septuagint was a long and slow growth,\nissuing from the impulse to make the Sacred\nBook speak the familiar tongue. And, though\nit was a Greek translation, it virtually displaced\nthe original, as the English Bible has virtually\ndisplaced the Hebrew and Greek to-day. The\nSeptuagint was the Old Testament which Paul\nused. Of one hundred and sixty-eight direct\nquotations from the Old Testament in the New\nnearly all are from the Greek version--from the\ntranslation, and not from the original.\n\nWe owe still more to translation. While there\nis accumulating evidence that there was spoken\nin Palestine at that time a colloquial Greek, with\nwhich most people would be familiar, it is yet\nprobable that our Lord spoke neither Greek\nnor Hebrew currently, but Aramaic. He knew\nthe Hebrew Scriptures, of course, as any well-\ntrained lad did; but most of His words have come\ndown to us in translation. His name, for example,\nto His Hebrew mother, was not Jesus, but\nJoshua; and Jesus is the translation of the Hebrew\nJoshua into Greek. We have His words as they\nwere translated by His disciples into the Greek,\nin which the New Testament was originally written.\n\nBy the time the writing of the New Testament\nwas completed, say one hundred years after\nChrist, while Greek was still current speech, the\nRoman Empire was so dominant that the common\npeople were talking Latin almost as much\nas Greek, and gradually, because political power\nwas behind it, the Latin gained on the Greek,\nand became virtually the speech of the common\npeople. The movement to make the Bible talk\nthe language of the time appeared again. It is\nimpossible to say now when the first translations\ninto Latin were made. Certainly there were\nsome within two centuries after Christ, and by\n250 A.D. a whole Bible in Latin was in circulation\nin the Roman Empire. The translation\nof the New Testament was from the Greek, of\ncourse, but so was that of the Old Testament,\nand the Latin versions of the Old Testament\nwere, therefore, translations of a translation.\n\nThere were so many of these versions, and\nthey were so unequal in value, that there was\nnatural demand for a Latin translation that\nshould be authoritative. So came into being\nwhat we call the Vulgate, whose very name indicates\nthe desire to get the Bible into the vulgar\nor common tongue. Jerome began by revising\nthe earlier Latin translations, but ended by going\nback of all translations to the original Greek,\nand back of the Septuagint to the original Hebrew\nwherever he could do so. Fourteen years he\nlabored, settling himself in Bethlehem, in Palestine,\nto do his work the better. Barely four\nhundred years (404 A.D.) after the birth of\nChrist his Latin version appeared. It met a\nstorm of protest for its effort to go back of\nthe Septuagint, so dominant had the translation\nbecome. Jerome fought for it, and his version\nwon the day, and became the authoritative Latin\ntranslation of the Bible.\n\nFor seven or eight centuries it held its sway\nas the current version nearest to the tongue of\nthe people. Latin had become the accepted\ntongue of the church. There was little general\nculture, there was little general acquaintance\nwith the Bible except among the educated.\nDuring all that time there was no real room for\na further translation. One of the writers[1] says:\n\"Medieval England was quite unripe for a Bible\nin the mother tongue; while the illiterate majority\nwere in no condition to feel the want of\nsuch a book, the educated minority would be\naverse to so great and revolutionary a change.\"\nWhen a man cannot read any writing it really\ndoes not matter to him whether books are in\ncurrent speech or not, and the majority of the\npeople for those seven or eight centuries could\nread nothing at all. Those who could read anything\nwere apt to be able to read the Latin.\n\n\n[1] Hoare, Evolution of the English Bible, p. 39.\n\n\nThese centuries added to the conviction of\nmany that the Bible ought not to become too\ncommon, that it should not be read by everybody,\nthat it required a certain amount of learning\nto make it safe reading. They came to feel\nthat it is as important to have an authoritative\ninterpretation of the Bible as to have the Bible\nitself. When the movement began to make it\nspeak the new English tongue, it provoked the\nmost violent opposition. Latin had been good\nenough for a millennium; why cheapen the Bible\nby a translation? There had grown up a feeling\nthat Jerome himself had been inspired. He had\nbeen canonized, and half the references to him\nin that time speak of him as the inspired translator.\nCriticism of his version was counted as\nimpious and profane as criticisms of the original\ntext could possibly have been. It is one of the\nironies of history that the version for which\nJerome had to fight, and which was counted a\npiece of impiety itself, actually became the\nground on which men stood when they fought\nagainst another version, counting anything else\nbut this very version an impious intrusion!\n\nHow early the movement for an English Bible\nbegan, it is impossible now to say. Certainly\njust before 700 A.D., that first singer of the English\ntongue, Caedmon, had learned to paraphrase\nthe Bible. We may recall the Venerable Bede's\ncharming story of him, and how he came by his\npower of interpretation. Bede himself was a\nchild when Caedmon died, and the romance of\nthe story makes it one of the finest in our literature.\nCaedmon was a peasant, a farm laborer\nin Northumbria working on the lands of the great\nAbbey at Whitby. Already he had passed middle\nlife, and no spark of genius had flashed in\nhim. He loved to go to the festive gatherings\nand hear the others sing their improvised poems;\nbut, when the harp came around to him in due\ncourse, he would leave the room, for be could not\nsing. One night when he had slipped away\nfrom the group in shame and had made his\nrounds of the horses and cattle under his care,\nhe fell asleep in the stable building, and heard\na voice in his sleep bidding him sing. When he\ndeclared he could not, the voice still bade him\nsing. \"What shall I sing?\" he asked. \"Sing\nthe first beginning of created things.\" And\nthe words came to him; and, still dreaming, he\nsang his first hymn to the Creator. In the\nmorning he told his story, and the Lady Abbess\nfound that he had the divine gift. The monks\nhad but to translate to him bits of the Bible\nout of the Latin, which he did not understand,\ninto his familiar Anglo-Saxon tongue, and he\nwould cast it into the rugged Saxon measures\nwhich could be sung by the common people.\nSo far as we can tell, it was so, that the Bible\nstory became current in Anglo-Saxon speech.\nBede himself certainly put the Gospel of John\ninto Anglo-Saxon. At the Bodleian Library, at\nOxford, there is a manuscript of nearly twenty\nthousand lines, the metrical version of the\nGospel and the Acts, done near 1250 by an\nAugustinian monk named Orm, and so called\nthe Ormulum. There were other metrical versions\nof various parts of the Bible. Midway\nbetween Bede and Orm came Langland's\npoem, \"The Vision of Piers Plowman,\"\nwhich paraphrased so much of the Scripture.\n\nYet the fact is that until the last quarter of\nthe fourteenth century there was no prose version\nof the Bible in the English language. Indeed,\nthere was only coming to be an English\nlanguage. It was gradually emerging, taking\ndefinite shape and form, so that it could be\ndistinguished from the earlier Norman French,\nSaxon, and Anglo-Saxon, in which so much of\nit is rooted.\n\nAs soon as the language grew definite enough,\nit was inevitable that two things should come\nto pass. First, that some men would attempt\nto make a colloquial version of the Bible; and,\nsecondly, that others would oppose it. One can\ncount with all confidence on these two groups\nof men, marching through history like the\nanimals into the ark, two and two. Some men\npropose, others oppose. They are built on\nthose lines.\n\nWe are more concerned with the men who made\nthe versions; but we must think a moment of\nthe others. One of his contemporaries, Knighton,\nmay speak for all in his saying of Wiclif,\nthat he had, to be sure, translated the Gospel\ninto the Anglic tongue, but that it had thereby\nbeen made vulgar by him, and more open to the\nreading of laymen and women than it usually\nis to the knowledge of lettered and intelligent\nclergy, and \"thus the pearl is cast abroad and\ntrodden under the feet of swine\"; and, that we\nmay not be in doubt who are the swine, he adds:\n\"The jewel of the Church is turned into the\ncommon sport of the people.\"\n\nBut two strong impulses drive thoughtful\nmen to any effort that will secure wide knowledge\nof the Bible. One is their love of the Bible and\ntheir belief in it; but the other, dominant then\nand now, is a sense of the need of their own\ntime. It cannot be too strongly urged that the\ntwo great pioneers of English Bible translation,\nWiclif and Tindale, more than a century apart,\nwere chiefly moved to their work by social conditions.\nNo one could read the literature of\nthe times of which we are speaking without\nsmiling at our assumption that we are the first\nwho have cared for social needs. We talk about\nthe past as the age of the individual, and the\npresent as the social age. Our fathers, we say,\ncared only to be saved themselves, and had no\nconcern for the evils of society. They believed\nin rescuing one here and another there, while\nwe have come to see the wisdom of correcting\nthe conditions that ruin men, and so saving men\nin the mass. There must be some basis of\ntruth for that, since we say it so confidently;\nbut it can be much over-accented. There were\nmany of our fathers, and of our grandfathers,\nwho were mightily concerned with the mass of\npeople, and looked as carefully as we do for a\ncorrective of social evils. Wiclif, in the late\nfourteenth century, and Tindale, in the early\nsixteenth, were two such men. The first English\ntranslations of the Bible were fruits of the\nsocial impulse.\n\nWiclif was impressed with the chasm that\nwas growing between the church and the people,\nand felt that a wider and fuller knowledge\nof the Bible would be helpful for the closing of\nthe chasm. It is a familiar remark of Miss\nJane Addams that the cure for the evils of\ndemocracy is more democracy. Wiclif believed\nthat the cure for the evils of religion is more\nreligion, more intelligent religion. He found a\nconsiderable feeling that the best things in\nreligion ought to be kept from most people,\nsince they could not be trusted to understand\nthem. His own feeling was that the best things\nin religion are exactly the things most people\nought to know most about; that people had better\nhandle the Bible carelessly, mistakenly, than\nbe shut out from it by any means whatever.\nWe owe the first English translation to a faith\nthat the Bible is a book of emancipation for the\nmind and for the political life.\n\nJohn Wiclif himself was a scholar of Oxford,\nmaster of that famous Balliol College which\nhas had such a list of distinguished masters.\nHe was an adviser of Edward III. Twenty\nyears after his death a younger contemporary\n(W. Thorpe) said that \"he was considered by\nmany to be the most holy of all the men of his\nage. He was of emaciated frame, spare, and\nwell nigh destitute of strength. He was absolutely\nblameless in his conduct.\" And even\nthat same Knighton who accused him of casting\nthe Church's pearl before swine says that in\nphilosophy \"he came to be reckoned inferior\nto none of his time.\"\n\nBut it was not at Oxford that he came to know\ncommon life so well and to sense the need for\na new social influence. He came nearer to it\nwhen he was rector of the parish at Lutterworth.\nAs scholar and rector he set going the\ntwo great movements which leave his name in\nhistory. One was his securing, training, and\nsending out a band of itinerant preachers or\n\"poor priests\" to gather the people in fields\nand byways and to preach the simple truths\nof the Christian religion. They were unpaid,\nand lived by the kindness of the common people.\nThey came to be called Lollards, though\nthe origin of the name is obscure. Their followers\nreceived the same name. A few years\nafter Wiclif's death an enemy bitterly observed\nthat if you met any two men one was sure to\nbe a Lollard. It was the \"first time in English\nhistory that an appeal had been made to the\npeople instead of the scholars.\" Religion was\nto be made rather a matter of practical life than\nof dogma or of ritual. The \"poor priests\" in\ntheir cheap brown robes became a mighty religious\nforce, and evoked opposition from the\nChurch powers. A generation after Wiclif's\ndeath they had become a mighty political force\nin the controversy between the King and the\nPope. As late as 1521 five hundred Lollards\nwere arrested in London by the bishop.[1] Wiclif's\npurpose, however, was to reach and help the\ncommon people with the simpler, and therefore\nthe most fundamental, truths of religion.\n\n\n[1] Muir, Our Grand Old Bible, p. 14.\n\n\nThe other movement which marks Wiclif's\nname concerns us more; but it was connected\nwith the first. He set out to give the common\npeople the full text of the Bible for their common\nuse, and to encourage them not only in reading\nit, if already they could read, but in learning to\nread that they might read it. Tennyson\ncompares the village of Lutterworth to that of\nBethlehem, on the ground that if Christ, the\nWord of God, was born at Bethlehem, the Word\nof Life was born again at Lutterworth.[1] The\ntranslation was from the Vulgate, and Wiclif\nprobably did little of the actual work himself,\nyet it is all his work. And in 1382, more than\nfive centuries ago, there appeared the first complete\nEnglish version of the Bible. Wiclif made\nit the people's Book, and the English people were\nthe first of the modern nations to whom the\nBible as a whole was given in their own familiar\ntongue. Once it got into their hands they have\nnever let it be taken entirely away.\n\n\n [1] \"Not least art thou, thou little Bethlehem\n In Judah, for in thee the Lord was born;\n Nor thou in Britain, little Lutterworth,\n Least, for in thee the word was born again.\"\n                    --Sir John Oldcastle.\n\n\nOf course, all this was before the days of\nprinting, and copies were made by hand only.\nYet there were very many of them. One hundred\nand fifty manuscripts, in whole or in part,\nare extant still, a score of them of the original\nversion, the others of the revision at once undertaken\nby John Purvey, Wiclif's disciple. The\ncopies belonging to Edward VI. and Queen\nElizabeth are both still in existence, and both\nshow much use. Twenty years after it was\ncompleted copies were counted very valuable,\nthough they were very numerous. It was not\nuncommon for a single complete manuscript\ncopy of the Wiclif version to be sold for one\nhundred and fifty or two hundred dollars, and\nFoxe, whose Book of Martyrs we used to read as\nchildren, tells that a load of hay was given\nfor the use of a New Testament one hour a day.\n\nIt would be difficult to exaggerate the influence\nof this gift to the English people. It constitutes\nthe standard of Middle English. Chaucer and\nWiclif stood side by side. It is true that\nChaucer himself accepted Wiclif's teaching, and\nsome of the wise men think that the \"parson\"\nof whom he speaks so finely as one who taught\nthe lore of Christ and His apostles twelve, but\nfirst followed it himself, was Wiclif. But the version\nhad far more than literary influence; it had\ntremendous power in keeping alive in England\nthat spirit of free inquiry which is the only safeguard\nof free institutions. Here was the entire\nsource of the Christian faith available for the\njudgment of common men, and they became at\nonce judges of religious and political dogma.\nDr. Ladd thinks it was not the reading of the\nBible which produced the Reformation; it was\nthe Reformation itself which procured the reading\nof the Bible.[1] But Dr. Rashdall and Professor\nPollard and others are right when they\ninsist that the English Reformation received less\nfrom Luther than from the secret reading of the\nScripture over the whole country. What we\ncall the English spirit of free inquiry was fostered\nand developed by Wiclif and his Lollards\nwith the English Scripture in their hands. Out\nof it has grown as out of no other one root the\nfreedom of the English and American people.\n\n\n[1] What Is the Bible?, p. 45.\n\n\nThis work of Wiclif deserves the time we have\ngiven it because it asserted a principle for the\nEnglish people. There was much yet to be\ndone before entire freedom was gained. At\nOxford, in the Convocation of 1408, it was\nsolemnly voted: \"We decree and ordain that\nno man hereafter by his own authority translate\nany text of the Scripture into English, or\nany other tongue, by way of a book, pamphlet,\nor other treatise; but that no man read any\nsuch book, pamphlet, or treatise now lately composed\nin the time of John Wiclif ... until the\nsaid translation be approved by the orderly of\nthe place.\" But it was too late. It is always\ntoo late to overtake a liberating idea once it\ngets free. Tolstoi tells of Batenkoff, the Russian\nnihilist, that after he was seized and confined\nin his cell he was heard to laugh loudly;\nand, when they asked him the cause of his mirth,\nhe said that he could not fail to be amused at\nthe absurdity of the situation. \"They have\ncaught me,\" he said, \"and shut me up here;\nbut my ideas are out yonder in the streets and\nin the fields, absolutely free. They cannot\novertake them.\" It was already too late,\ntwenty years after Wiclif's version was available,\nto stop the English people in their search\nfor religious truth.\n\nIn the century just after the Wiclif translation,\ntwo great events occurred which bore\nheavily on the spread of the Bible. One was\nthe revival of learning, which made popular\nagain the study of the classics and the classical\nlanguages. Critical and exact Greek scholarship\nbecame again a possibility. Remember that\nWiclif did not know Greek nor Hebrew, did not\nneed to know them to be the foremost scholar\nof Oxford in the fourteenth century. Even as\nlate as 1502 there was no professor of Greek at\nthe proud University of Erfurt when Luther was\na student there. It was after he became a\ndoctor of divinity and a university professor\nthat he learned Greek in order to be a better\nBible student, and his young friend Philip\nMelancthon was the first to teach Greek in\nthe University.[1] But under the influence of\nErasmus and his kind, with their new insistence\non classical learning, there came necessarily a\nnew appraisal of the Vulgate as a translation\nof the original Bible. For a thousand years\nthere had been no new study of the original\nBible languages in Europe. The Latin of the\nVulgate had become as sacred as the Book itself.\nBut the revival of learning threw scholarship\nback on the sources of the text. Erasmus\nand others published versions of the Greek\nTestament which were disturbing to the Vulgate\nas a final version.\n\n\n[1] McGiffert, Martin Luther.\n\n\nThe other great event of that same century\nwas the invention of printing with movable\ntype. It was in 1455 that Gutenberg printed\nhis first book, an edition of the Vulgate, now\ncalled the Mazarin Bible. The bearing of the\ninvention on the spread of common knowledge\nis beyond description. It is rather late to be\npraising the art of printing, and we need spend\nlittle time doing so; but one can see instantly\nhow it affected the use of the Bible. It made it\nworth while to learn to read--there would be\nsomething to read. It made it worth while to\nwrite--there would be some one to read what\nwas written.\n\nOne hundred years exactly after the death of\nWiclif, William Tindale was born. He was\neight years old when Columbus discovered\nAmerica. He had already taken a degree at\nOxford, and was a student in Cambridge when\nLuther posted his theses at Wittenburg. Erasmus\neither was a teacher at Cambridge when\nTindale was a student there, or had just left.\nSir Thomas More and Erasmus were close\nfriends, and More's Utopia and Erasmus's\nGreek New Testament appeared the same year,\nprobably while Tindale was a student at Cambridge.\n\nBut he came at a troubled time. The new\nlearning had no power to deepen or strengthen\nthe moral life of the people. It could not make\nreligion a vital thing. Morality and religion\nwere far separated. The priests and curates\nwere densely ignorant. We need not ask Tindale\nwhat was the condition. Ask Bellarmine,\na cardinal of the Church: \"Some Years before\nthe rise of the Lutheran heresy there was almost\nan entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical\njudgments; in morals, no discipline; in\nsacred literature, no erudition; in divine things,\nno reverence; religion was almost extinct.\" Or\nask Erasmus, who never broke with the Church:\n\"What man of real piety does not perceive with\nsighs that this is far the most corrupt of all\nages? When did iniquity abound with more\nlicentiousness? When was charity so cold?\"\nAnd, as a century before, Wiclif had felt the\nsocial need for a popular version of the Bible,\nso William Tindale felt it now. He saw the\nneed as great among the clergy of the time as\namong the laity. In one of his writings he\nsays: \"If you will not let the layman have the\nword of God in his mother tongue, yet let the\npriests have it, which for the great part of\nthem do understand no Latin at all, but sing\nand patter all day with the lips only that which\nthe heart understandeth not.\"[1] So bad was\nthe case that it was not corrected within a whole\ngeneration. Forty years after Tindale's version\nwas published, the Bishop of Gloucester,\nHooper by name, made an examination of the\nclergy of his diocese. There were 311 of them.\nHe found 168, more than half, unable to repeat\nthe Ten Commandments; 31 who did not even\nknow where they could be found; 40 who could\nnot repeat the Lord's Prayer; and nearly as\nmany who did not know where it originated;\nyet they were all in regular standing as clergy\nin the diocese of Gloucester. The need was\nkeen enough.\n\n\n[1] Obedience of a Christian Man.\n\n\nAbout 1523 Tindale began to cast the Scriptures\ninto the current English. He set out to\nLondon fully expecting to find support and\nencouragement there, but he found neither. He\nfound, as he once said, that there was no room\nin the palace of the Bishop of London to translate\nthe New Testament; indeed, that there was\nno place to do it in all England. A wealthy\nLondon merchant subsidized him with the munificent\ngift of ten pounds, with which he went\nacross the Channel to Hamburg; and there and\nelsewhere on the Continent, where he could be hid,\nhe brought his translation to completion. Printing\nfacilities were greater on the Continent than\nin England; but there was such opposition to\nhis work that very few copies of the several\neditions of which we know can still be found.\nTindale was compelled to flee at one time with\na few printed sheets and complete his work on\nanother press. Several times copies of his books\nwere solemnly burned, and his own life was frequently\nin danger.\n\nThere is one amusing story which tells how\nmoney came to free Tindale from heavy debt\nand prepare the way for more Bibles. The\nBishop of London, Tunstall, was set on destroying\ncopies of the English New Testament. He\ntherefore made a bargain with a merchant of\nAntwerp, Packington, to secure them for him.\nPackington was a friend of Tindale, and went\nto him forthwith, saying: \"William, I know\nthou art a poor man, and I have gotten thee a\nmerchant for thy books.\" \"Who?\" asked Tindale.\n\"The Bishop of London.\" \"Ah, but\nhe will burn them.\" \"So he will, but you will\nhave the money.\" And it all came out as it\nwas planned; the Bishop of London had the\nbooks, Packington had the thanks, Tindale had\nthe money, the debt was paid, and the new\nedition was soon ready. The old document,\nfrom which I am quoting, adds that the Bishop\nthought he had God by the toe when, indeed,\nhe found afterward that he had the devil by\nthe fist.[1]\n\n\n[1] Pollard, Records of the English Bible, p. 151.\n\n\nThe final revision of the Tindale translations\nwas published in 1534, and that becomes the\nnotable year of his life. In two years he was\nput to death by strangling, and his body was\nburned. When we remember that this was\ndone with the joint power of Church and State,\nwe realize some of the odds against which he\nworked.\n\nSpite of his odds, however, Tindale is the real\nfather of our King James version. About eighty\nper cent. of his Old Testament and ninety per\ncent. of his New Testament have been transferred\nto our version. In the Beatitudes, for\nexample, five are word for word in the two versions,\nwhile the other three are only slightly\nchanged.[1] Dr. Davidson has calculated that\nnine-tenths of the words in the shorter New\nTestament epistles are Tindale's, and in the\nlonger epistles like the Hebrews five-sixths are\nhis. Froude's estimate is fair: \"Of the translation\nitself, though since that time it has been\nmany times revised and altered, we may say\nthat it is substantially the Bible with which we\nare familiar. The peculiar genius which breathes\nthrough it, the mingled tenderness and majesty,\nthe Saxon simplicity, the preternatural grandeur,\nunequaled, unapproached, in the attempted\nimprovements of modern scholars, all are here,\nand bear the impress of the mind of one man,\nWilliam Tindale.\"[2]\n\n\n[1] The fourth reads in his version, \"Blessed are they which\nhunger and thirst for righteousness\"; the seventh, \"Blessed are\nthe maintainers of peace\"; the eighth, \"Blessed are they which\nsuffer persecution for righteousness' sake.\"\n\n[2] History of England, end of chap. xii.\n\n\nWe said a moment ago that Wiclif's translation\nwas the standard of Middle English. It is\ntime to add that Tindale's version \"fixed our\nstandard English once for all, and brought it\nfinally into every English home.\" The revisers\nof 1881 declared that while the authorized version\nwas the work of many hands, the foundation\nof it was laid by Tindale, and that the\nversions that followed it were substantially\nreproductions of Tindale's, or revisions of versions\nwhich were themselves almost entirely based\non it.\n\nThere was every reason why it should be a\nworthy version. For one thing, it was the first\ntranslation into English from the original Hebrew\nand Greek. Wiclif's had been from the\nLatin. For Tindale there were available two\nnew and critical Greek Testaments, that of\nErasmus and the so-called Complutensian,\nthough he used that of Erasmus chiefly. There\nwas also available a carefully prepared Hebrew\nOld Testament. For another thing, it was the\nfirst version which could be printed, and so be\nsubject to easy and immediate correction and\nrevision. Then also, Tindale himself was a\ngreat scholar in the languages. He was \"so\nskilled in the seven languages, Hebrew, Greek,\nLatin, Italian, Spanish, English, and French,\nthat, whichever he spoke, you would suppose it\nwas his native tongue.\"[1] Nor was his spirit\nin the work controversial. I say his \"spirit in\nthe work\" with care. They were controversial\ntimes, and Tindale took his share in the verbal\nwarfare. When, for example, there was objection\nto making any English version because\n\"the language was so rude that the Bible could\nnot be intelligently translated into it,\" Tindale\nreplied: \"It is not so rude as they are false\nliars. For the Greek tongue agreeth more with\nthe English than with the Latin, a thousand\nparts better may it be translated into the English\nthan into the Latin.\"[2] And when a high\nchurch dignitary protested to Tindale against\nmaking the Bible so common, he replied: \"If\nGod spare my life, ere many years I will cause\na boy that driveth a plow shall know more of\nthe Scriptures than thou dost.\" And while that\nwas not saying much for the plowboy, it was\nsaying a good deal to the dignitary. In language,\nTindale was controversial enough, but\nin his spirit, in making his version, there was no\nelement of controversy. For such reasons as\nthese we might expect the version to be valuable.\n\n\n[1] Herman Buschius.\n\n[2] This will mean the more to us when we realize that the\nliterary men of the day despised the English tongue. Sir Thomas\nMore wrote his Utopia in Latin, because otherwise educated\nmen would not deign to read it. Years later Roger Ascham\napologized for writing one of his works in English. Putting the\nBible into current English impressed these literary men very\nmuch as we would be impressed by putting the Bible into current\nslang.\n\n\nAll this while, and especially between the time\nwhen Tindale first published his New Testament\nand the time they burned him for doing so, an\ninteresting change was going on in England.\nThe King was Henry VIII., who was by no means\na willing Protestant. As Luther's work appeared,\nit was this same Henry who wrote the\npamphlet against him during the Diet of Worms,\nand on the ground of this pamphlet, with its\nloyal support of the Church against Luther, he\nreceived from the Roman pontiff the title \"Defender\nof the Faith,\" which the kings of England\nstill wear. And yet under this king this\nstrange succession of dates can be given. Notice\nthem closely. In 1526 Tindale's New Testament\nwas burned at St. Paul's by the Bishop of\nLondon; ten years later, 1536, Tindale himself\nwas burned with the knowledge and connivance\nof the English government; and yet, one year\nlater, 1537, two versions of the Bible in English,\nthree-quarters of which were the work of Tindale,\nwere licensed for public use by the King\nof England, and were required to be made available\nfor the people! Eleven years after the\nNew Testament was burned, one year after\nTindale was burned, that crown was set on his\nwork! What brought this about?\n\nThree facts help to explain it. First, the\nrecent years of Bible translation were having\ntheir weight. The fugitive copies of the Bible\nwere doing their work. Spite of the sharp opposition\nfifty thousand copies of Tindale's various\neditions had actually been published and\ncirculated. Men were reading them; they were\napproving them. The more they read, the less\nreason they saw for hiding the Book from the\npeople. Why should it not be made common\nand free? There was strong Lutheran opinion\nin the universities. It was already a custom\nfor English teachers to go to Germany for\nminute scholarship. They came back with German\nBibles in Luther's version and with Greek\nTestaments, and the young scholars who were\nbeing raised up felt the influence, consciously or\nunconsciously, of the free use of the Bible which\nruled in many German universities.\n\nThe second fact that helps to explain the sudden\nchange of attitude toward the Bible is this:\nthe people of England were never willingly\nruled from without, religiously or politically.\nThere has recently been a considerable controversy\nover the history of the Established\nChurch of England, whether it has always been\nan independent church or was at one time\nofficially a part of the Roman Church. That\nis a matter for ecclesiastical history to determine.\nThe foundation fact, however, is as I\nworded it a moment ago: the people of England\nwere never willingly ruled from without, religiously\nor politically. They were sometimes\nruled from without; but they were either indifferent\nto it at the time or rebellious against\nit. Those who did think claimed the right to\nthink for themselves. The Scotch of the north\nwere peculiarly so, but the English of the south\nclaimed the same right. There has always been\nan immense contrast between the two sides of\nthe British Channel. The French people during\nall those years were deeply loyal to a foreign\nreligious government. The English people\nwere never so, not in the days of the fullest\nRoman supremacy. They always demanded at\nleast a form of home government. That made\nEngland a congenial home for the Protestant\nspirit, which claimed the right to independent\nstudy of the sources of religion and independent\njudgment regarding them. It was only a continuance\nof the spirit of Wiclif and the Lollards.\nThe spirit in a nation lives long, especially when\nit is passed down by tradition. Those were not\nthe days of newspapers. They were instead\nthe days of great meetings, more important still\nof small family gatherings, where the memory\nof the older men was called into use, and where\nboys and girls drank in eagerly the traditions\nof their own country as expressed in the great\nevents of their history. Newspapers never can\nfully take the place of those gatherings, for they\ndo not bring men together to feel the thrill of\nthe story that is told. It must be remembered\nthat the entire population of England at that\ntime was only about three millions. And that\nold spirit of independence was strongly at work\nin the middle-class villages and among the\nmerchants, and they were a ruling and dominant\nclass. That was second, that in those ten years\nthere asserted itself the age-long unwillingness\nof the English people to be ruled from without.\n\nThe third fact which must be taken into account\nto explain this remarkable change of\nfront of the public English life is Henry VIII.\nhimself. There is much about him that no\ncountry would willingly claim. He was the\nmost habitual bridegroom in English history;\nhe had an almost confirmed habit of beheading\nhis wives or otherwise ridding himself of them.\nYet many traits made him a typical outstanding\nEnglishman. He had the characteristic spirit of\nindependence, the resentment of foreign control,\nsatisfaction with his own land, the feeling\nthat of course it is the best land. There are no\npeople in the world so well satisfied with their\nown country as the people of England or the\nBritish Isles. They are critical of many things\nin their own government until they begin to\ncompare it with other countries; they must\nmake their changes on their own lines. The\npamphlet of Henry VIII., which won him the\ntitle of Defender of the Faith, praised the pope;\nand, though Sir Thomas More urged him to\nchange his expressions lest he should live to\nregret them, he would not change them. But\nthat was while the pope was serving his wishes\nand what he felt was England's good.\n\nThere arose presently the question, or the\nseveral questions, about his marriage. It sheds\nno glory on Henry VIII. that they arose as they\ndid; but his treatment of them must not be\nmistaken. He was concerned to have his marriage\nto Anne Boleyn confirmed, and there are\nsome who think he was honest in believing it\nought to be confirmed, though we need not believe\nthat. What happened was that for the\nfirst time Henry VIII. found that as sovereign\nof England he must take commands from a foreign\npower, a power exercising temporal sovereignty\nexactly as he did, but adding to it a claim\nto spiritual power, a claim to determine his conduct\nfor him and to absolve his people from\nloyalty to him if he was not obedient. It arose\nover the question of his divorce, but it might\nhave arisen over anything else. It was limitation\non his sovereignty in England. And he let\nit be seen that all questions that pertain to England\nwere to be settled in England, and not\nin another land. He would rather have a matter\nsettled wrong in England than settled right\nelsewhere. That is how he claimed to be\nhead of the English Church. The people back\nof him had always held to the belief that they\nwere governed from within, though they were\nlinked to religion from without. He executed\ntheir theory. That assertion of English sovereignty\ncame during the eventful years of which\nwe are speaking.\n\nHere, then, are our great facts. First, thoughtful\nopinion wanted the Bible made available,\nand at a convention of bishops and university\nmen the King was requested to secure the issuance\nof a proper translation. Secondly, the\npeople wanted it, the more because it would\ngratify their English instinct of independent\njudgment in matters of religion. Thirdly, the\nKing granted it without yielding his personal\nreligious position, in assertion of his human\nsovereignty within his own realm.\n\nSo England awoke one morning in 1537 to\ndiscover that it had a translation of the Bible\ntwo of them actually, open to its use, the very\nthing that had been forbidden yesterday! And\nthat, one year after Tindale had been burned in\nloyal France for issuing an English translation!\nTwo versions were now authorized and made\navailable. What were they? That of Miles\nCoverdale, which had been issued secretly two\nyears before, and that known as the \"Matthew\"\nBible, though the name has no significance,\nissued within a year. Details are not to our\npurpose. Neither was an independent work,\nbut was made largely from the Latin and the\nGerman, and much influenced by Tindale.\nCoverdale was a Yorkshire man like Wiclif,\nfeminine in his mental cast as Tindale was masculine.\nCoverdale made his translation because\nhe loved books; Tindale because he felt driven\nto it. But now the way was clear, and other\neditions appeared. It is natural to name one\nor two of the more notable ones.\n\nThere appeared what is known as the Great\nBible in 1539. It was only another version\nmade by Coverdale on the basis of the Matthew\nversion, but corrected by more accurate knowledge.\nThere is an interesting romance of its\npublication. The presses of England were not\nadequate for the great work planned; it was to\nbe a marvel of typography. So the consent of\nKing Francis was gained to have it printed in\nFrance, and Coverdale was sent as a special\nambassador to oversee it. He was in dread of\nthe Inquisition, which was in vogue at the time,\nand sent off his printed sheets to England as\nrapidly as possible. Suddenly one day the order\nof confiscation came from the Inquisitor-General.\nOnly Coverdale's official position as representing\nthe King saved his own life. As for the\nprinted sheets on which so much depended,\nthey seemed doomed. But in the nick of time\na dealer appeared at the printing-house and purchased\nfour great vats full of waste paper which\nhe shipped to England--when it was found that\nthe waste paper was those printed sheets. The\npresses and the printers were all loyal to England,\nand the edition was finally completed. The\nGreat Bible was issued to meet a decree that each\nchurch should make available in some convenient\nplace the largest possible copy of the\nwhole Bible, where all the parishioners could\nhave access to it and read it at their will. The\nversion gets its name solely from the size of\nthe volume. That decree dates 1538, twelve\nyears after Tindale's books were burned, and\ntwo years after he was burned! The installation\nof these great books caused tremendous\nexcitement--crowds gathered everywhere. Bishop\nBonner caused six copies of the great volume\nto be located wisely throughout St. Paul's. He\nfound it difficult to make people leave them\nduring the sermons. He was so often interrupted\nby voices reading to a group, and by the\ndiscussions that ensued, that he threatened to\nhave them taken out during the service if people\nwould not be quiet. The Great Bible appeared\nin seven editions in two years, and\ncontinued in recognized power for thirty years.\nMuch of the present English prayer-book is\ntaken from it.\n\nBut this liberty was so sudden that the people\nnaturally abused it. Henry became vexed\nbecause the sacred words \"were disputed, rimed,\nsung, and jangled in every ale-house.\" There\nhad grown up a series of wild ballads and ribald\nsongs in contempt of \"the old faith,\"\nwhile it was not really the old faith which was\nin dispute, but only foreign control of English\nfaith. They had mistaken Henry's meaning.\nSo Henry began to put restrictions on the use\nof the Bible. There were to be no notes or\nannotations in any versions, and those that\nexisted were to be blacked out. Only the upper\nclasses were to be allowed to possess a Bible.\nFinally, the year before his death, all versions\nwere prohibited except the Great Bible, whose\ncost and size precluded secret use. The decree\nled to another great burning of Bibles in 1546--\nTindale, Coverdale, Matthew--all but the Great\nBible. The leading religious reformers took\nflight and fled to European Protestant towns\nlike Frankfort and Strassburg. But the Bible\nremained. Henry VIII. died. The Bible lived on.\n\nUnder Edward VI., the boy king, coming to\nthe throne at nine and dying at fifteen, the\nregency with Crammer at its head earned its\nbad name. But while its members were shamelessly\ndespoiling churches and enriching themselves\nthey did one great service for the Bible.\nThey cast off all restrictions on its translation\nand publication. The order for a Great Bible\nin every church was renewed, and there was to\nbe added to it a copy of Erasmus's paraphrase\nof the four gospels. Nearly fifty editions of\nthe Bible, in whole or in part, appeared in those\nsix years.\n\nAnd that was fortunate, for then came Mary\n--and the deluge. Of course, she again gave in\nthe nominal allegiance of England to the Roman\ncontrol. But she utterly missed the spirit of\nthe people. They were weary with the excesses\nof rabid Protestantism; but they were by no\nmeans ready to admit the principle of foreign\ncontrol in religious matters. They might have\nbeen willing, many of them, that the use of the\nBible should be restricted, if it were done by\ntheir own sovereign. They were not willing\nthat another sovereign should restrict them.\nSo the secret use of the Bible increased. Martyr\nfires were kindled, but by the light of them the\npeople read their Bibles more eagerly. And this\nvery persecution led to one of the best of the\nearly versions of the Bible, indirectly even to\nthe King James version.\n\nThe flower of English Protestant scholarship\nwas driven into exile, and found its way to\nFrankfort and Geneva again. There the spirit\nof scholarship was untrammeled; there they\nfound material for scholarly study of the Bible,\nand there they made and published a new version\nof the Bible in English, by all means the\nbest that had been made. In later years, under\nElizabeth, it drove the Great Bible off the field\nby sheer power of excellence. During her reign\nsixty editions of it appeared. This was the version\ncalled the Genevan Bible. It made several\nchanges that are familiar to us. For one thing,\nin the Genevan edition of 1560 first appeared\nour familiar division into verses. The chapter\ndivision was made three centuries earlier; but\nthe verses belong to the Genevan version, and\nare divided to make the Book suitable for\nresponsive use and for readier reference. It was\ntaken in large part from the work of Robert\nStephens, who had divided the Greek Testament\ninto verses, ten years earlier, during a journey\nwhich he was compelled to make between Paris\nand Lyons. The Genevan version also abandoned\nthe old black letter, and used the Roman\ntype with which we are familiar. It had full\nnotes on hard passages, which notes, as we shall\nsee, helped to produce the King James version.\nThe work itself was completed after the accession\nof Elizabeth, when most of the religious leaders\nhad returned to England from their exile under Mary.\n\nElizabeth herself was not an ardent Protestant,\nnot ardent at all religiously, but an ardent\nEnglishwoman. She understood her people, and\nwhile she prided herself on being the \"Guardian\nof the Middle Way,\" she did not make the\nmistake of submitting her sovereignty to foreign\nsupervision. Probably Elizabeth always\ncounted herself personally a Catholic, but not\npolitically subject to the Roman pontiff. She\nhad no wish to offend other Catholic powers;\nbut she was determined to develop a strong\nnational spirit and to allow religious differences\nto exist if they would be peaceful. The dramatic\nscene which was enacted at the time of\nher coronation procession was typical of her\nspirit. As the procession passed down Cheapside,\na venerable old man, representing Time,\nwith a little child beside him representing\nTruth--Time always old, Truth always young--\npresented the Queen with a copy of the Scriptures,\nwhich she accepted, promising to read\nthem diligently.\n\nPresently it was found that two versions of\nthe Bible were taking the field, the old Great\nBible and the new Genevan Bible. On all\naccounts the Genevan was the better and was\ndriving out its rival. Yet there could be no\nhope of gaining the approval of Elizabeth for\nthe Genevan Bible. For one thing, John Knox\nhad been a party to its preparation; so had\nCalvin. Elizabeth detested them both, especially\nKnox. For another thing, its notes\nwere not favorable to royal sovereignty, but\nsmacked so much of popular government as to\nbe offensive. For another thing, though it had\nbeen made mostly by her own people, it had been\nmade in a foreign land, and was under suspicion\non that account. The result was that Elizabeth's\narchbishop, Parker, set out to have an authorized\nversion made, selected a revision committee,\nwith instructions to follow wherever\npossible the Great Bible, to avoid bitter notes,\nand to make such a version that it might be\nfreely, easily, and naturally read. The result\nis known as the Bishops' Bible. It was issued\nin Elizabeth's tenth year (1568), but there is\nno record that she ever noticed it, though Parker\nsent her a copy from his sick-bed. The Bishops'\nBible shows the influence of the Genevan\nBible in many ways, though it gives no credit\nfor that. It is not of equal merit; it was expensive,\ntoo cumbersome, and often unscholarly.\nOnly its official standing gave it life, and after\nforty years, in nineteen editions, it was no longer\npublished.\n\nNaming one other English version will complete\nthe series of facts necessary for the consideration\nof the forming of the King James\nversion. It will be remembered that all the\nEnglish versions of the Bible thus far mentioned\nwere the work of men either already out of favor\nwith the Roman pontiff, or speedily put out of\nfavor on that account. Thirty years after his\ndeath; Wiclif's bones were taken up and burned;\nTindale was burned. Coverdale's version and\nthe Great Bible were the product of the period\nwhen Henry VIII. was under the ban. The\nGenevan Bible was the work of refugees, and\nthe Bishops' Bible was prepared when Elizabeth\nhad been excommunicated. That fact\nseemed to many loyal Roman churchmen to\nput the Church in a false light. It must be\nmade clear that its opposition was not to the\nBible, not even to popular use and possession\nof the Bible, but only to unauthorized, even\nincorrect, versions. So there came about the\nDouai version, instigated by Gregory Martin,\nand prepared in some sense as an answer to the\nGenevan version and its strongly anti-papal\nnotes. It was the work of English scholars connected\nwith the University of Douai. The New\nTestament was issued at Rheims in 1582, and\nthe whole Bible in 1609, just before our King\nJames version. It is made, not from the Hebrew\nand the Greek, though it refers to both,\nbut from the Vulgate. The result is that the\nOld Testament of the Douai version is a translation\ninto English from the Latin, which in\nlarge part is a translation into Latin from the\nGreek Septuagint, which in turn is a translation\ninto Greek from the Hebrew. Yet scholars are\nscholars, and it shows marked influence of the\nGenevan version, and, indeed, of other English\nversions. Its notes were strongly anti-Protestant,\nand in its preface it explains its existence\nby saying that Protestants have been guilty\nof \"casting the holy to dogs and pearls to hogs.\"\n\nThe version is not in the direct line of the\nascent of the familiar version, and needs no\nelaborate description. Its purpose was controversial;\nit did not go to available sources;\nits English was not colloquial, but ecclesiastical.\nFor example, in the Lord's Prayer we read:\n\"Give us this day our supersubstantial bread,\"\ninstead of \"our daily bread.\" In Hebrews xiii:\n17, the version reads, \"Obey your prelates and\nbe subject unto them.\" In Luke iii:3, John\ncame \"preaching the baptism of penance.\" In\nPsalm xxiii:5, where we read, \"My cup runneth\nover,\" the Douai version reads, \"My chalice\nwhich inebriateth me, how goodly it is.\"\nThere is a careful retention of ecclesiastical\nterms, and an explanation of the passages on\nwhich Protestants had come to differ rather\nsharply from their Roman brethren, as in the\nmatter of the taking of the cup by the people,\nand elsewhere.\n\nYet it is only fair to remember that this much\nanswer was made to the versions which were\npreparing the way for the greatest version of\nthem all, and when the time came for the making\nof that version, and the helps were gathered\ntogether, the Douai was frankly placed among\nthem. It is a peculiar irony of fate that while\nthe purpose of Gregory Martin was to check\nthe translation of the Bible by the Protestants,\nthe only effect of his work was to advance and\nimprove that translation.\n\nAt last, as we shall see in our next study, the\nway was cleared for a free and open setting of\nthe Bible into English. The way had been\nbeset with struggle, marked with blood, lighted\nby martyr fires. Wiclif and Purvey, Tindale\nand Coverdale, the refugees at Geneva and the\nBishops at London, all had trod that way.\nKings had fought them or had favored them;\nit was all one; they had gone on. Loyal zest\nfor their Book and loving zeal for the common\npeople had held them to the path. Now it\nhad become a highway open to all men. And\nright worthy were the feet which were soon\ntreading it.\n\n\n\nLECTURE II\n\nTHE MAKING OF THE KING JAMES VERSION; ITS\nCHARACTERISTICS\n\nEARLY in January, 1604, men were making\ntheir way along the poor English highways,\nby coach and carrier, to the Hampton\nCourt Palace of the new English king. They\nwere coming from the cathedral towns, from the\nuniversities, from the larger cities. Many were\nChurch dignitaries, many were scholars, some\nwere Puritans, all were loyal Englishmen, and\nthey were gathering in response to a call for\na conference with the king, James I. They were\ndivided in sentiment, these men, and those who\nhoped most from the conference were doomed\nto complete disappointment. Not one among\nthem, not the King, had the slightest purpose\nthat the conference should do what proved to\nbe its only real service. Some of the men,\ngrave and earnest, were coming to present their\npetitions to the King, others were coming to\noppose their petitions; the King meant to deny\nthem and to harry the petitioners. And everything\ncame out as it had been planned. Yet\nthe largest service of the conference, the only\nreal service, was in no one's mind, for it was at\nHampton Court, on the last day of the conference\nbetween James and the churchmen,\nJanuary 18, 1604, that the first formal step was\ntaken toward the making of the so-called Authorized\nVersion of the English Bible. If there\nare such things as accidents, this great enterprise\nbegan in an accident. But the outcome of\nthe accident, the volume that resulted, is \"allowed\nby all competent authorities to be the\nfirst, [that is, the chief] English classic,\" if our\nProfessor Cook, of Yale, may speak; \"is universally\naccepted as a literary masterpiece, as\nthe noblest and most beautiful Book in the\nworld, which has exercised an incalculable influence\nupon religion, upon manners, upon literature,\nand upon character,\" if the Balliol College\nscholar Hoare can be trusted; and has\n\"made the English language,\" if Professor March\nis right. The purpose of this study is to show\nhow that accident occurred, and what immediately\ncame from it.\n\n\nWith the death of Elizabeth the Tudor line\nof sovereigns died out. The collateral Stuart\nline, descending directly from Henry VII.,\nnaturally succeeded to the throne, and James\nVI. of Scotland made his royal progress to the\nEnglish capital and became James I. of England.\nIn him appears the first of that Stuart\nline during whose reign great changes were to\noccur. Every one in the line held strongly to\nthe dogma of the divine right of kings, yet under\nthat line the English people transferred sovereignty\nfrom the king to Parliament.[1] Fortunately\nfor history, and for the progress of popular\ngovernment, the Stuart line had no forceful\nfigures in it. Macaulay thinks it would have\nbeen fatal to English liberty if they had been\nable kings. It was easier to take so dangerous\na weapon as the divine right of kings from weak\nhands than from strong ones. So it was that\nthough James came out of Scotland to assert\nhis divine and arbitrary right as sovereign, by\nthe time Queen Anne died, closing the Stuart\nline and giving way to the Hanoverian, the real\nsovereignty had passed into the hands of Parliament.\n\n\n[1] Trevelyan, England Under the Stuarts.\n\n\nBut the royal traveler, coming from Edinburgh\nto London, is interesting on his own\naccount--interesting at this distance. He is\nthirty-seven years old, and ought to be in the\nbeginning of his prime. He is a little over\nmiddle height; loves a good horse, though he is\nan ungainly rider, and has fallen off his horse\nthree or four times during his royal progress;\nis a heavy drinker of the liquors of the period,\nwith horribly coarse, even gross manners. Macaulay\nis very severe with him. He says that\n\"his cowardice, his childishness, his pedantry,\nhis ungainly person and manners, his provincial\naccent, made him an object of derision. Even\nin his virtues and accomplishments there was\nsomething eminently unkingly.\"[1] It seemed\ntoo bad that \"royalty should be exhibited to the\nworld stammering, slobbering, shedding unmanly\ntears, trembling at the drawn sword, and\ntalking in the style alternately of a buffoon and\nof a pedagogue.\" That is truly not an attractive\npicture. But there is something on the\nother side. John Richard Green puts both\nsides: \"His big head, his slobbering tongue, his\nquilted clothes, his rickety legs stood out in as\ngrotesque a contrast with all that men recalled of\nHenry and Elizabeth as his gabble and rhodomontade,\nhis want of personal dignity, his\nbuffoonery, his coarseness of speech, his pedantry,\nhis contemptible cowardice. Under this\nridiculous exterior, however, lay a man of much\nnatural ability, a ripe scholar with a considerable\nfund of shrewdness, of mother wit and\nready repartee.\"[2]\n\n[1] History of England, chap. i.\n\n[2] Short History of the English People, chap. viii, sec. ii.\n\n\nSome good traits he must have had. He did\nwin some men to him. As some one has said,\n\"You could love him; you could despise him;\nyou could not hate him.\" He could say some\nwitty and striking things. For example, when\nhe was urging the formal union of Scotland and\nEngland, and it was opposed, he said: \"But I\nam the husband, and the whole island is my\nwife. I hope no one will be so unreasonable\nas to suppose that I, that am a Christian king\nunder the Gospel, should be a polygamist and\nhusband to two wives.\"[2] After the conference\nof which we have been speaking, he wrote to a\nfriend in Scotland: \"I have had a revel with the\nPuritans and have peppered them soundly.\"\nAs indeed he had. Then, in some sense at least,\n\"James was a born theologian.\" He had studied\nthe Bible in some form from childhood; one of\nthe first things we hear of his doing is the writing\nof a paraphrase on the book of the Revelation.\nIn his talk he made easy and free use of\nScripture quotations. To be sure, his knowledge,\non which he prided himself unconscionably, was\nshallow and pedantic. Henry IV. of France,\none of his contemporaries, said that he was \"the\nwisest fool in Christendom.\"\n\n\n[2] Trevelyan, England Under the Stuarts, p. 107.\n\n\nNow, it was this man who was making his\nroyal progress from Edinburgh to London in\nMarch, 1603, nearly a year before the gathering\nof men which we were observing at the opening\nof this study. Many things happened on the\njourney besides his falling off his horse several\ntimes; but one of the most significant was the\nhalting of the progress to receive what was\ncalled the Miliary Petition, whose name implies\nthat it was signed by a thousand men--actually\nsomewhat less than that number--mostly ministers\nof the Church. The Petition made no\nmention of any Bible version, yet it was the\nbeginning of the events which led to it. Back\nof it was the Puritan influence. It asked for\nreforms in the English Church, for the correction\nof abuses which had grown under Elizabeth's\nincreasing favor of ritual and ceremony.\nIt asked for a better-trained ministry, for better\ndiscipline in the Church, for the omission of\nso many detailed requirements of rites and\nceremonies, and for that perennially desired reform,\nshorter church services!\n\nVery naturally the new King replied that he\nwould take it up later, and promised to call a\nconference to consider it. And this he did.\nThe conference met at Hampton Court in January,\n1604, and it was for this that the men\nwere coming from many parts of England. The\ngathering was held on the 14th, 16th, and 18th\nof the month. Its sole purpose was to consider\nthat Miliary Petition; but the King called to it\nnot only those who had signed the Petition, but\nthose who had opposed it. He had no notion\nof granting any favor to it, and from the first\nhe gave the Puritans rough treatment. He\ntold them he would have none of their non-\nconformity, he would \"make them conform or\nharry them out of the land.\" Someone suggested\nthat since this was a Church matter there be\ncalled a Synod, or some general gathering fitted to\ndiscuss and determine such things, rather than\nleave it to a few Church dignitaries. For the\npurposes of the petitioners it was a most unfortunate\nexpression. James had just come from\nScotland, where the Presbyterians were with\ntheir Synod, and where Calvinism was in full\nswing. He was much in favor of some elements\nof Calvinism; but he could not see how all the\nelements held together. Predestination, for\nexample, which offends so many people to-day,\nwas a precious doctrine to King James, and he\ninsisted that his subjects ought to see how clearly\nGod had predestined him to rule over them!\nBut he could not tolerate the necessary logical\ninference of Calvinism that all men must be\nequal before God, and so men can make and\nunmake kings as they need to do so, the matter\nof king or subject being purely an incidental\none. He remembered the time when Andrew\nMelville, one of the Scotch ministers, had\nplucked him by his royal sleeve and called him\n\"God's silly vassal\" right to his face. So,\nwhen some one said \"Synod\" it brought the\nKing up standing. He burst out: \"If that is\nwhat you mean, if you want what the Scotch\nmean by their Synod and their Presbytery, then\nI tell you at once that I will have none of it.\nPresbytery agrees with monarchy very much as\nGod agrees with the devil. If you have no\nbishop, you will soon have no king.\" He was\nperfectly right, with reference to the kind of\nking he meant. These things were to be settled,\nhe meant, by authority, and not by conference.\nThat is the point to which Gardiner\nrefers when he says that \"in two minutes James\nsealed his own fate and that of England forever.\"[1]\n\n\n[1] History of England, 1603-42.\n\n\nAfter that there was only a losing fight for\nthe petitioners. They had touched a sore spot\nin James's history. But it was when they\ntouched that sore spot again that they started\nthe movement for a new version of the Bible.\nIt was on the second day of the conference,\nJanuary 16th, that Dr. Reynolds, president of\nCorpus Christi College, Oxford, who represented\nthe moderate Puritan position, and, like many\nmoderate men, was rather suspected by both\nextreme wings, instanced as one of the hardships\nof the Puritans that they were compelled to use\nthe prayer-book of the time, and that it contained\nmany mistranslations of Scripture, some\nof which he quoted. Now, it so happens that\nthe errors to which he referred occur in the\nBishops' and the Great Bible, which were the\ntwo authorized versions of the time, but are\nall corrected in the Genevan version. We do\nnot know what point he was trying to make,\nwhether he was urging that the Genevan version\nshould supplant these others, or whether\nhe was calling for a new translation. Indeed,\nwe are not sure that he even mentioned the\nGenevan version. But James spoke up to say\nthat he had never yet seen a Bible well translated\ninto English; but the worst of all he\nthought the Genevan to be. He spoke as though\nhe had just had a copy given him by an English\nlady, and had already noted what he called its\nerrors. That was at the very least a royal\nevasion, for if there was any Book he did know\nit was the Genevan version. He had been fairly\nraised on it; he had lived in the country where\nit was commonly used. It had been preached\nat him many and many a time. Indeed, he\nhad used it as the text for that paraphrase of\nthe Revelation of which we spoke a moment ago.\nAnd he knew its notes--well he knew them--\nknew that they were from republican Geneva,\nand that kingly pretensions had short shrift\nwith them. James told the conference that\nthese notes were \"very partial, untrue, seditious,\nsavoring too much of traitorous and dangerous\nconceits,\" supporting his opinion by two instances\nwhich seemed disrespectful to royalty.\nOne of these instances was the note on Exodus\n1:17, where the Egyptian midwives are said to\nhave disobeyed the king in the matter of destroying\nthe children. The note says: \"Their\ndisobedience to the king was lawful, though\ntheir dissembling was not.\" James quoted that,\nand said: \"It is false; to disobey the king is\nnot lawful, and traitorous conceits should not\ngo forth among the people.\"\n\nSome of the High Church party objected that\nthere were translations enough already; but it\nstruck James's fancy to set them all aside by\nanother version, which he at once said he would\norder. It was to be made by the most learned\nof both universities, then to be revised by the\nbishops and other Church dignitaries, then presented\nto the Privy Council, and finally to be\npassed upon by himself. There is the echo of\nsome sharp Scotch experiences in his declaration\nthat there were to be no marginal notes in that\nnew version.\n\nWhen they looked back on the conference,\nthe Puritans felt that they had lost everything,\nand the High Church people that they had gained\neverything. One of the bishops, in a very servile\nway, and on his knee, gave thanks to God\nfor having given the country such a king, whose\nlike had never been seen since Christ was on\nearth. Certainly hard times were ahead for\nthe Puritans. The King harried them according\nto his word. Within sixteen years some of them\nlanded at Plymouth Rock, and things began to\nhappen on this side. That settlement at Plymouth\nwas the outcome of the threat the King\nhad made at the Hampton Court conference.\n\nBut looking back one can see that the conference\nwas worth while for the beginning of\nthe movement for the new version. The King\nwas true to his word in this line also, and before\nthe year was out had appointed the fifty-four\nbest Bible scholars of the realm to make the new\nversion. They were to sit in six companies of\nnine each, two at Oxford, two at Cambridge,\nand two at Westminster. The names of only\nforty-seven of them have come down to us, and\nit is not known whether the other seven were\never appointed, or in what way their names have\nbeen lost. It must be said for the King that the\nonly principle of selection was scholarship, and\nwhen those six groups of men met they were\nmen of the very first rank, with no peers outside\ntheir own numbers--with one exception, and\nthat exception is of some passing interest. Hugh\nBroughton was probably the foremost Hebrew\nscholar of England, perhaps of the world, at the\ntime, and apparently he was not appointed on\nthe committee. Chiefly, it seems to have been\nbecause he was a man of ungovernable temper\nand utterly unfitted to work with others. Failure\nto appoint him, however, bit and rankled,\nand the only keen and sharp criticism that was\npassed on the version in its own day was by\nHugh Broughton. He sent word to the King,\nafter it was completed, that as for himself he\nwould rather be rent to pieces by wild horses\nthan have had any part in the urging of such a\nwretched version of the Bible on the poor people.\nThat was so manifestly pique, however,\nthat it is only to be regretted that the translation\ndid not have the benefit of his great\nHebrew knowledge. John Selden, at his prime\nin that day, voiced the feeling of most scholars\nof the times, that the new translation was the\nbest in the world and best gave the sense of\nthe original.\n\nWe do not know much of the personnel of\nthe company. Their names would mean very\nlittle to us at this distance. All were clergymen\nexcept one. There were bishops, college\nprincipals, university fellows, and rectors. Dr.\nReynolds, who suggested it in the first place,\nwas a member, though he did not live to see the\nwork finished. This Dr. Reynolds, by the way,\nwas party to a most curious episode. He had\nbeen an ardent Roman Catholic, and he had a\nbrother who was an equally ardent Protestant.\nThey argued with each other so earnestly that\neach convinced the other; the Roman Catholic\nbecame a Protestant, and the Protestant became\na Roman Catholic! Dr. Lancelot Andrewes,\nchairman of one of the two companies that met\nat Westminster, was probably the most learned\nman in England. They said of him that if he\nhad been present at the tower of Babel he could\nhave interpreted for all the tongues present.\nThe only trouble was that the world lacked\nlearning enough to know how learned he was.\nHis company had the first part of the Old\nTestament, and the simple dignity of the style\nthey used shows how scholarship and simplicity\ngo easily together. Most people would consider\nthat the least satisfactory part of the work is\nthe second section, running from I Chronicles\nto Ecclesiastes. A convert from another faith,\nwho learned to read the Bible in English, once\nexpressed to a friend of my own his feeling that\nexcept for the Psalms and parts of Job, there\nseemed to be here a distinct letting-down of the\ndignity of the translation. There is good excuse\nfor this, if it is so, for two leading members\nof the company who had that section in charge,\nboth eminent Cambridge scholars, died very\nearly in the work, and their places were not\nfilled. The third company, sitting at Oxford,\nwere peculiarly strong, and had for their portion\nthe hardest part of the Old Testament--all the\nprophetical writings. But they did their part\nwith finest skill. The fourth company, sitting at\nCambridge, had the Apocrypha, the books which\nlie between the Old and the New Testaments\nfor the most part, or else are supplemental to\ncertain Old Testament books. Their work was\nrather hastily and certainly poorly done, and\nhas been dropped out of most editions. The\nfifth company, sitting at Oxford, with great\nGreek scholars on it, took the Gospels, the Acts,\nand the Revelation. This company had in it\nthe one layman, Sir Henry Savile, then the greatest\nGreek scholar in England. It is the same\nSir Henry Savile who heard, on his death-bed\nin 1621, that James had with his own hands\ntorn from the Journal of Parliament the pages\nwhich bore the protest in favor of free speech\nin Parliament. Hearing it, the faithful scholar\nprayed to die, saying: \"I am ready to depart,\nthe rather that having lived in good times I\nforesee worse.\" The sixth company met at\nWestminster and translated the New Testament\nepistles.\n\nIt was the original plan that when one company\nhad finished its part, the result should go\nto each of the other companies, coming back\nwith their suggestions to the original workers to\nbe recast by them. The whole was then to be\nreviewed by a smaller committee of scholars to\ngive it uniformity and to see it through the\npress. The records are not extant that tell\nwhether this was done in full detail, though we\nmay presume that each section of the Scripture\nhad the benefit of the scholarship of the entire\ncompany.\n\nWe know a good deal of the method of their\nwork. We shall understand it better by recalling\nwhat material they had at hand. They\nwere enabled to use the result of all the work\nthat had been done before them. They were\ninstructed to follow the Bishops' Bible wherever\nthey could do so fairly; but they were given\npower to use the versions already named from\nWiclif down, as well as those fragmentary versions\nwhich were numerous, and of which no\nmention has been made. They ransacked all\nEnglish forms for felicitous words and happy\nphrases. It is one of the interesting incidents\nthat this same Hugh Broughton, who was left\noff the committee and took it so hard, yet without\nhis will contributed some important matter\nto the translation, because he had on his own\nauthority made translations of certain parts of\nthe Scripture. Several of our capital phrases\nin the King James version are from him. There\nwas no effort to break out new paths. Preference\nwas always given to a familiar phrase\nrather than to a new one, unless accuracy required\nit. First, then, they had the benefit of\nall the work that had been done before in the\nsame line, and gladly used it.\n\nIn addition, they had all other versions made\nin the tongues of the time. Chiefly there was\nLuther's German Bible, already become for the\nGerman tongue what their version was destined\nto be for the English tongue. There were parts\nof the Bible available in Spanish, French, and\nDutch. They were kept at hand constantly\nfor any light they might cast on difficult passages.\n\nFor the Old Testament there were very few\nHebrew texts. There had been little critical\nwork yet done on them, and for the most part\nthere were only different editions running back\nover the centuries. We have little more than\nthat now, and there is almost no new material\non the Old Testament since the days of the\nKing James translators. There was, of course,\nthe Septuagint, the Greek translation from the\nHebrew made before Christ, with the guidance\nit could give in doubtful places on the probable\noriginal. And finally there was the Vulgate,\nmade into Latin out of the Greek and Hebrew.\nThis was all the Old Testament material they\nhad, or that any one could have in view of the\nantiquated original sources.\n\nThe New Testament material was more\nabundant, though not nearly so abundant as\nto-day. There were few manuscripts of the\nearly days to which they could refer; but there\nwere the two great critical versions of the New\nTestament in Greek, that by Erasmus and the\nComplutensian, which had made use of the best\nmanuscripts known. Then, finally again, there\nwas the Vulgate.\n\nWe must stop a moment to see what was the\nvalue of the Vulgate in this work. It is impossible\nto reckon the number of the early New\nTestament manuscripts that have been lost.\nIn the earlier day the Scriptures were transmitted\nfrom church to church, and from age to\nage, by manuscripts. Many of them were\nmade as direct copies of other manuscripts; but\nmany were made by scribes to whom the manuscripts\nwere read as they wrote, so that there are\nmany, though ordinarily comparatively slight,\nvariations among the manuscripts which we now\nknow. More manuscripts are coming to light\nconstantly, manuscripts once well known and\nthen lost. Many of them, perhaps many earlier\nthan we now have, must have been familiar to\nJerome four hundred years after Christ. When,\ntherefore, there is a plain difference between the\nVulgate and our early Greek manuscripts, the\nVulgate may be wrong because it is only a translation;\nbut it may be right because it is a translation\nof earlier manuscripts than some of ours.\nIt is steadily losing its value at that point, for\nGreek manuscripts are all the time coming to\nlight which run farther back. But we must not\nminimize the value of the Vulgate for our King\nJames translation.\n\nWith all this material the scholars of the early\nseventeenth century set to work. Each man\nin the group made the translation that seemed\nbest to him, and together they analyzed the\nresults and finally agreed on the best. They\nhunted the other versions to see if it had been\nbetter done elsewhere. The shade of Tindale\nwas over it all. The Genevan version was most\ninfluential. The Douai had its share, and the\nBishops' was the general standard, altered only\nwhen accuracy required it. On all hard passages\nthey called to their aid the appropriate departments\nof both universities. All scholars everywhere\nwere asked to send in any contributions,\nto correct or criticize as they would. Public\nannouncement of the work was made, and all\npossible help was besought and gladly accepted.\n\nVery faithfully these greatest scholars of their\ntime wrought. No one worked for money, and\nno one worked for pay, but each for the joy of\nthe working. Three years they spent on the\noriginal work, three years on careful revision\nand on the marginal references by which Scripture\nwas made to throw light on Scripture.\nThen in six months a committee reviewed it all,\nput it through the press, and at last, in 1611,\nwith the imprint of Robert Barker, Printer to\nthe King's Most Excellent Majesty, the King\nJames version appeared. The name Authorized\nVersion is not a happy one, for so far as the\nrecords go it was never authorized either by\nthe King or the bishop; and, even if it were, the\nauthority does not extend beyond the English\nChurch, which is a very small fraction of those\nwho use it. On the title-page of the original\nversion, as on so many since, is the familiar\nline, \"Appointed to be Read in Churches,\" but\nwho made the appointment history does not say.\n\nThe version did not at once supersede the\nGenevan and the Bishops'; but it was so\nincomparably better than either that gradually\nthey disappeared, and by sheer excellence it\ntook the field, and it holds the field to-day in\nspite of the numerous supposedly improved versions\nthat have appeared under private auspices.\nIt holds the field, also, in spite of the excellent\nrevised version of 1881 made by authority, and\nthe more excellent version issued in 1901 by the\nAmerican Revision Committee, to-day undoubtedly\nthe best version in existence, considered\nsimply as a reproduction of the sense\nof the original. And for reasons that may later\nappear, the King James version bids fair to\nhold the field for many years to come.\n\nWhen we turn from the history of its making\nto the work itself, there is much to say. We\nmay well narrow our thought for the remainder\nof the study to its traits as a version of the\nBible.\n\nI. Name this first, that it is an honest version.\nThat is, it has no argumentative purpose. It\nis not, as the scholars say, apologetic. It is\nsimply an out-and-out version of the Scripture,\nas honestly as they could reproduce it.\nThere were Puritans on the committee; there\nwere extreme High Churchmen; there were\nmen of all grades between. But there is nowhere\nany evidence that any one was set on\nmaking the Bible prove his point. There were\nstrong anti-papal believers among them; but\nthey made free use of the Douai version, and,\nof course, of the Vulgate. They knew the feeling\nthat Hugh Broughton had toward them;\nbut they made generous use of all that was good\nin his work. They were working under a royal\nwarrant, and their dedication to King James,\nwith its absurd and fulsome flattery, shows what\nthey were capable of when they thought of the\nKing. But there is no twist of a text to make\nit serve the purposes of royalty. They might\nbe servile when they thought of King James;\nbut there was not a touch of servility in them\nwhen they thought of the Scripture itself. They\nwere under instruction not to abandon the use\nof ecclesiastical terms. For instance, they were\nnot to put \"congregation\" in place of \"church,\"\nas some Puritans wanted to do. Some thought\nthat was meant to insure a High Church version;\nbut the translators did not understand it\nso for a moment. They understood it only to\nsafeguard them against making a partisan version\non either side, and to help them to make\na version which the people could read understandingly\nat once. It was not to be a Puritan\nBook nor a High Church Book. It was to\nbe an honest version of the Bible, no matter\nwhose side it sustained.\n\nNow, if any one thinks that is easy, or only\na matter of course, he plainly shows that he has\nnever been a theologian or a scholar in a contested\nfield. Ask any lawyer whether it is easy\nto handle his authorities with entire impartiality,\nwhether it is a matter of course that he will let\nthem say just what they meant to say when his\ncase is involved. Of course, he will seek to do\nit as an honest lawyer, but equally, of course, he\nwill have to keep close watch on himself or he\nwill fail in doing it. Ask any historian whether\nit is easy to handle the original documents in a\nfield in which he has firm and announced\nopinions, and to let those documents speak exactly\nwhat they mean to say, whether they support\nhim or not. The greater historians will always\ndo it, but they will sometimes do it with a bit\nof a wrench.\n\nEven a scholar is human, and these men sitting\nin their six companies would all have to\nmeet this Book afterward, would have their\nopinions tried by it. There must have been\ntimes when some of them would be inclined to\nsalt the mine a little, to see that it would yield\nwhat they would want it to yield later. So far\nas these men were able to do it, they made it\nsay in English just what it said in Hebrew and\nGreek. They showed no inclination to use it\nas a weapon in their personal warfare.\n\nOne line of that honest effort is worth observing\nmore closely. When points were open to\nfair discussion, and scholarship had not settled\nthem, they were careful not to let their version\ntake sides when it could be avoided. On some\nmooted words they did not try translation, but\ntransliteration instead. That is, they brought\nthe Greek or Hebrew word over into English,\nletter by letter. Suppose scholars differed as to\nthe exact meaning in English of a word in the\nGreek. Some said it has this meaning, and some\nthat it has that. Now, if the version committed\nitself to one of those meanings, it became an\nargument at once against the other and helped\nto settle a question on which scholarship was not\nyet agreed. They could avoid making a partisan\nBook by the simple device of bringing the\nword which was disputed over into the new\ntranslation. That left the discussion just where\nit was before, but it saved the work from being\npartisan. The method of transliteration did not\nalways work to advantage, as we shall see, but\nit was intended throughout to save the Book\nfrom taking sides on any question where honest\nmen might differ as to the meaning of words.\n\nThey did that with all proper names, and\nthat was notable in the Old Testament, because\nmost Old Testament proper names can be translated.\nThey all mean something in themselves.\nAdam is the Hebrew word for man; Abraham\nmeans Father of a Great Multitude; David is\nthe Hebrew word for Beloved; Malachi means\nMy Messenger. Yet as proper names they do\nnot mean any of those things. It is impossible\nto translate a proper name into another tongue\nwithout absurdity. It must be transliterated.\nYet there is constant fascination for translators\nin the work of translating these proper names,\ntrying to make them seem more vivid. It is\nquite likely, though it is disputed, that proper\nnames do all go back to simple meanings. But\nby the time they become proper names they no\nlonger have those meanings. The only proper\ntreatment of them is by transliteration.\n\nThe King James translators follow that same\npractice of transliteration rather than translation\nwith another word which is full of controversial.\npossibility. I mean the word \"baptism.\"\nThere was dispute then as now about\nthe method of that ordinance in early Christian\nhistory. There were many who held that the\nclassical meaning which involved immersion had\nbeen taken over bodily into the Christian faith,\nand that all baptism was by immersion. There\nwere others who held that while that might be\nthe classical meaning of the word, yet in early\nChristian custom baptism was not by immersion,\nbut might be by sprinkling or pouring, and who\ninsisted that no pressure on the mode was wise\nor necessary. That dispute continues to this\nday. Early versions of the Bible already figured\nin the discussion, and for a while there was\nquestion whether this King James version should\ntake sides in that controversy, about which men\nequally loyal to truth and early Christian history\ncould honestly differ. The translators\navoided taking sides by bringing the Greek\nword which was under discussion over into\nEnglish, letter by letter. Our word \"baptism\"\nis not an English word nor a Saxon word; it\nis a purely Greek word. The controversy has\nbeen brought over into the English language;\nbut the King James version avoided becoming\na controversial book. A number of years ago\nthe convictions of some were so strong that another\nversion of the Bible was made, in which\nthe word baptism was carefully replaced by\nwhat was believed to be the English translation,\n\"immersion,\" but the version never had\nwide influence.\n\nIn this connection it is well to notice the\neffort of the King James translators at a fair\nstatement of the divine name. It will be remembered\nthat it appears in the Old Testament\nordinarily as \"LORD,\" printed in small capitals.\nA very interesting bit of verbal history lies back\nof that word. The word which represents the\ndivine name in Hebrew consists of four\nconsonants, J or Y, H, V, and H. There are no\nvowels; indeed, there were no vowels in the\nearly Hebrew at all. Those that we now have\nwere added not far from the time of Christ.\nNo one knows the original pronunciation of that\nsacred name consisting of four letters. At a\nvery early day it had become too sacred to pronounce,\nso that when men came to it in reading\nor in speech, they simply used another word\nwhich is, translated into English, Lord, a word of\nhigh dignity. When the time came that vowels\nwere to be added to the consonants, the vowels\nof this other word Lord were placed under the\nconsonants of the sacred name, so that in the\nword Jehovah, where the J H V H occur, there\nare the consonants of one word whose vowels\nare unknown and the vowels of another word\nwhose consonants are not used.\n\nIllustrate it by imagining that in American\nliterature the name Lincoln gathered to itself\nsuch sacredness that it was never pronounced\nand only its consonants were ever printed. Suppose\nthat whenever readers came to it they\nsimply said Washington, thinking Lincoln all\nthe while. Then think of the displacement of\nthe vowels of Lincoln by the vowels of Washington.\nYou have a word that looks like Lancilon\nor Lanicoln; but a reader would never\npronounce so strange a word. He would always\nsay Washington, yet he would always think the\nother meaning. And while he would retain the\nmeaning in some degree, he would soon forget\nthe original word, retaining only his awe of it.\nWhich is just what happened with the divine\nname. The Hebrews knew it was not Lord, yet\nthey always said Lord when they came to the\nfour letters that stood for the sacred word.\nThe word Jehovah, made up of the consonants\nof an unknown word and the vowels of a familiar\nword, is in itself meaningless. Scholarship\nis not yet sure what was the original meaning\nof the sacred name with its four consonants.\n\nThese translators had to face that problem.\nIt was a peculiar problem at that time. How\nshould they put into English the august name of\nGod when they did not know what the true\nvowels were? There was dispute among scholars.\nThey did not take sides as our later American\nRevision has done, some of us think quite unwisely.\nThey chose to retain the Hebrew usage,\nand print the divine name in unmistakable type\nso that its personal meaning could not be mistaken.\n\nOn the other hand, disputes since their day\nhave shown how they translated when transliteration\nwould have been wiser. Illustrate with\none instance. There is a Hebrew word, Sheol,\nwith a Greek word, Hades, which corresponds to\nit. Usage had adopted the Anglo-Saxon word\nHell as the equivalent of both of these words,\nso they translated Sheol and Hades with the\nEnglish word Hell. The only question that had\nbeen raised was by that Hugh Broughton of\nwhom we were speaking a moment ago, and it\nhad not seemed a serious one. Certainly the\nthree terms have much in common, and there\nare places where both the original words seemed\nto be virtually equivalent to the Anglo-Saxon\nHell, but they are not the same. The Revised\nVersion of our own time returned to the original,\nand instead of translating those words whose\nmeaning can be debated, it transliterated them\nand brought the Hebrew word Sheol and the\nGreek word Hades over into English. That,\nof course, gave a chance for paragraphers to say\nthat the Revised Version had read Hell out of\nthe Scriptures. All that happened was that\ncognizance was taken of a dispute which would\nhave guided the King James translators if it\nhad existed in their time, and we should not\nhave become familiar with the Anglo-Saxon\nword Hell as the translation of those disputed\nHebrew and Greek words.\n\nWe need not seek more instances. These are\nenough to illustrate the saying that here is an\nhonest version, the fruit of the best scholarship\nof the times, without prejudice.\n\nII. A second trait of the work as a version is\nits remarkable accuracy. It is surprising that\nwith all the new light coming from early documents,\nwith all the new discoveries that have\nbeen made. the latest revision needed to make\nso few changes, and those for the most part\nminor ones. There are, to be sure, some important\nchanges, as we shall see later; the wonder\nis that there are not many more. The King\nJames version had, to be sure, the benefit of\nall the earlier controversy. The whole ground\nhad been really fought over in the centuries\nbefore, and most of the questions had been discussed.\nThey frankly made use of all the earlier\ncontroversy. They say in their preface: \"Truly,\ngood Christian reader, we never thought from\nthe beginning that we should need to make a\nnew translation, nor yet to make a bad one a\ngood one, but to make a good one better. That\nhath been our endeavor, that our work.\" Also,\nthey had the advantage of deliberation. This\nwas the first version that had been made which\nhad such sanction that they could take their\ntime, and in which they had no reason to fear\nthat the results would endanger them. They\nsay in their preface that they had not run over\ntheir work with that \"posting haste\" that had\nmarked the Septuagint, if the saying was true\nthat they did it all in seventy-two days; nor\nwere they \"barred and hindered from going over\nit again,\" as Jerome himself said he had been,\nsince as soon as he wrote any part \"it was\nsnatched away from him and published\"; nor\nwere they \"working in a new field,\" as Origen\nwas when he wrote his first commentary on the\nBible. Both these things--their taking advantage\nof earlier controversies which had cleared\nmany differences, and their deliberation--were\nsupplemented by a third which gave great accuracy\nto the version. That was their adoption\nof the principle of all early translators, perhaps\nworded best by Purvey, who completed the\nWiclif version: \"The best translation is to\ntranslate after the sentence, and not only after\nthe words, so that the sentence be as open in\nEnglish as in Latin.\" That makes for accuracy.\nIt is quite impossible to put any language over,\nword for word, into another without great\ninaccuracy. But when the translators sought to\ntake the sentence of the Hebrew or the Greek\nand put it into an exactly equivalent English\nsentence, they had larger play for their language\nand they had a fairer field for accuracy. These\nwere the three great facts which made the\nremarkable accuracy possible, and it may be\ninteresting to note three corresponding results\nwhich show the effort they made to be absolutely\naccurate and fair in their translation.\n\nThe first of those results is visible in the\nitalicized words which they used. In the King\nJames version words in italics are a frank acknowledgment that\nthe Greek or the Hebrew\ncannot be put into English literally. These are\nEnglish words which are put in because it seems\nimpossible to express the meaning originally\nintended without certain additions which the\nreader must take into account in his\nunderstanding of the version. We need not think\nfar to see how necessary that was. The arrangement\nof words in Greek, for example, is different\nfrom that in English. The Greek of the\nfirst verse of the Gospel of John reads that \"God\nwas the Word,\" but the English makes its sentences\nin a reversed form, and it really means,\n\"the Word was God.\" So the Greek uses particles\nwhere the English does not. Often it\nwould say \"the God\" where we would say\nsimply \"God.\" Those particles are ordinarily\nwisely omitted. So the Greek does not use verbs\nat some points where it is quite essential that\nthe English shall use them. But it is only fair\nthat in reading a version of the Scripture we\nshould know what words have been put in by\ntranslators in their effort to make the version\nclear to us; and the italicized words of the King\nJames version are a frank effort to be accurate\nand yet fair.\n\nThe second result which shows their effort at\naccuracy is in the marginal readings. Most of\nthese are optional readings, and are preceded\nby the word \"or,\" which indicates that one may\nread what is in the text, or substitute for it what\nis in the margin with equal fairness to the\noriginal. But sometimes, instead of that familiar\n\"or,\" occur letters which indicate that\nthe Hebrew or the Greek literally means something\nelse than what is given in the English\ntext, and what it literally means is given in the\nmargin. The translators thereby say to the\nreader that if he can take that literal meaning\nand put it into the text so that it is intelligible\nto him, here is his chance. As for them, they\nthink that the whole context or meaning of the\nsentence rather involves the use of the phrase\nwhich they put into the text. But the marginal\nreferences are of great interest to most of us\nas showing how these men were frank to say\nthat there were some things they could not\nsettle. They were rather blamed for it, chiefly\nby those who had committed themselves to the\nDouai version, which has no marginal readings,\non the ground that the translation ought to be\nas authoritative as the original. The King\nJames translators repudiate that theory and\nfrankly say that the reason they put these\nwords in the margin was because they were not\nsure what was the best reading. In the margin\nof the epistle to the Romans there are eighty-\nfour such marginal readings, and the proportion\nwill hold throughout most of the version. They\nwere only trying to be accurate and to give every\none a chance to make up his own mind where\nthere was fair reason to question their results.\n\nThe third thing which shows their effort at\naccuracy is their explicit avoidance of\nuniformity in translating the same word. They\ntried to put the meaning into English terms.\nSo, as they say, the one word might become\neither \"journeying\" or \"traveling\"; one word\nmight be \"thinking\" or \"supposing,\" \"joy\" or\n\"gladness,\" \"eternal\" or \"everlasting.\" One\nof the reasons they give for this is quaint enough\nto quote. They said they did not think it right\nto honor some words by giving them a place\nforever in the Bible, while they virtually said\nto other equally good words: Get ye hence and\nbe banished forever. They quote a \"certaine\ngreat philosopher\" who said that those logs\nwere happy which became images and were worshiped,\nwhile, other logs as good as they were\nlaid behind the fire to be burned. So they\nsought to use as many English words, familiar\nin speech and commonly understood, as they\nmight, lest they should impoverish the language,\nand so lose out of use good words. There is no\ndoubt that in this effort both to save the language,\nand to represent accurately the meaning\nof the original, they sometimes overdid that\navoidance of uniformity. There were times\nwhen it would have been well if the words had\nbeen more consistently translated. For example,\nin the epistle of James ii: 2, 3, you have goodly\n\"apparel,\" vile \"raiment,\" and gay \"clothing,\"\nall translating one Greek word. Our revised\nversions have sought to correct such inconsistencies.\nBut it was all done in the interest\nof an accuracy that should yet not be a slavish\nuniformity.\n\nThis will be enough to illustrate what was\nmeant in speaking of the effort of the translators\nto achieve accuracy in their version.\n\nIII. The third marked trait of the work as\na version of the Scripture is its striking blending\nof dignity and popularity in its language. At\nany period of a living language, there are three\nlevels of speech. There is an upper level used\nby the clearest thinkers and most careful writers,\nalways correct according to the laws of the language,\ngenerally somewhat remote from common\nlife--the habitual speech of the more intellectual.\nThere is also the lower level used by the\nleast intellectual, frequently incorrect according\nto the laws of the language, rough, containing\nwhat we now call \"slang,\" the talk of a knot of\nmen on the street corner waiting for a new bulletin\nof a ball game, cheap in words, impoverished\nin synonyms, using one word to express any\nnumber of ideas, as slang always does. Those\ntwo levels are really farther apart than we are\napt to realize. A book or an article on the upper\nlevel will be uninteresting and unintelligible to\nthe people on the lower level. And a book in\nthe language of the lower level is offensive and\ndisgusting to those of the upper level. That is\nnot because the ideas are so remote, but because\nthe characteristic expressions are almost unfamiliar\nto the people of the different levels.\nThe more thoughtful people read the abler\njournals of the day; they read the editorials or\nthe more extended articles; they read also the\ngreat literature. If they take up the sporting\npage of a newspaper to read the account of a\nball game written in the style of the lower level\nof thought, where words are misused in disregard\nof the laws of the language, and where one\nword is made to do duty for a great many ideas,\nthey do it solely for amusement. They could\nnever think of finding their mental stimulus in\nthat sort of thing. On the other hand, there are\npeople who find in that kind of reading their\nreal interest. If they should take up a\nthoughtful editorial or a book of essays, they would\nnot know what the words mean in the connection\nin which they are used. They speak a good deal\nabout the vividness of this lower-level language,\nabout its popularity; they speak with a sneer\nabout the stiffness and dignity of that upper\nlevel.\n\nThese are, however, only the two extremes,\nfor there is always a middle level where move\nwords common to both, where are avoided the\nwords peculiar to each. It is the language that\nmost people speak. It is the language of the\nstreet, and also of the study, of the parlor, and\nof the shop. But it has little that is peculiar\nto either of those other levels, or to any one\nplace where a man may live his life and do his\ntalking. If we illustrate from other literature,\nwe can say that Macaulay's essays move on the\nupper level, and that much of the so-called popular\nliterature of our day moves on the lower\nlevel, while Dickens moves on the middle level,\nwhich means that men whose habitual language\nis that of the upper and the lower levels can both\nenter into the spirit of his writing.\n\nNow, originally the Bible moved on that middle\nlevel. It was a colloquial book. The languages\nin which it first appeared were not in the\nclassic forms. They are the languages of the\nstreets where they were written. The Hebrew\nis almost our only example of the tongue at its\nperiod, but it is not a literary language in any\ncase. The Greek of the New Testament is not\nthe Eolic, the language of the lyrics of Sappho;\nnor the Doric, the language of war-songs or the\nchorus in the drama; nor the Ionic, the dialect of\nepic poetry; but the Attic Greek, and a corrupted\nform of that, a form corrupted by use in\nthe streets and in the markets.\n\nThat was the original language of the Bible,\na colloquial language. But that fact does not\ndetermine the translation. Whether it shall be\nput into the English language on the upper\nlevel or on the lower level is not so readily\ndetermined. Efforts have been made to put it\ninto the language of each level. We have a so-\ncalled elegant translation, and we have the\nBible cast into the speech of the common day.\nThe King James version is on the middle level.\nIt is a striking blending of the dignity of the\nupper level and the popularity of the lower level.\n\nThere is tremendous significance in the fact\nthat these men were making a version which\nshould be for all people, making it out in the\nopen day with the king and all the people behind\nthem. It was the first independent version\nwhich had been made under such favorable\ncircumstances. Most of the versions had been\nmade in private by men who were imperiling\nthemselves in their work. They did not expect\nthe Book to pass into common use; they knew\nthat the men who received the result of their\nwork would have to be those who were earnest\nenough to go into secret places for their reading.\nBut here was a changed condition. These men\nwere making a version by royal authority, a\nversion awaited with eager interest by the people\nin general. The result is that it is a people's\nBook. Its phrases are those of common life,\nthose that had lived up to that time. It is not\nin the peculiar language of the times. If you\nwant to know the language of their own times,\nread these translators' servile, unhistorical dedication to the\nking, or their far nobler preface to\nthe reader. That is the language peculiar to\ntheir own day. But the language of the Bible\nitself is that form which had lived its way into\ncommon use. One hundred years after Wiclif\nit yet speaks his language in large part, for\nthat part had really lived. In the Bibliotheca\nPastorum Ruskin makes comment on Sir Philip\nSidney and his metrical version of the Psalms in\nthese words: \"Sir Philip Sidney will use any\ncow-boy or tinker words if they only help him\nto say precisely in English what David said in\nHebrew; impressed the while himself so vividly\nof the majesty of the thought itself that no\ntinker's language can lower it or vulgarize it in\nhis mind.\" The King James translators were\nmost eager to say what the original said, and\nto say it so that the common man could well\nunderstand it, and yet so that it should not be\nvulgarized or cheapened by adoption of cheap\nwords.\n\nIn his History Hallam passes some rather\nsharp strictures on the English of the King James\nversion, remarking that it abounds in uncouth\nphrases and in words whose meaning is not\nfamiliar, and that whatever is to be said it is,\nat any rate, not in the English of the time of\nKing James. And that latter saying is true,\nthough it must be remembered that Hallam\nwrote in the period when no English was recognized\nby literary people except that of the upper\nlevel, when they did not know that these so-\ncalled uncouth phrases were to return to common\nuse. To-day it would be absurd to say\nthat the Bible is full of uncouth phrases.\nProfessor Cook has said that \"the movement of\nEnglish diction, which in the seventeenth and\neighteenth centuries was on the whole away\nfrom the Bible, now returns with ever-accelerating\nspeed toward it.\" If the phrases went out,\nthey came back. But it is true that the English\nof the King James version is not that of the time\nof James I., only because it is the English of the\nhistory of the language. It has not immortalized\nfor us the tongue of its times, because it has\ntaken that tongue from its beginning and determined\nits form. It carefully avoided words\nthat were counted coarse. On the other hand,\nit did not commit itself to words which were\nsimply refinements of verbal construction. That,\nI say, is a general fact.\n\nIt can be illustrated in one or two ways. For\ninstance, a word which has become common to\nus is the neuter possessive pronoun \"its.\" That\nword does not occur in the edition of 1611, and\nappears first in an edition in the printing of\n1660. In place of it, in the edition of 1611, the\nmore dignified personal pronoun \"his\" or \"her\"\nis always used, and it continues for the most\npart in our familiar version. In this verse you\nnotice it: \"Look not upon the wine when it is\nred; when it giveth HIS color aright in the cup.\"\nIn the Levitical law especially, where reference\nis made to sacrifices, to the articles of the furniture\nof the tabernacle, or other neuter objects,\nthe masculine pronoun is almost invariably\nused. In the original it was invariably used.\nYou see the other form in the familiar verse\nabout charity, that it \"doth not behave itself\nunseemly, seeketh not HER own, is not easily\nprovoked.\" Now, there is evidence that the\nneuter possessive pronoun was just coming into\nuse. Shakespeare uses it ten times in his works,\nbut ten times only, and a number of writers do\nnot use it at all. It was, to be sure, a word\nbeginning to be heard on the street, and for the\nmost part on the lower level. The King James\ntranslators never used it. The dignified word\nwas that masculine or feminine pronoun, and\nthey always use it in place of the neuter.\n\nOn the other hand, there was a word which was\ncoming into use on the upper level which has become\ncommon property to us now. It is the word\n\"anxiety.\" It is not certain just when it came\ninto use. I believe Shakespeare does not use it;\nand it occurs very little in the literature of the\ntimes. Probably it was known to these translators.\nWhen they came, however, to translating\na word which now we translate by \"anxious\"\nor \"anxiety\" they did not use that word.\nIt was not familiar. They used instead the word\nwhich represented the idea for the people of the\nmiddle level; they used the word \"thought.\"\nSo they said, \"Take no thought for the morrow,\"\nwhere we would say, \"Be not anxious for\nthe morrow.\" There is a contemporary\ndocument which illustrates how that word \"thought\"\nwas commonly used, in which we read: \"In five\nhundred years only two queens died in child\nbirth, Queen Catherine Parr having died rather\nof thought.\" That was written about the time\nof the King James version, and \"thought\"\nevidently means worry or anxiety. Neither of\nthose words, the neuter possessive pronoun or\nthe new word \"anxious,\" got into the King James\nversion. One was coming into proper use from\nthe lower level, and one was coming into proper\nuse from the upper level. They had not yet\nso arrived that they could be used.\n\nOne result of this care to preserve dignity and\nalso popularity appears in the fact that so few\nwords of the English version have become obsolete.\nWords disappear upward out of the upper\nlevel or downward out of the lower level, but it\ntakes a long time for a word to get out of a\nlanguage once it is in confirmed use on the middle\nlevel. Of course, the version itself has tended\nto keep words familiar; but no book, no matter\nhow widely used, can prevent some words from\npassing off the stage or from changing their\nmeaning so noticeably that they are virtually\ndifferent words. Yet even in those words which\ndo not become common there is very little tendency\nto obsolescence in the King James version.\nMore words of Shakespeare have become obsolete\nor have changed their meanings than in the\nKing James version.\n\nThere is one interesting illustration to which\nattention has been called by Dr. Davidson,\nwhich is interesting. In the ninth chapter of\nthe Judges, where we are told about Abimelech,\nthe fifty-third verse reads that a woman cast a\nstone down from the wall and \"all to break his\nskull.\" That is confessedly rather obscure.\nOur ordinary understanding of it would be that\nshe did that for no other purpose than just to\nbreak the skull of Abimelech. As a matter of\nfact, that expression is a printer's bungling way\nof giving a word which has become obsolete in\nthe original form. When the King James translators\nwrote that, they used the word \"alto,\"\nwhich is evidently the beginning of \"altogether,\"\nor wholly or utterly, and what they\nmeant was that she threw the stone and utterly\nbroke his skull. But that abbreviated form of\nthe word passed out of use, and when later\nprinters--not much later--came to it they did\nnot know what it meant and divided it as it\nstands in our present text. It is one of the few\nwords that have become obsolete. But so few\nare there of them, that it was made a rule of\nthe Revised Version not to admit to the new\nversion, where it could be avoided, any word\nnot already found in the Authorized Version,\nand also not to omit from the Revised Version,\nexcept under pressure of necessity, any word\nwhich occurred there. It is largely this blending\nof dignity and popularity that has made the\nKing James version so influential in English\nliterature. It talks the language not of the\nupper level nor of the lower level, but of that\nmiddle level where all meet sometimes and\nwhere most men are all the while.\n\nThese are great traits to mark a book, any\nbook, but especially a translation--that it is\nhonest, that it is accurate, and that its language\nblends dignity and popularity so that it lowers\nthe speech of none. They are all conspicuous\ntraits of our familiar version of the Bible, and\nin them in part lies its power with the generations\nof these three centuries that have followed its\nappearance.\n\n\n\nLECTURE III\n\nTHE KING JAMES VERSION AS ENGLISH LITERATURE\n\nLET it be plainly said at the very first that\nwhen we speak of the literary phases of\nthe Bible we are not discussing the book in its\nhistoric meaning. It was never meant as literature\nin our usual sense of the word. Nothing\ncould have been further from the thought of\nthe men who wrote it, whoever they were and\nwhenever they wrote, than that they were\nmaking a world literature. They had the\ncharacteristics of men who do make great literature--\nthey had clear vision and a great passion for\ntruth; they loved their fellows mightily, and\nthey were far more concerned to be understood\nthan to speak. These are traits that go to make\ngreat writers. But it was never in their minds\nthat they were making a world literature. The\nBible is a book of religious significance from\nfirst to last. If it utterly broke down by the\ntests of literature, it might be as great a book\nas it needs to be. It is a subordinate fact that\nby the tests of literature it proves also to be\ngreat. Prof. Gardiner, of Harvard, whose book\ncalled The Bible as English Literature makes\nother such works almost unnecessary, frankly\nbases his judgment on the result of critical study\nof the Bible, but he serves fair warning that he\ntakes inspiration for granted, and thinks it\n\"obvious that no literary criticism of the Bible\ncould hope for success which was not reverent\nin tone. A critic who should approach it superciliously\nor arrogantly would miss all that has\ngiven the Book its power as literature and its\nlasting and universal appeal.\"[1] Farther over\nin his book he goes on to say that when we\nsearch for the causes of the feelings which made\nthe marvelous style of the Bible a necessity,\nexplanation can make but a short step, for \"we\nare in a realm where the only ultimate explanation\nis the fact of inspiration; and that is only\nanother way of saying that we are in the presence\nof forces above and beyond our present\nhuman understanding.\"[2]\n\n\n[1] Preface, p. vii.\n\n[2] Page 124.\n\n\nHowever, we may fairly make distinction between\nthe Bible as an original work and the\nBible as a work of English literature. For the\nBible as an original work is not so much a book\nas a series of books, the work of many men working\nseparately over a period of at least fifteen\nhundred years, and these men unconscious for\nthe most part of any purpose of agreement.\nThis series of books is made one book in the\noriginal by the unity of its general purpose and\nthe agreement of its parts. The Bible in English\nis, however, not a series of books, but properly\none book, the work of six small groups of\nmen working in conscious unity through a short\nperiod of years. And while there is variation in\nstyle, while there are inequalities in result, yet\nit stands as a single piece of English literature.\nIt has a literary style of its own, even though\nit feels powerfully the Hebrew influence throughout.\nAnd while it would not be a condemnation\nof the Bible if it were not great literature in\nEnglish or elsewhere, it is still part of its power\nthat by literary standards alone it measures\nlarge.\n\nIt is so that men of letters have rated it since\nit came into existence. \"It holds a place of\npre-eminence in the republic of letters.\" When\nJohn Richard Green comes to deal with it, he\nsays: \"As a mere literary monument the English\nversion of the Bible remains the noblest language\nof the English tongue, while its perpetual use\nmade of it from the instant of its appearance\nthe standard of our language.\"[1] And in Macaulay's\nessay on Dryden, while he is deploring\nthe deterioration of English style, he yet says\nthat in the period when the English language\nwas imperiled there appeared \"the English\nBible, a book which if everything else in our\nlanguage should perish would alone suffice to\nshow the extent of its beauty and power.\"\n\n\n[1] Short History of the English People, Book vii, chap. i.\n\n\nThe mere fact that the English Bible contains\na religion does not affect its standing as literature.\nHomer and Virgil are Greek and Roman\nclassics, yet each of them contains a definite\nreligion. You can build up the religious faith\nof the Greeks and Romans out of their great\nliterature. So you can build up the religious\nfaith of the Hebrews and the early Christians\nfrom the Old and New Testaments. \"For fifteen\ncenturies a Hebrew Book, the Bible, contained\nalmost the whole literature and learning of a\nwhole nation,\" while it was also the book of\ntheir religion.\n\nAs literature, however, apart from its religious\nconnection, it is subject to any of the criteria\nof literature. In so far it is the fair subject of\ncriticism. It must stand or fall when it enters\nthe realm of literature by the standards of other\nbooks. Indeed, many questions regarding its\ndates, the authorship of unassigned portions, the\nmeaning of its disputed passages may be\nanswered most fairly by literary tests. That\nis always liable to abuse; but literary tests\nare always liable to that. There have been\nenough blunders made in the knowledge of us\nall to require us to go carefully in such a matter.\nThe Waverley Novels were published anonymously,\nand, while some suspected Scott at once,\nothers were entirely clear that on the ground of\nliterary style his authorship was entirely impossible!\nLet a magazine publish an anonymous\nserial, and readers everywhere are quick to\nrecognize the writer from his literary style and\nhis general ideas, but each group \"recognizes\"\na different writer. Arguments based chiefly on\nstyle overlook the large personal equation in all\nwriting. The same writer has more than one\nnatural style. It is not until he becomes in a\ncertain sense affected--grows proud of his\npeculiarities--that he settles down to one form.\nAnd it is quite impossible to assign a book to\nany narrow historical period on the ground of\nits style alone. But though large emphasis\ncould be laid upon the literary merits of the\nBible to the obscuring of its other more important\nmerits, it is yet true that from the literary\npoint of view the Bible stands as an English\nclassic, indeed, as the outstanding English\nclassic. To acknowledge ignorance of it is to\nconfess one's self ignorant of our greatest literary\npossession.\n\nA moment ago it was said that as a piece of\nliterature the Bible must accept the standards\nof other literary books. For all present purposes\nwe can define great literature as worthy\nwritten expression of great ideas. If we may\ntake the word \"written\" for granted, the rough\ndefinition becomes this: that great literature is\nthe worthy expression of great ideas. Works\nwhich claim to be great in literature may fail\nof greatness in either half of that test. Petty,\nlocal, unimportant ideas may be well clothed,\nor great ideas may be unworthily expressed; in\neither case the literature is poor. It is not until\ngreat ideas are wedded to worthy expression\nthat literature becomes great. Failure at one\nend or the other will explain the failure of most\nof the work that seeks to be accounted literature.\nThe literary value of a book cannot be determined\nby its style alone. It is possible to\nsay nothing gracefully, even with dignity, symmetry,\nrhythm; but it is not possible to make\nliterature without ideas. Abiding literature\ndemands large ideas worthily expressed. Now,\nof course, \"large\" and \"small\" are not words\nthat are usually applied to the measurement of\nideas; but we can make them seem appropriate\nhere. Let us mean that an idea is large or\nsmall according to its breadth of interest to the\nrace and its length of interest to the race. If\nthere is an idea which is of value to all the\nmembers of the human race to-day, and which\ndoes not lose its value as the generations come\nand go, that is the largest possible idea within\nhuman thought. Transient literature may do\nwithout those large ideas. A gifted young reporter\nmay describe a dog fight or a presidential\nnominating convention in such terms as lift his\narticle out of carelessness and hasty newspaper\nwriting into the realm of real literature; but it\ncannot become abiding literature. It has not a\nlarge enough idea to keep it alive. And to any\none who loves worthy expression there is a sense\nof degradation in the use of fine literary powers\nfor the description of purely transient local\nevents. It is always regrettable when men with\nliterary skill are available for the description of\na ball game, or are exploited as worthy writers\nabout a prize-fight. If a man has power to\nexpress ideas well, he ought to use that power\nfor the expression of great ideas.\n\nMany of us have seen a dozen books hailed\nas classic novels sure to live, each of them the\ngreat American novel at last, the author to be\ncompared with Dickens and Thackeray and\nGeorge Eliot. And the books have gone the\nway of all the earth. With some, the trouble\nis a weak, involved, or otherwise poor style.\nWith most the trouble is lack of real ideas.\nCharles Dickens, to be sure, does deal with\nboarding-schools in England, with conditions\nwhich in their local form do not recur and are\nnot familiar to us; but he deals with them as\ninvolving a great principle of the relation of\nsociety to youth, and so David Copperfield or\nOliver Twist becomes a book for the life of all\nof us, and for all time. And even here it is\nevident that not all of Dickens's work will live,\nbut only that which is least narrowly local and\nis most broadly human.\n\nThere is a further striking illustration in a\nfamiliar event in American history. Most young\npeople are required to study Webster's speech\nin reply to Robert Hayne in the United States\nSenate, using it as a model in literary construction.\nThe speech of Hayne is lost to our interest,\nyet the fact is that Hayne himself was\ngifted in expression, that by the standards of\nsimple style his speech compares favorably with\nthat of Webster. Yet reading Webster's reply\ntakes one not to the local condition which was\nconcerning Hayne, but to a great principle of\nliberty and union. He shows that principle\nemerging in history; the local touches are lost\nto thought as he goes on, and a truth is expressed\nin terms of history which will be valid until\nhistory is ended. It is not simply Webster's\nstyle; it is that with his great idea which made\nhis reply memorable.\n\nThat neither ideas nor style alone can keep\nliterature alive is shown by literary history after\nShakespeare. Just after him you have the\n\"mellifluous poets\" of the next period on the\none hand, with style enough, but with such\nattenuated ideas that their work has died. Who\nknows Drayton or Brown or Wither? On the\nother hand, there came the metaphysicians with\nideas in abundance, but not style, and their\nworks have died.\n\nHere, then, is the English Bible becoming the\nchief English classic by the wedding of great\nideas to worthy expression. From one point of\nview this early seventeenth century was an\nopportune time for making such a classic.\nTheology was a popular subject. Men's minds\nhad found a new freedom, and they used it to\ndiscuss great themes. They even began to sing.\nThe reign of Elizabeth had prepared the way.\nThe English scholar Hoare traces this new liberty\nto the sailing away of the Armada and the\nreleasing of England from the perpetual dread of\nSpanish invasion. He says that the birds felt\nthe free air, and sang as they had never sung\nbefore and as they have not often sung since.\nBut this was not restricted to the birds of\nEnglish song. It was a period of remarkable\nawakening in the whole intellectual life of\nEngland, and that intellectual life was directing\nitself among the common people to religion.\nAnother English writer, Eaton, says a profounder\nword in tracing the awakening to the reformation,\nsaying that it \"could not fail, from the\nvery nature of it, to tinge the literature of the\nElizabethan era. It gave a logical and disputatious\ncharacter to the age and produced men\nmighty in the Scriptures.\"[1] A French visitor\nwent home disgusted because people talked of\nnothing but theology in England. Grotius\nthought all the people of England were\ntheologians. James's chief pride was his theological\nlearning. It did not prove difficult to find\nhalf a hundred men in small England instantly\nrecognized as experts in Scripture study. The\npeople were ready to welcome a book of great\nideas. Let us pass by those ideas a moment,\nremembering that they are not enough in them-\nselves to give the work literary value, and turn\nour minds to the style of the English Bible.\n\n\n[1] T. R. Eaton, Shakespeare and the Bible, p. 2.\n\n\nFrom this point of view the times were not\nperfectly opportune for a piece of pure English\nliterature, though it was the time which\nproduced Shakespeare. A definite movement was\non to refine the language by foreign decorations.\nNot even Shakespeare avoids it always. No\nwriter of the time avoids it wholly. The\ndedication of the King James version shows that\nthese scholars themselves did not avoid it. In\nthat dedication, and their preface, they give us\nfine writing, striving for effect, ornamental\nphrases characteristic of the time. Men were\nfeeling that this English language was rough and\nbarbarous, insufficient, needing enlargement by\nthe addition of other words constructed in a\nforeign form. The essays of Lord Bacon are\nvirtually contemporaneous with this translation.\nMacaulay says a rather hard word in calling\nhis style \"odious and deformed,\"[1] but when\none turns from Bacon to the English Bible there\nis a sharp contrast in mere style, and it favors\nthe Bible. The contrast is as great as that which\nCarlyle first felt between the ideas of Shakespeare\nand those of the Bible when he said that\n\"this world is a catholic kind of place; the\nPuritan gospel and Shakespeare's plays: such\na pair of facts I have rarely seen save out of one\nchimerical generation.\"[2] And that gives point\nto the word already quoted from Hallam that\nthe English of the King James version is not\nthe English of James I.\n\n\n[1] Essay on John Dryden.\n\n[2] Historical Sketches, Hampton Court Conference.\n\n\nFour things helped to determine the simplicity\nand pure English--unornamented English--of\nthe King James version, made it, that\nis, the English classic. Two of these things have\nbeen dealt with already in other connections.\nFirst, that it was a Book for the people, for the\npeople of the middle level of language; a work\nby scholars, but not chiefly for scholars, intended\nrather for the common use of common people.\nSecondly, that the translators were constantly\nbeholden to the work of the past in this same\nline. Where Wiclif's words were still in use\nthey used them. That tended to fix the language\nby the use which had already become\nnatural.\n\nThe other two determining influences must be\nspoken of now. The third lies in the fact that\nthe English language was still plastic. It had\nnot fallen into such hard forms that its words\nwere narrow or restricted. The truth is that\nfrom the point of view of pure literature the\nBible is better in English than it is in Greek or\nHebrew. That is, the English of the King\nJames version as English is better than the Greek\nof the New Testament as Greek. As for the\nHebrew there was little development for many\ngenerations; Renan thinks there was none at all.\nThe difference comes from the point of time in\nthe growth of the tongue when the Book was\nwritten. The Greek was written when the\nlanguage was old, when it had differentiated its\nterms, when it had become corrupted by outside\ninfluence. The English version was written\nwhen the language was new and fresh, when a\nword could be taken and set in its meaning\nwithout being warped from some earlier usage.\nThe study of the Greek Testament is always\nbeing complicated by the effort to bring into its\nwords the classical meaning, when so far as the\nwriters of the New Testament were concerned\nthey had no interest in the classical meaning,\nbut only in the current meaning of those words.\nIn the English language there was as yet no\nclassical meaning; it was exactly that meaning\nthat these writers were giving the words when\nthey brought them into their version.[1] There is\nlarge advantage in the fact that the age was not\na scientific one, that the language had not\nbecome complicated. So it becomes interesting to\nobserve with Professor March that ninety-three\nper cent. of these words, counting also repetitions,\nare native English words. The language was new,\nwas still plastic. It had not been stiffened by\nuse. It received its set more definitely from\nthe English Bible than from any other one\nwork--more than from Shakespeare, whose influence\nwas second.\n\n\n[1] Trevelyan, England under the Stuarts, p. 54,\n\n\nThe fourth fact which helped to determine its\nEnglish style is the loyalty of the translators to\nthe original, notably the Hebrew. It is a common\nremark of the students of the original\ntongues that the Hebrew and Greek languages\nare peculiarly translatable. That is notable in\nthe Hebrew. It is not a language of abstract\nterms. The tendency of language is always to\nbecome vague, since we are lazy in the use of it.\nWe use one word in various ways, and a pet one\nfor many ideas. Language is always more concrete\nin its earlier forms. In this period of the\nconcrete English language, then, the translation\nwas made from the Hebrew, which was also a\nconcrete, figurative language itself. The structure\nof the Hebrew sentence is very simple.\nThere are no extended paragraphs in it. It is\nsomewhat different in the New Testament,\nwhere these paragraphs are found, certainly in\nthe Pauline Greek; but even there the extended\nsentences are broken into clauses which can be\ntaken as wholes. The English version shows\nconstantly the marks of the Hebrew influence in\nthe simplicity of its phrasing. Renan says that\nthe Hebrew \"knows how to make propositions,\nbut not how to link them into paragraphs.\" So\nthe earlier Bible stories are like a child's way of\ntalking. They let one sentence follow another,\nand their unity is found in the overflowing use\nof the word \"and\"--one fact hung to another\nto make a story, but not to make an argument.\nIn the first ten chapters of I Samuel, for example,\nthere are two hundred and thirty-eight verses;\none hundred and sixty of them begin with AND.\nThere are only twenty-six of the whole which\nhave no connective word that thrusts them back\nupon the preceding verse.\n\nIn the Hebrew language, also, most of the\nemotions are connected either in the word used\nor in the words accompanying it with the physical\ncondition that expresses it. Over and over\nwe are told that \"he opened his mouth and\nsaid,\" or, \"he was angry and his countenance\nfell.\" Anger is expressed in words which tell\nof hard breathing, of heat, of boiling tumult, of\ntrembling. We would not trouble to say that.\nThe opening of the mouth to speak or the falling\nof the countenance in anger, we would take\nfor granted. The Hebrew does not. Even in\nthe description of God you remember the terms\nare those of common life; He is a shepherd when\nshepherds are writing; He is a husbandman\nthreshing out the nations, treading the wine-\npress until He is reddened with the wine--and\nso on. That is the natural method of the Hebrew\nlanguage--concrete, vivid, never abstract,\nsimple in its phrasing. The King James translators\nare exceedingly loyal to that original.\n\nProfessor Cook, of Yale, suggests that four\ntraits make the Bible easy to translate into any\nlanguage: universality of interest, so that there\nare apt to be words in any language to express\nwhat it means, since it expresses nothing but\nwhat men all talk about; then, the concreteness\nand picturesqueness of its language, avoiding\nabstract phrases which might be difficult to\nreproduce in another tongue; then, the simplicity\nof its structure, so that it can be taken\nin small bits, and long complicated sentences\nare not needed; and, finally, its rhythm, so that\npart easily follows part and the words catch a\nkind of swing which is not difficult to imitate.\nThat is a very true analysis. The Bible is the\nmost easily translated book there is, and has\nbecome the classic for more languages than any\nother one book. It is brought about in part in\nour English version by the faithfulness of the\ntranslators to the original.\n\n\nPassing from these general considerations,\nlet us look directly at the English Bible itself\nand its literary qualities. The first thing that\nattracts attention is its use of words, and since\nwords lie at the root of all literature it is worth\nwhile to stop for them for a moment. Two\nthings are to be said about the words: first,\nthat they are few; and, secondly, that they are\nshort. The vocabulary of the English Bible is\nnot an extensive one. Shakespeare uses from\nfifteen to twenty thousand words. In Milton's\nverse he uses about thirteen thousand. In the\nOld Testament, in the Hebrew and Chaldaic\ntongue, there are fifty-six hundred and forty-\ntwo words. In the New Testament, in the Greek,\nthere are forty-eight hundred. But in the whole\nof the King James version there are only about\nsix thousand different words. The vocabulary\nis plainly a narrow one for a book of its size.\nWhile, as was said before, the translators avoided\nusing the same word always for translation of\nthe same original, they yet managed to recur\nto the same words often enough so that this\ncomparatively small list of six thousand words,\nabout one-third Shakespeare's vocabulary, sufficed\nfor the stating of the truth.\n\nThen, Secondly, the words are short, and in\ngeneral short words are the strong ones. The\naverage word in the whole Bible, including the\nlong proper names, is barely over four letters,\nand if all the proper names are excluded the average\nword is just a little under four letters. Of\ncourse, another way of saying that is that the\nwords are generally Anglo-Saxon, and, while in\nthe original spelling they were much longer, yet\nin their sound they were as brief as they are in\nour present spelling. There is no merit in Anglo-\nSaxon words except in the fact that they are\nconcrete, definite, non-abstract words. They\nare words that mean the same to everybody;\nthey are part of common experience. We shall\nsee the power of such words by comparing a\nsimple statement in Saxon words from the\nEnglish Bible with a comment of a learned\ntheologian of our own time on them. The\nphrase is a simple one in the Communion service:\n\"This is my body which is given for you.\"\nThat is all Saxon. When our theologian comes\nto comment on it he says we are to understand\nthat \"the validity of the service does not lie\nin the quality of external signs and sacramental\nrepresentation, but in its essential property and\nsubstantial reality.\" Now there are nine words\nabstract in their meaning, Latin in their form.\nIt is in that kind of words that the Bible could\nhave been translated, and in our own day might\neven be translated. Addison speaks of that:\n\"If any one would judge of the beauties of poetry\nthat are to be met with in the divine writings,\nand examine how kindly the Hebrew manners of\nspeech mix and incorporate with the English\nlanguage, after having perused the Book of\nPsalms, let him read a literal translation of\nHorace or Pindar. He will find in these two\nlast such an absurdity and confusion of style\nwith such a comparative poverty of imagination,\nas will make him very sensible of what I have\nbeen here advancing.\"[1]\n\n\n[1] The Spectator, No. 405.\n\n\nThe fact that the words are short can be\nquickly illustrated by taking some familiar\nsections. In the Ten Commandments there are\nthree hundred and nineteen words in all; two\nhundred and fifty-nine of them are words of\none syllable, and only sixty are of two syllables\nand over. There are fifty words of two syllables,\nsix of three syllables, of which four are such\ncomposite words that they really amount to two\nwords of one and two syllables each, with four\nwords of four syllables, and none over that.\nMake a comparison just here. There is a paragraph\nin Professor March's lectures on the English\nlanguage where he is urging that its strongest\nwords are purely English, not derived from\nGreek or Latin. He uses the King James version\nas illustration. If, now, we take three\nhundred and nineteen words at the beginning\nof that paragraph to compare with the three\nhundred and nineteen in the Ten Commandments,\nthe result will be interesting. Where\nthe Ten Commandments have two hundred and\nfifty-nine words of one syllable, Professor March\nhas only one hundred and ninety-four; over\nagainst the fifty two-syllable words in the Ten\nCommandments, Professor March has sixty-five;\nover against their six words of three syllables,\nhe has thirty-five; over against their four words\nof four syllables, he uses eighteen; and while\nthe Ten Commandments have no word longer\nthan four syllables, Professor March needs five\nwords of five syllables and two words of six\nsyllables to express his ideas.[1]\n\n\n[1] This table will show the comparison at a glance:\n\nSyllables            1    2    3    4    5    6\nThe Commandments    259  50   6    4    0    0    319\nProfessor March     194  65   35   18   5    2    319\n\n\nThe same thing appears in the familiar 23d\nPsalm, where there are one hundred and nineteen\nwords in all, of which ninety-five are words of\none syllable, and only three of three syllables,\nwith none longer. In the Sermon on the Mount\neighty two per cent. of the words in our English\nversion are words of one syllable.\n\nThe only point urged now is that this kind of\nthing makes for strength in literature. Short\nwords are strong words. They have a snap and a\ngrip to them that long words have not. Very few\nmen would grow angry over having a statement\ncalled a \"prevarication\" or \"a disingenuous\nentanglement of ideas,\" but there is something\nabout the word \"lie\" that snaps in a man's\nface. \"Unjustifiable hypothecation\" may be\nthe same as stealing, but it would never excite\none to be called \"an unjustifiable hypothecator\"\nas it does to be called a thief. At the very\nfoundation of the strength of the literature of the\nEnglish Bible there lies this tendency to short,\nclear-cut words.\n\nRising now from this basal element in the\nliterature of the version, we come to the place\nwhere its style and its ideas blend in what we\nmay call its earnestness. That is itself a literary\ncharacteristic. There is not a line of trifling\nin the book. No man would ever learn\ntrifling from it. It takes itself with tremendous\nseriousness. Here are earnest men at work;\nto them life is joyous, but it is no joke. That is\nwhy the element of humor in it is such a small\none. It is there, to be sure. Many of its\nsimiles are intended to be humorous. A few of\nits incidents are humorous; but it has little\nof that element in it, as indeed little of our literature has\nthat element markedly in it. We have\na few exceptions. But what George Eliot says\nin Adam Bede is true, that wit is of a temporary\nnature, and does not deal with the deep and\nmore lasting elements in life. The Bible is not\na sad book. There are children at play in it;\nthere are feasts and buoyant gatherings fully\nrecounted. But it never trifles nor jests.\n\nSo it has given us a language of great dignity.\nLet Addison speak again: \"How cold and dead\ndoes a prayer appear that is composed in the\nmost elegant and polite forms of speech, which\nare natural to our tongue, when it is not heightened\nby that solemnity of phrase which may be\ndrawn from the sacred writings. It has been\nsaid by some of the ancients that if the gods\nwere to talk with men, they would certainly\nspeak in Plato's style; but I think we may say,\nwith justice, that when mortals converse with\ntheir Creator they cannot do it in so proper a\nstyle as in that of the Holy Scriptures.\"\n\nAs that earnestness of the literature of the\noriginal precluded any great amount of humor\nin the wide range of its literary forms, so in the\nKing James version it precluded any trifling expressions, any\nplays on words, even the duplication\nof such plays as can be found in the Hebrew\nor the Greek. You seldom find any turn of a\nword in the King James version, though you do\noccasionally find it in the Hebrew. One such\npunning expression occurs in the story of Samson\n(Judges xv:16), where our version reads:\n\"With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps,\nwith the jawbone of an ass have I slain a thousand\nmen.\" In the Hebrew the words translated\n\"ass\" and \"heaps\" are variants of the\nsame word. It comes near the Hebrew to say:\n\"With the jawbone of an ass, masses upon\nmasses,\" and so on. These translators would\nnot risk reproducing such puns for fear of lowering\nthe dignity of their results. There is a\ndeadly seriousness about their work and so\nthey never lose strength as they go on.\n\nThat earnestness grows out of a second fact\nwhich may be emphasized--namely, the greatness\nof the themes of Bible literature. Here is\nhistory, but it is not cast into fiction form.\nHistory always becomes more interesting for a first\nreading when it is in the form of fiction; but it\nalways loses greatness in that form. Test it by\nturning from a history of the American revolutionary\nor civil war to an historical novel that\ndeals with the same period; or from a history\nof Scotland to the Waverly novels. In some\ndegree the earnestness of the time is lost; the\nsame facts are there; but they do not loom so\nlarge, nor do they seem so great. So there is\npower in the fact that the historical elements\nof the version are in stately form and are never\nsacrificed to the fictional form.\n\nThese great themes save the work from being\nlocal. It issues from life, but from life\nconsidered in the large. The themes of great\nliterature are great enough to make their immediate\nsurroundings forgotten. \"The English\nBible deals with the great facts and the great\nproblems. It is from the point of view of those\ngreat facts that it handles even commonplace\nthings, and you forget the commonplaceness of\nthe things in the greatness of the dealing. Take\nits attitude toward God. One needs the sense of\nthat great theme to read it fairly. It quietly\noverlooks secondary causes, goes back of them\nto God. Partly that was because the original\nwriters were ignorant of some of those secondary\ncauses; partly that they knew them, but wanted\nto go farther back. Take the most outstanding\ninstance, that of the Book of Jonah. All its\nfacts, without exception, can be told without\nmention of God, if one cared to do it. But\nthere could not be anything like so great a story\nif it is told that way. One of his biographers\nsays of Lincoln that there is nothing in his whole\ncareer which calls for explanation in other than\na purely natural and human way. That is true,\nif one does not care to go any farther back than\nthat. But the greatest story cannot be made\nout of Lincoln's life on those terms. There is\nnot material enough; the life must be delocalized.\nIt can be told without that larger view, so that\nit will be of interest to America and American\nchildren, but not so that it will be of value to\ngenerations of men in all countries and under all\ncircumstances if it is told on those terms. Part\nof the greatness of Scripture, from a literary\npoint of view, is that it has such a tremendous\nrange of theme, and is saved from a mere narration\nof local events by seeing those events in the\nlight of larger considerations.\n\nLet that stand for one of the great facts.\nNow take one of the great problems. The thing\nthat makes Job so great a classic is the fact that,\nwhile it is dealing with a character, he is standing\nfor the problem of undeserved suffering. A\nman who has that before him, if he has at all\nthe gift of imagination, is sure to write in a far\nlarger way than when he is dealing with a man\nwith boils as though he were finally important.\nOne could deal with Job as a character, and do\na small piece of work. But when you deal\nwith Job as a type, a much larger opportunity\noffers.\n\nIt is these great ideas, as to either facts or\nproblems, that give the seriousness, the earnestness\nto the literature of the Bible. Men\nwho express great ideas in literary form are not\ndilettante about them. One of the English\nwriters just now prominent as an essayist is\noften counted whimsical, trifling. One of his\nnear friends keenly resents that opinion, insists\ninstead that he is dead in earnest, serious to the\nlast degree, purposeful in all his work. What\nmakes that so difficult to believe is that there is\nalways a tone of chaffing in his essays. He\nseems always to be making fun of himself or of\nother people; and if he is dead in earnest he has\nthe wrong style to make great literature or\nliterature that will live long.\n\nIt is that earnestness and greatness of theme\nwhich puts the tang into the English of the\nBible. Coleridge says that \"after reading Isaiah\nor the Epistle to the Hebrews, Homer and Virgil\nare disgustingly tame, Milton himself barely\ntolerable.\" It need not be put quite so strongly\nas that; but there is large warrant of fact in\nthat expression.\n\nGo a little farther in thought of the literary\ncharacteristics of the Bible. Notice the variety\nof the forms involved. Recall Professor Moulton's\nfour cardinal points in literature, all of it\ntaking one of these forms: either description,\nwhen a scene is given in the words of the author,\nas when Milton and Homer describe scenes\nwithout pretending to give the words of the\nactors throughout; or, secondly, presentation,\nwhen a scene is given in the words of those who\ntook part in it, and the author does not appear,\nas, of course, in the plays of Shakespeare, when\nhe never appears, but where all his sentiments\nare put in the words of others. As between\nthose two, the Bible is predominantly a book\nof description, the authors for the most part\ndoing the speaking, though there is, of course,\nan element of presentation. Professor Moulton\ngoes on with the two other phases of literary\nform: prose, moving in the region limited by\nfacts, as history and philosophy deal only with\nwhat actually has existence; and poetry, which\nby its Greek origin means creative literature.\nHe reminds us that, however literature starts,\nthese are the points toward which it moves, the\npaths it takes. All four of them appear in the\nliterature of the English Bible. You have more\nof prose and less of poetry; but the poetry is\nthere, not in the sense of rhyme, but in the sense\nof real creative literature.\n\nA more natural way of considering the literature\nhas been followed by Professor Gardiner.\nHe finds four elements in the literature of the\nBible: its narrative, its poetry, its philosophizing,\nand its prophecy. It is not necessary\nfor our purpose to go into details about that.\nWe shall have all we need when we realize that,\nsmall as the volume of the book is, it yet does\ncover all these types of literature. Its difference\nfrom other books is that it deals with all of its\nsubjects so compactly.\n\nIt will accent this fact of its variety if we note\nthe musical element in the literature of the Bible.\nIt comes in part from the form which marks\nthe original Hebrew poetry. It has become familiar\nto say that it is not of the rhyming kind.\nRather it is marked by the balancing of phrases\nor of ideas, so that it runs in couplets or in\ntriplets throughout. In the Psalms there is\nalways a balance of clauses. They are sometimes\nadversative; sometimes they are simply\ncumulative. Take several instances from the\n119th Psalm, each a complete stanza of Hebrew\npoetry; (verse 15) \"I will meditate in thy precepts, and have\nrespect unto thy ways\"; or this\n(verse 23), \"Princes also did sit and speak\nagainst me: but thy servant did meditate in\nthy statutes\"; or this (verse 45), \"And I will\nwalk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts\";\n(verse 51,) \"The proud have had me greatly in\nderision: yet have I not inclined from thy law.\"\nEach presents a parallel or a contrast of ideas.\nThat is the characteristic mark of Hebrew poetry.\nIt results in a kind of rhythm of the English\nwhich makes it very easy to set to music.\nSome of it can be sung, though for some of it\nonly the thunder is the right accompaniment.\nBut it is not simply in the balance of phrases\nthat the musical element appears. Sometimes\nit is in a natural but rhythmic consecution of\nideas. The 35th chapter of Isaiah, for example,\nis not poetic in the Hebrew, yet it is remarkably\nmusical in the English. Read it aloud from\nour familiar version:\n\n\n\"The wilderness and the solitary place shall be\nglad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and\nblossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly,\nand rejoice even with joy and singing; the glory of\nLebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of\nCarmel and Sharon; they shall see the glory of the\nLord, and the excellency of our God. Strengthen ye\nthe weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say\nto them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear\nnot: behold, your God will come with vengeance,\neven God with a recompense; He will come and save\nyou. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and\nthe ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall\nthe lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the\ndumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break\nout, and streams in the desert. And the parched\nground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land\nsprings of water: in the habitation of dragons, where\neach lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes. And\na highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be\ncalled The way of holiness; the unclean shall not\npass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring\nmen, though fools, shall not err therein. No\nlion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go\nup thereon, it shall not be found there; but the\nredeemed shall walk there: and the ransomed of the\nLord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and\neverlasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain\njoy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee\naway.\"\n\n\nThat can be set to music as it stands. You\ncatch the same form in the familiar 13th chapter\nof I Corinthians, the chapter on Charity.\nIt could be almost sung throughout. This\nmusical element is in sharp contrast with much\nelse in the Scripture, where necessity does not\npermit that literary form. For example, in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, which is argumentative\nthroughout, there is no part except its quotations\nwhich has ever been set to music for uses in\nChristian worship. It is rugged and protracted\nin its form, and has no musical element about\nit. The contrast within the Scripture of the\nmusical and the unmusical is a very marked\none.\n\nAdd to the thought of the earnestness and\nvariety of the Scripture a word about the simplicity\nof its literary expression. There is nothing\nmeretricious in its style. There is no effort\nto say a thing finely. The translators have\navoided all temptation to grow dramatic in\nreproducing the original. Contrast the actual\nEnglish Bible with the narratives or other literary\nworks that have been built up out of it.\nRead all that the Bible tells about the loss\nof Paradise, and then read Milton's \"Paradise\nLost.\" Nearly all of the conceptions of Milton's\ngreatest poem are built up from brief\nScripture references. But Milton becomes subtle\nin his analysis of motives; he enlarges greatly\non events. Scripture never does that. It gives\nus very few analyses of motive from first to last.\nThat is not the method nor the purpose of\nScripture. It tells the story in terms that move\non the middle level of speech and the middle\nlevel of understanding, while Milton labors with\nit, complicates it, entangling it with countless\n\ndetails which are to the Scripture unimportant.\nIt goes straight to the simple and fundamental\nelements in the account. Take a more modern\nillustration. Probably the finest poem of its\nlength in the English language is Browning's\n\"Saul.\" It is built out of one incident and a\nsingle expression in the Bible story of Saul and\nDavid. The incident is David's being called\nfrom his sheep to play his harp and to sing\nbefore Saul in the fits of gloom which overcome\nhim; the expression is the single saying that\nDavid loved Saul. Taking that incident and\nthat expression, Browning writes a beautiful\npoem with many decorative details, with keen\nanalysis of motive, with long accounts of the\nway David felt when he rendered his service,\nand how his heart leaped or sang. Imagine\nfinding Browning's familiar phrases in Scripture:\n\"The lilies we twine round the harp-chords,\nlest they snap neath the stress of the noontide--\nthose sunbeams like swords\"; \"Oh, the wild joy\nof living!\" \"Spring's arrowy summons,\" going\n\"straight to the aim.\" That is very well for\nBrowning, but it is not the Scripture way; it\nis too complicated. All that the Bible says can\nbe said anywhere; Browning's \"Saul\" could not\npossibly be reproduced in other languages. It\nwould need a glossary or a commentary to make\nit intelligible. It is beautiful English, and great\nbecause it has taken a great idea and clothed\nit in worthy expression. But the simplicity of\nthe Bible narrative appears in sharp contrast\nwith it. In my childhood my father used to\ntell of a man who preached on the creation,\nand with great detail and much elaboration and\ndecoration told the story of creation as it is\nsuggested in the first chapter of Genesis. When it\nwas over he asked an old listener what he thought\nof his effort, and the only comment was, \"You\ncan't beat Moses!\" Well, it would be difficult\nto surpass these Bible writers in simplicity, in\ngoing straight to the point, and making that\nplain and leaving it. Where the Bible takes a\nhundred words to tell the whole story Browning\ntakes several hundred lines to tell it.\n\nThe simplicity of the Bible is largely because\nthere is so little abstract reasoning in it. Having\nfew or no abstract ideas, it does not need abstract\nwords. Rather, it groups its whole movement\naround characters. Three eminent literary men\nwere once asked to select the best reviews of a\nnovel which had just appeared. One of the\nthree statements which they rated highest said\nof the book that it \"achieves the true purpose\nof a novel, which is to make comprehensible the\nphilosophy of life of a whole community or race\nof men by showing us how that philosophy accords\nwith the impulses and yearnings of typical\nindividuals.\" Few phrases could be more foreign\nto Bible phrases than those. But there is\nvaluable suggestion in it for more than the\nliterature of the novel. That is exactly what the\nScripture does. Its reasoning is kept concrete\nby the fact that it is dealing with characters\nmore than movements, and so it can speak in\nconcrete words. That always makes for simplicity.\n\nThere are two elements common to the history\nof literature about which a special word\nis deserved. I mean the dramatic and the oratorical\nelements. The difference between the\ndramatic and the oratorical is chiefly that in\ndramatic writing there is a scene in which many\ntake part, and in the oratorical writing one man\npresents the whole scene, however dramatic the\nsurroundings. There is not a great deal of either\nin the Scripture. There is no formal drama,\nnothing that could be acted as it stands. It is\ntrue, to be sure, that Job can be cast into dramatic\nform by a sufficient manipulation, but it\nis quite unlikely, in spite of some scholars, that\nit was ever meant to be a formal drama for\naction. It does move in cycles in the appearance\nof its characters, and it does close in a way\nto take one back to the beginning. It has many\nmarks of the drama, and yet it seems very unlikely\nthat it was ever prepared with that definitely\nin mind. On the other hand, a most\nlikely explanation of the Song of Solomon is\nthat it is a short drama which appears in our\nBible without any character names, as though\nyou should take \"Hamlet\" and print it continuously,\nindicating in no way the change of\nspeakers nor any movement. The effort has\nbeen measurably successful to discover and insert\nthe names of the probable speakers. That\nseems to be the one exception to the general\nstatement that there is no formal drama in the\nScripture. But there are some very striking\ndramatic episodes, and they are made dramatic\nfor us very largely by the way they are told.\nOne of the earlier is in I Kings xviii:21-39. It\nis almost impossible to read it aloud without\ndramatic expression:\n\n\n\"And Elijah came unto all the people, and said,\nHow long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord\nbe God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.\nAnd the people answered him not a word. Then\nsaid Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain\na prophet of the Lord; but Baal's prophets are four\nhundred and fifty men. Let them therefore give us\ntwo bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for\nthemselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood,\nand put no fire under; and I will dress the other\nbullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:\nand call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call\non the name of the Lord: and the God that answereth\nby fire, let him be God. And all the people\nanswered and said, It is well spoken. And Elijah\nsaid unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock\nfor yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are\nmany; and call on the name of your gods, but put\nno fire under. And they took the bullock which\nwas given them, and they dressed it, and called on\nthe name of Baal from morning until noon, saying,\nO Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that\nanswered. And they leaped upon the altar which\nwas made. And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah\nmocked them, and said, Cry aloud; for he is a god;\neither he is talking, or he is pursuing, or, he is in a\njourney, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be\nawakened. And they cried aloud, and cut themselves\nafter their manner with knives and lancets,\ntill the blood gushed out upon them. And it came\nto pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied\nuntil the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice,\nthat there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor\nany that regarded. And Elijah said unto all the people,\nCome near unto me. And all the people came\nnear unto him. And he repaired the altar of the\nLord that was broken down. And Elijah took\ntwelve stones, according to the number of the tribes\nof the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the\nLord came, saying, Israel shall be thy name. And\nwith the stones he built an altar in the name of the\nLord; and he made a trench about the altar, as great\nas would contain two measures of seed. And he put\nthe wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and\nlaid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with\nwater, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the\nwood. And he said, Do it the second time. And\nthey did it the second time. And he said, Do it\nthe third time. And they did it the third time.\nAnd the water ran round about the altar; and he\nfilled the trench also with water. And it came to\npass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that\nElijah the prophet came near, and said,\nLord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be\nknown this day that thou art God in Israel, and that\nI am thy servant, and that I have done all these\nthings at thy word. Hear me, O Lord, hear me, that\nthis people may know that thou art the Lord God,\nand that thou hast turned their heart back again.\nThen the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the\nburnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and\nthe dust, and licked up the water that was in the\ntrench. And when all the people saw it, they fell\non their faces: and they said, The Lord, he is the\nGod; the Lord, he is the God.\"\n\n\nThat is not simply a dramatic event; that is\na striking telling of it. It is more than a narrative.\nIn narrative literature the scene is accepted\nas already constructed. In dramatic\nliterature such appeal is made to the imagination\nthat the reader reconstructs the scene for himself.\nWe are not told in this how Elijah felt,\nor how he acted, nor how the people as a whole\nlooked, nor the setting of the scene; but if one\nreads it with care it makes its own setting. The\nscene constructs itself.\n\nThe dramatic style does not prevail at most\nimportant points of the Scripture, because it is\na fictitious style for the presenting of truth. It\ninevitably suggests superficiality. Things actually\ndo not happen in life as they do in drama.\n\nOne of our latest biographers says that a\nscientific historian is always suspicious of dramatic\nevents.[1] They may be true, but they\nare more liable to be afterthoughts, like the\nbright answers we could have made to our opponents\nif we had only thought of them at the\ntime. You never lose the sense of unreality in\nthe very construction of a drama. Life cannot\nbe crowded into two or three hours, and justice\ndoes not come out as the drama makes it do.\nSo that at most important points of the Scripture\ndramatic writing does not appear. The\naccount of the carrying away into captivity of\nthe children of Israel is at no point dramatic,\nthough you can see instantly what a great opportunity\nthere was for it. It is simply narrative.\nIt is noticeable that none of the accounts\nof the crucifixion is at all dramatic. They are\nall simply narrative. The imagination does not\nimmediately conjure up the scene. There may\nbe two reasons for that. One is that there are\ninvolved several hours in which there is no\naction recorded. The other is that by the time\nthe accounts were written the actual events\nwere submerged in importance by their unworded\nmeaning. The account of the conversion of\nPaul, on the other hand, brief as it is, has at\nleast minor dramatic elements in it. On the\nwhole, the Old Testament is far more dramatic\nthan the New.\n\n\n[1] McGiffert, Life of Martin Luther.\n\n\nThere is even less of the oratorical element in\nthe Scripture. There is, to be sure, a considerable\namount of quotation, and men do speak at\nsome length, but seldom oratorically. The\nprophetical writings are generally too fragmentary\nto suggest oratory, and the quotations in the\nNew Testament, especially from the preaching\nof our Lord, are evidently for the most part\nexcerpts from longer addresses than are given.\nThere are few of the statements of Paul, as in\nthe 26th chapter of Acts, which could be delivered\noratorically; but here again the Old\nTestament is more marked than the New. The\nearliest specimen of oratory is also one of the\nfinest specimens. It is in the 44th chapter of\nGenesis, and is the account of Judah's reply to\nhis unrecognized brother Joseph:\n\n\n\"Then Judah came near unto him, and said, O my\nlord, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in\nmy lord's ears, and let not thine anger burn against\nthy servant: for thou art even as Pharoah. My lord\nasked his servants, saying, Have ye a father, or a\nbrother? And we said unto my lord, We have a\nfather, an old man, and a child of his old age, a\nlittle one; and his brother is dead, and he alone is\nleft of his mother, and his father loveth him. And\nthou saidst unto thy servants, Bring him down unto\nme, that I may set mine eyes upon him. And we\nsaid unto my lord, The lad cannot leave his father:\nfor if he should leave his father, his father would die. And thou\nsaidst unto thy servant, Except your\nyoungest brother come down with you, ye shall see\nmy face no more. And it came to pass when we\ncame up unto thy servant my father, we told him the\nwords of my lord. And our father said, Go again\nand buy us a little food. And we said, We cannot\ngo down; if our youngest brother be with us, then we\nwill go down: for we may not see the man's face,\nexcept our youngest brother be with us. And thy\nservant my father said unto us, Ye know that my\nwife bare me two sons: and the one went out from\nme, and I said, Surely he is torn in pieces; and I\nsaw him not since: and if ye take this also from me,\nand mischief befall him, ye shall bring down my gray\nhairs with sorrow to the grave. Now therefore when\nI come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not\nwith us; seeing that his life is bound up in the lad's\nlife; it shall come to pass, when he seeth that the\nlad is not with us, that he will die: and thy servants\nshall bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our\nfather with sorrow to the grave. For thy servant\nbecame surety for the lad unto my father, saying,\nIf I bring him not unto thee, then I shall bear the\nblame to my father for ever. Now therefore, I pray\nthee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my\nlord; and let the lad go up with his brethren. For how shall I go\nup to my father, and the lad be not with me? lest peradventure I\nsee the evil that shall come on my father.\"\n\n\nThat is pure oratory, and it is greatly helped\nby the English expression of it. Here our King\nJames version is finer than either of the other\nlater versions, as indeed it is in almost all these\nsections where the phraseology is important for\nthe ear.\n\nWe need not go farther. Part of these outstanding\ncharacteristics come to our version\nfrom the original, and might appear in any version\nof the Bible. Yet nowhere do even these\noriginal characteristics come to such prominence\nas in the King James translation; and it adds\nto them those that are peculiar to itself.\n\n\n\nLECTURE IV\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF THE KING JAMES VERSION\nON ENGLISH LITERATURE\n\nTHE Bible is a book-making book. It is\nliterature which provokes literature.\n\nIt would be a pleasure to survey the whole\nfield of literature in the broadest sense and to\nnote the creative power of the King James version;\nbut that is manifestly impossible here.\nCertain limitations must be frankly made.\nLeave on one side, therefore; the immense body\nof purely religious literature, sermons, expositions,\ncommentaries, which, of course, are the\ndirect product of the Bible. No book ever\ncaused so much discussion about itself and its\nteaching. That is because it deals with the\nfundamental human interest, religion. It still\nremains true that the largest single department\nof substantial books from our English presses is\nin the realm of religion, and after the purely\nrecreative literature they are probably most\nwidely read. Yet, they are not what we mean\nat this time by the literary result of the English\nBible.\n\nLeave on one side also the very large body\nof political and historical writing. Much of it\nshows Bible influence. In the nature of the\ncase, any historian of the past three hundred\nyears must often refer to and quote from the\nEnglish Bible, and must note its influence. An\nentire study could be devoted to the influence\nof the English Bible on Green or Bancroft or\nFreeman or Prescott--its influence on their\nmatter and their manner. Another could be\ngiven to its influence on political writing and\nspeaking. No great orator of the day would fail\nus of material, and the great political papers\nand orations of the past would only widen the\nfield. Yet while some of this political and historical\nwriting is recognized as literature, most\nof it can be left out of our thought just\nnow.\n\nIt may aid in the limiting of the field to\naccept what Dean Stanley said in another connection:\n\"By literature, I mean those great\nworks that rise above professional or commonplace\nuses and take possession of the mind of\na whole nation or a whole age.\"[1] This is one\nof the matters which we all understand until\nwe begin to define it; we know what we mean\nuntil some one asks us.\n\n\n[1] Thoughts that Breathe.\n\n\nThe literature of which we are thinking in this\nnarrower sense is in the sphere of art rather than\nin the sphere of distinct achievement. De\nQuincey's division is familiar: the literature of\nknowledge, and the literature of power. The\nfunction of the first is to teach; the function of\nthe second is to move. Professor Dowden\npoints out that between the two lies a third\nfield, the literature of criticism. It seeks both\nto teach and to move. Our concern is chiefly\nwith De Quincey's second field--the literature\nof power. In the first field, the literature of\nknowledge, must lie all history, with Hume and\nGibbon; all science, with Darwin and Fiske;\nall philosophy, with Spencer and William James;\nall political writing, with Voltaire and Webster.\nNear that same field must lie many of those\nessays in criticism of which Professor Dowden\nspeaks. This which we omit, this literature of\nknowledge, is powerful literature, though its\nmain purpose is not to move, but to teach.\nWe are only reducing our field so that we can\nsurvey it. For our uses just now we shall\nfind pure literature taking the three standard\nforms: the poem, the essay, and the story. It\nis the influence of the English Bible on this\nlarge field of literature which we are to observe.\n\nJust for safety's sake, accept another narrowing\nof the field. The effect of the Bible and its\nreligious teaching, on the writer himself is a\nseparate study, and is for the most part left out\nof consideration. It sounds correct when Milton\nsays: \"He who would not be frustrate of\nhis Power to write well ought himself to be a\ntrue poem.\" But there is Milton himself to\ndeal with; irreproachable in morals, there are\nyet the unhappy years of his young wife to\ntrouble us, and there were his daughters, who\nwere not at peace with him, and whom after\ntheir service in his blindness he yet stigmatizes\nin his will as \"undutiful children.\" Then, if\nyou think of Shelley or Byron, you are troubled\nby their lives; or even Carlyle, the very master\nof the Victorian era--one would not like to scan\nhis life according to the laws of true poetry.\nThen there is Coleridge, falling a prey to opium\nuntil, as years came, conscience and will seemed\nto go. Only a very ardent Scot will feel that he\ncan defend Robert Burns at all points, and we\nwould be strange Americans if we felt that\nEdgar Allen Poe was a model of propriety. That\nis a large and interesting field, but the Bible\nseems even to gain power as a book-making book\nwhen it lays hold on the book-making proclivities\nof men who are not prepared to yield to its\npersonal power. They may get away from it\nas religion; they do not get away from it as\nliterature.\n\nThe first and most notable fact regarding the\ninfluence of the Bible on English literature is\nthe remarkable extent of that influence. It is\nliterally everywhere. If every Bible in any\nconsiderable city were destroyed, the Book could\nbe restored in all its essential parts from the\nquotations on the shelves of the city public\nlibrary. There are works, covering almost all\nthe great literary writers, devoted especially to\nshowing how much the Bible has influenced them.\n\nThe literary effect of the King James version\nat first was less than its social effect; but in\nthat very fact lies a striking literary influence.\nFor a long time it formed virtually the whole\nliterature which was readily accessible to ordinary\nEnglishmen. We get our phrases from a\nthousand books. The common talk of an intelligent\nman shows the effect of many authors\nupon his thinking. Our fathers got their phrases\nfrom one great book. Their writing and their\nspeaking show the effect of that book.\n\nIt is a study by itself, and yet it is true that\nworld literature is, as Professor Moulton puts it,\nthe autobiography of civilization. \"A national\nliterature is a reflection of the national history.\"\nBooks as books reflect their authors. As literature\nthey reflect the public opinion which gives\nthem indorsement. When, therefore, public\nopinion: keeps alive a certain group of books,\nthere is testimony not simply to those books,\nbut to the public opinion which has preserved\nthem. The history of popular estimates of literature\nis itself most interesting. On the other\nhand, some writers have been amusingly overestimated.\nNo doubt Edward Fitzgerald, who gave\nus the \"Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam\" did\nsome other desirable work; but Professor Moulton\nquotes this paragraph from a popular life of\nFitzgerald, published in Dublin: \"Not Greece\nof old in her palmiest days--the Greece of Homer\nand Demosthenes, of Eschylus, Euripides, and\nSophocles, of Pericles, Leonidas, and Alcibiades,\nof Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, of Solon and\nLycurgus, of Apelles and Praxiteles--not even\nthis Greece, prolific as she was in sages and\nheroes, can boast such a lengthy bead-roll as\nIreland can of names immortal in history!\"\nBut \"this was for Irish consumption.\" And\npopular opinion and even critical opinion has\nsometimes gone far astray in its destructive\ntendency. There were authoritative critics who\ndeclared that Wordsworth, Shelley, and Coleridge\nwrote \"unintelligible nonsense.\" George\nMeredith's style, especially in his poetry, was\ncounted so bad that it--was not worth reading.\nWe are all near enough the Browning epoch to\nrecall how the obscurity of his style impressed\nsome and oppressed others. Alfred Austin, in\n1869, said that \"Mr. Tennyson has no sound\npretensions to be called a great poet.\"\nContemporary public opinion is seldom a final\ngauge of strength for a piece of literature. It\ntakes the test of time. How many books we\nhave seen come on the stage and then pass off\nagain! Yet the books that have stayed on the\nstage have been kept there by public opinion\nexpressing itself in the long run. The social\ninfluence of the King James version, creating a\npublic taste for certain types of literature, tended\nto produce them at once.\n\nEnglish literature in these three hundred\nyears has found in the Bible three influential\nelements: style, language, and material.\n\nFirst, the style of the King James version has\ninfluenced English literature markedly. Professor\nGardiner opens one of his essays with the\ndictum that \"in all study of English literature,\nif there be any one axiom which may be accepted\nwithout question, it is that the ultimate standard\nof English prose style is set by the King\nJames version of the Bible.\"[1] You almost\nmeasure the strength of writing by its agreement\nwith the predominant traits of this version.\nCarlyle's weakest works are those that\nlose the honest simplicity of its style in a forced\nturgidity and affected roughness. His Heroes\nand Hero Worship or his French Revolution\nshows his distinctive style, and yet shows the\ninfluence of this simpler style, while his Frederick\nthe Great is almost impossible because he has\ngiven full play to his broken and disconnected\nsentences. On the other hand, Macaulay fails\nus most in his striving for effect, making nice\nbalance of sentences, straining his \"either-or,\"\nor his \"while-one-was-doing-this-the-other-was-\ndoing-that.\" Then his sentences grow involved,\nand his paragraphs lengthen, and he swings\naway from the style of the King James version.\n\"One can say that if any writing departs very\nfar from the characteristics of the English Bible\nit is not good English writing.\"\n\n\n[1] Atlantic Monthly, May, 1900, p. 684.\n\n\nThe second element which English literature\nfinds in the Bible is its LANGUAGE. The words of\nthe Bible are the familiar ones of the English\ntongue, and have been kept familiar by the use\nof the Bible. The result is that \"the path of\nliterature lies parallel to that of religion. They\nare old and dear companions, brethren indeed\nof one blood; not always agreeing, to be sure;\nsquabbling rather in true brotherly fashion now\nand then; occasionally falling out very seriously\nand bitterly; but still interdependent and necessary\nto each other.\"[1] Years ago a writer remarked\nthat every student of English literature,\nor of English speech, finds three works or subjects\nreferred to, or quoted from, more frequently\nthan others. These are the Bible, tales of Greek\nand Roman mythology, and Aesop's Fables. Of\nthese three, certainly the Bible furnishes the\nlargest number of references. There is reason\nfor that. A writer wants an audience. Very\nfew men can claim to be independent of the\npublic for which they write. There is nothing\nthe public will be more apt to understand and\nappreciate quickly than a passing reference to\nthe English Bible. So it comes about that when\nDickens is describing the injustice of the Murdstones\nto little David Copperfield, he can put\nthe whole matter before us in a parenthesis:\n\"Though there was One once who set a child\nin the midst of the disciples.\" Dickens knew\nthat his readers would at once catch the meaning\nof that reference, and would feel the contrast\nbetween the scene he was describing and that\nsimple scene. Take any of the great books of\nliterature and black out the phrases which manifestly\ncome directly from the English Bible, and\nyou would mark them beyond recovery.\n\n\n[1] Chapman, English Literature in Account with Religion.\n\n\nBut English literature has found more of its\nmaterial in the Bible than anything else. It has\nlooked there for its characters, its illustrations,\nits subject-matter. We shall see, as we consider\nindividual writers, how many of their titles and\ncomplete works are suggested by the Bible.\nIt is interesting to see how one idea of the\nScripture will appear and reappear among many\nwriters. Take one illustration. The Faust story\nis an effort to make concrete one verse of Scripture:\n\"What shall it profit a man if he shall\ngain the whole world and lose his own soul?\"\nProfessor Moulton reminds us that the Faust\nlegend appeared first in the Middle Ages. In\nearly English, Marlowe has it, Calderon put it\ninto Spanish, the most familiar form of it is\nGoethe's, while Philip Bailey has called his\naccount of it Festus. In each of those forms\nthe same idea occurs. A man sells his soul to\nthe devil for the gaining of what is to him the\nworld. That is one of a good many ideas which\nthe Bible has given to literature. The prodigal\nson has been another prolific source of literary\nwriting. The guiding star is another. Others\nwill readily come to mind.\n\nWith that simple background let our minds\nmove down the course of literary history. Style,\nlanguage, material--we will easily think how\nmuch of each the Bible has given to all our great\nwriters if their names are only mentioned. There\nare four groups of these writers.\n\n1. The Jacobean, who wrote when and just\nafter our version was made.\n\n2. The Georgian, who graced the reigns of\nthe kings whose name the period bears.\n\n3. The Victorian.\n\n4. The American.\n\nThere is an attractive fifth group comprising\nour present-day workers in the realm of pure\nliterature, but we must omit them and give our\nattention to names that are starred.\n\n\nIt is familiar that in the time of Elizabeth,\n\"England became a nest of singing birds.\" In\nthe fifty years after the first English theater was\nerected, the middle of Elizabeth's reign, fifty\ndramatic poets appeared, many of the first\norder. Some were distinctly irreligious, as were\nmany of the people whose lives they touched.\nSuch men as Ford, Marlowe, Massinger, Webster,\nBeaumont, and Fletcher stand like a chorus\naround Shakespeare and Ben Jonson as leaders.\nAs Taine puts it: \"They sing the same piece\ntogether, and at times the chorus is equal to the\nsolo; but only at times.\"[1] Cultured people\nto-day know the names of most of these writers,\nbut not much else, and it does not heavily serve\nour argument to say that they felt the Puritan\ninfluence; but they all did feel it either directly\nor by reaction.\n\n\n[1] History of English Literature, chap. iii.\n\n\nEdmund Spenser and his friend, Sir Philip\nSidney, had closed their work before the King\nJames version appeared, yet the Faerie Queene\nin its religious theory is Puritan to the core,\nand Sidney is best remembered by his paraphrases\nof Scripture. The influence of both\nwas even greater in the Jacobean than in their\nown period.\n\nIt is hardly fair even to note the Elizabethan\nShakespeare as under the influence of the King\nJames version. The Bible influenced him markedly,\nbut it was the Genevan version prepared\nduring the exile of the scholars under Bloody\nMary, or the Bishops' Bible prepared under\nElizabeth. Those versions were familiar as\nhousehold facts to him. \"No writer has\nassimilated the thoughts and reproduced the\nwords of Holy Scripture more copiously than\nShakespeare.\" Dr. Furnivall says that \"he is\nsaturated with the Bible story,\" and a century\nago Capel Lloft said quaintly that Shakespeare\n\"had deeply imbibed the Scriptures.\" But the\nKing James version appeared only five years\nbefore his death, and it is in some sense fairer\nto say that Shakespeare and the King James\nversion are formed by the same influence as\nto their English style. The Bishop of St.\nAndrews even devotes the first part of his book\non Shakespeare and the Bible to a study of\nparallels between the two in peculiar forms of\nspeech, and thinks it \"probable that our translators\nof 1611 owed as much to Shakespeare as,\nor rather far more than, he owed to them.\"[1]\nIt is generally agreed that only two of his works\nwere written after our version appeared. Several\nother writers have devoted separate volumes\nto noting the frequent use by Shakespeare\nof Biblical phrases and allusions and characters\ntaken from early versions. It is a very tempting\nfield, and we pass it by only because it is hardly\nin the range of the study we are now making.\n\n\n[1] Wordsworth, Shakespeare's Knowledge and Use of the Bible, p.\n9.\n\n\nWhen, however, we come to John Milton\n(1608-1674), we remember he was only three\nyears old when our version was issued; that\nwhen at fifteen, an undergraduate in Cambridge,\nhe made his first paraphrases, casting two of\nthe Psalms into meter, the version he used was\nthis familiar one. A biographer says he began\nthe day always with the reading of Scripture and\nkept his memory deeply charged with its phrases.\nIn later life the morning chapter was generally\nfrom the Hebrew, and was followed by an hour\nof silence for meditation, an exercise whose\ninfluence no man's style could escape. As a\nwriter he moved steadily toward the Scripture\nand the religious teaching which it brought his\nage. His earlier writing is a group of poems\nlargely secular, which yet show in phrases and\nexpressions much of the influence of his boyhood\nstudy of the Bible, as well as the familiar use of\nmythology. The memorial poem \"Lycidas,\"\nfor example, contains the much-quoted reference\nto Peter and his two keys--\n\n \"Last came and last did go\n The pilot of the Galilean lake;\n Two massy keys he bore of metals twain,\n (The golden opes, the iron shuts amain).\"\n\n\nBut after these poems came the period of his\nprose, the work which he supposed was the abiding\nwork of his life. George William Curtis told\na friend that our civil war changed his own\nliterary style: \"That roused me to see that I\nhad no right to spend my life in literary leisure.\nI felt that I must throw myself into the struggle\nfor freedom and the Union. I began to lecture\nand to write. The style took care of itself.\nBut I fancy it is more solid than it was thirty\nyears ago.\" That is what happened to Milton\nwhen the protectorate came.[1] It made his style\nmore solid. He did not mean to live as a poet.\nHe felt that his best energies were being put into\nhis essays in defense of liberty, on the freedom\nof the press and on the justice of the beheading\nof Charles, in which service he sacrificed his\nsight. All of it is shot through with Scripture\nquotations and arguments, and some of it, at\nleast, is in the very spirit of Scripture. The plea\nfor larger freedom of divorce issued plainly from\nhis own bitter experience; but his main argument\nroots in a few Bible texts taken out of\ntheir connection and urged with no shadow of\nquestion of their authority. Indeed, when he\ncomes to his more religious essays, his heavy\nargument is that there should be no religion\npermitted in England which is not drawn directly\nfrom the Bible; which, therefore, he urges\nmust be common property for all the people.\nThere is a curious bit of evidence that the men\nof his own time did not realize his power as a\npoet. In Pierre Bayle's critical survey of the\nliterature of the time, he calls Milton \"the\nfamous apologist for the execution of Charles\nI.,\" who \"meddled in poetry and several of whose\npoems saw the light during his life or after his\ndeath!\" For all that, Milton was only working\non toward his real power, and his power was to\nbe shown in his service to religion. His three\ngreat poems, in the order of their value, are, of\ncourse, \"Paradise Lost,\" \"Samson Agonistes,\"\nand \"Paradise Regained.\" Whoever knows anything\nof Milton knows these three and knows\nthey are Scriptural from first to last in phrase,\nin allusion, and, in part at least, in idea. There\nis not time for extended illustration. One instance\nmay stand for all, which shall illustrate\nhow Milton's mind was like a garden where the\nseeds of Scripture came to flower and fruit. He\nwill take one phrase from the Bible and let it\ngrow to a page in \"Paradise Lost.\" Here is an\nillustration which comes readily to hand. In\nthe Genesis it is said that \"the spirit of God\nmoved on the face of the waters.\" The verb\nsuggests the idea of brooding. There is only\none other possible reference (Psalm xxiv: 9.)\nwhich is included in this statement which Milton\nmakes out of that brief word in the Genesis:\n\n               \"On the watery calm\n His broadening wings the Spirit of God outspread,\n And vital virtue infused, and vital warmth\n Throughout the fluid mass, but downward purged\n The black tartareous cold infernal dregs,\n Adverse to life; then formed, then con-globed,\n Like things to like; the rest to several place\n Disparted, and between spun out the air--\n And earth self-balanced on her center swung.\"\n\n\n[1] Strong, The Theology of the Poets.\n\n\nAny one familiar with Milton will recognize\nthat as a typical instance of the way in which\na seed idea from the Scripture comes to flower\nand fruit in him. The result is that more people\nhave their ideas about heaven and hell from\nMilton than from the Bible, though they do not\nknow it.\n\nIt seems hardly fair to use John Bunyan\n(1628-1688) as an illustration of the influence\nof the English Bible on literature, because his\nchief work is composed so largely in the language\nof Scripture. Pilgrim's Progress is the most\nwidely read book in the English language after\nthe Bible. Its phrases, its names, its matter\nare either directly or indirectly taken from the\nBible. It has given us a long list of phrases\nwhich are part of our literary and religious\ncapital. Thackeray took the motto of one of\nhis best-known books from the Bible; but the\ntitle, Vanity Fair, comes from Pilgrim's Progress.\nWhen a discouraged man says he is \"in the\nslough of despond,\" he quotes Bunyan; and\nwhen a popular evangelist tells the people that\nthe burden of sin will roll away if they look at\nthe cross, \"according to the Bible,\" he ought\nto say according to Bunyan. But all this was\nonly the outcome of the familiarity of Bunyan\nwith the Scripture. It was almost all he did\nknow in a literary way. Macaulay says that\n\"he knew no language but the English as it\nwas spoken by the common people; he had\nstudied no great model of composition, with the\nexception of our noble translation of the Bible.\nBut of that his knowledge was such that he might\nhave been called a living concordance.\"[1]\n\n\n[1] History of England, vol. III., p. 220.\n\n\nAfter these three--Shakespeare, Milton, and\nBunyan--there appeared another three, very\nmuch their inferiors and having much less\ninfluence on literary history. I mean Dryden,\nAddison, and Pope. It is not necessary to credit\nthe Scripture with much of Dryden's spirit, nor\nwith much of his style, and certainly not with\nhis attitude toward his fellows; but it is a constant\nsurprise in reading Dryden to discover\nhow familiar he was with the King James version.\nWalter Scott insists that Dryden was at\nheart serious, that \"his indelicacy was like the\nforced impudence of a bashful man.\" That is\ngenerous judgment. But there is this to be\nsaid: as he grows more serious he falls more\ninto Bible words. If he writes a political pamphlet\nhe calls it \"Absalom and Ahithophel.\"\nIn it he holds the men of the day up to scorn\nunder Bible names. They are Zimri and Shimei,\nand the like. When he is falling into bitterest\nsatire, his writing abounds in these Biblical\nallusions which could be made only by one who\nwas very familiar with the Book. Quotations\ncannot be abundant, of course, but there is a\ngreat deal of this sort of thing:\n\n \"Sinking, he left his drugget robe behind,\n Borne upward by a subterranean wind,\n The mantle fell to the young prophet's part,\n With double portion of his father's art.\"\n\nIn his Epistles there is much of the same sort.\nWhen he writes to Congreve he speaks of the\nfathers, and says:\n\n \"Their's was the giant race before the flood.\"\n\nFarther on he says:\n\n \"Our builders were with want of genius curst,\n The second temple was not like the first.\"\n\nNow Dryden may have been, as Macaulay said,\nan \"illustrious renegade,\" but all his writing\nshows the influence of the language and the\nideas of the King James version. Whenever we\nsing the \"Veni Creator\" we sing John Dryden.\n\nSo we sing Addison in the paraphrase of\nScripture, which Haydn's music has made\nfamiliar:\n\n \"The spacious firmament on high,\n With all the blue ethereal sky.\"\n\nWhile Dryden yielded to his times, Addison did\nnot, and the Spectator became not only a literary\nbut a moral power. In the effort to make it so\nhe was thrown back on the largest moral influence\nof the day, the Bible, and throughout\nthe Spectator and through all of Addison's\nwriting you find on all proper occasions the\nBible pressed to the front. Here again Taine\nputs it strikingly: \"It is no small thing to make\nmorality fashionable; Addison did it, and it\nremains fashionable.\"\n\nIf we speak of singing, we may remember\nthat we sing the hymn of even poor little dwarfed\ninvalid Alexander Pope. He was born the year\nBunyan died, born at cross-purposes with the\nworld. He could write a bitter satire, like the\n\"Dunciad\"; he could give the world The Iliad\nand The Odyssey in such English that we know\nthem far better than in the Greek of Homer;\nbut in those rare moments when he was at his\nbetter self he would write his greater poem,\n\"The Messiah\", in which the movement of\nScripture is outlined as it could be only by one\nwho knew the English Bible. And when we\nsing--\n\n \"Rise, crowned with light, imperial Salem, rise\"--\n\nit is worth while to realize that the voice that\nfirst sung it was that of the irritable little poet\nwho found some of his scant comfort in the grand\nwords and phrases and ideas of our English\nBible.\n\nWith these six--Shakespeare, Milton, Bunyan,\nDryden, Addison, and Pope--the course of the\nJacobean literature is sufficiently measured.\nThere are many lesser names, but these are the\nones which made it an epoch in literature, and\nthese are at their best under the power of the\nBible.\n\nIn the Georgian group we need to call only\nfive great names which have had creative influence\nin literature. Ordinary culture in literature\nwill include some acquaintance with each\nof them. In the order of their death they are\nShelley (1829.), Byron (1824), Coleridge (1831),\nWalter Scott (1832), and Wordsworth (1850).\nThe last long outlived the others; but he belongs\nwith them, because he was born earlier\nthan any other in the group and did his chief\nwork in their time and before the later group\nappeared. Except Wordsworth, all these were\ngone before Queen Victoria came to the throne\nin 1837. Three other names could be called:\nKeats, Robert Burns, and Charles Lamb. All\nwould illustrate what we are studying. Keats\nleast of all and Burns most. They are omitted\nhere not because they did not feel the influence\nof the English Bible, not because they do not\nconstantly show its influence, but because they\nare not so creative as the others; they have not\nso influenced the current of literature. At any\nrate, the five named will represent worthily and\nwith sufficient completeness the Georgian period\nof English literature.\n\nNothing could reveal more clearly than this\nlist how we are distinguishing the Bible as\nliterature from the Bible as an authoritative\nbook in morals. One would much dislike to\ncredit the Bible with any part of the personal life\nof Shelley or Byron. They were friends; they,\nwere geniuses; but they were both badly afflicted\nwith common moral leprosy. It is playing with\nmorals to excuse either of them because he was\na genius. Nothing in the genius of either demanded\nor was served by the course of cheap\nimmorality which both practised. It was not\nbecause Shelley was a genius that he married\nHarriet Westbrook, then ran away with Mary\nGodwin, then tried to get the two to become\nfriends and neighbors until his own wife committed\nsuicide; it was not his genius that made\nhim yield to the influence of Emilia Viviani\nand write her the poem \"Epipsychidion,\" telling\nher and the world that he \"was never attached\nto that great sect who believed that each\none should select out of the crowd a mistress or\na friend\" and let the rest go. That was not\ngenius, that was just common passion; and our\ndivorce courts are full of Shelleys of that type.\nSo Byron's personal immorality is not to be\nexplained nor excused on the ground of his\ngenius. It was not genius that led him so\nastray in England that his wife had to divorce\nhim, and that public opinion drove him out of\nthe land. It was not his genius that sent him\nto visit Shelley and his mistress at Lake Geneva\nand seduce their guest, so that she bore him a\ndaughter, though she was never his wife. It was\nnot genius that made him pick up still another\ncompanion out of several in Italy and live with\nher in immoral relation. In the name of common\ndecency let no one stand up for Shelley\nand Byron in their personal characters! There\nare not two moral laws, one for geniuses and one\nfor common people. Byron, at any rate, was\nnever deceived about himself, never blamed his\ngenius nor his conscience for his wrong. These\nare striking lines in \"Childe Harold,\" in which\nhe disclaims all right to sympathy, because,\n\n \"The thorns which I have reaped are of the tree\n I planted,--they have torn me and I bleed.\n I should have known what fruit would spring from\n     such a tree.\"\n\n\nShelley's wife would not say that for him.\n\"In all Shelley did,\" she says, \"he at the time\nof doing it believed himself justified to his own\nconscience.\" Well, so much the worse for\nShelley! Geniuses are not the only men who\ncan find good reason for doing what they want\nto do. One of Shelley's critics suggests that the\ntrouble was his introduction into personal conduct\nof the imagination which he ought to have\nsaved for his writing. Perhaps we might explain\nByron's misconduct by reminding ourselves of\nhis club-foot, and applying one code of morals\nto men with club-feet and another to men with\nnormal feet.\n\nIf we speak of the influence of the Bible on\nthese men, it must be on their literary work;\nand when we find it there, it becomes peculiar\nmark of its power. They had little sense of it\nas moral law. Their consciences approved it\nand condemned themselves, or else their delicate\nliterary taste sensed it as a book of power.\n\nThis is notably true of Shelley. When he was\nstill a student in Oxford he committed himself\nto the opinion of another writer, that \"the mind\ncannot believe in the existence of God.\" He tries\nto work that out fully in his notes on \"Queen\nMab.\" When he was hardly yet of age he himself\nwrote that \"The genius of human happiness\nmust tear every leaf from the accursed Book of\nGod, ere man can read the inscription on its\nheart.\" He once said that his highest desire\nwas that there should be a monument to himself\nsomewhere in the Alps which should be only a\ngreat stone with its face smoothed and this short\ninscription cut in it, \"Percy Bysshe Shelley,\nAtheist.\"\n\nIt would seem that whatever Shelley drew of\nstrength or inspiration from the Bible would be\nby way of reaction; but it is not so. However\nhe may have hated the \"accursed Book of God,\"\nhis wife tells in her note on \"The Revolt of Islam\"\nthat Shelley \"debated whether he should devote\nhimself to poetry or metaphysics,\" and, resolving\non the former, he \"educated himself for it,\nengaging himself in the study of the poets of\nGreece, England, and Italy. To these, may be\nadded,\" she goes on, \"a constant perusal of portions\nof the Old Testament, the Book of Psalms,\nJob, Isaiah, and others, the sublime poetry of\nwhich filled him with delight.\" Not only did\nhe catch the spirit of that poetry, but its phrases\nhaunted his memory. In his best prose work,\nwhich he called A Defense of Poetry, there is an\ninteresting revelation of the influence of his\nBible reading upon him. Toward the end of\nthe essay these two sentences occur: \"It is\ninconsistent with this division of our subject to\ncite living poets, but posterity has done ample\njustice to the great names now referred to. Their\nerrors have been weighed and found to have\nbeen dust in the balance; if their sins are as\nscarlet, they are now white as snow; they have\nbeen washed in the blood of the mediator and\nredeemer, Time.\" There is no more eloquent\npassage in the essay than the one of which this\nis part, and yet it is full of allusion to this Book\nfrom which all pages must be torn! Even in\n\"Queen Mab\" he makes Ahasuerus, the wandering\nJew, recount the Bible story in such broad\noutlines as could be given only by a man who\nwas familiar with it. When Shelley was in Italy\nand the word came to him of the massacre at\nManchester, he wrote his \"Masque of Anarchy.\"\nThere are few more melodious lines of his writing\nthan those which occur in this long poem in\nthe section regarding freedom. Four of those\nlines are often quoted. They are at the very\nheart of Shelley's best work. Addressing freedom,\nhe says:\n\n \"Thou art love: the rich have kissed\n Thy feet, and, like him following Christ,\n Gave their substance to the free,\n And through the rough world follow thee.\"\n\nPage after page of Shelley reveals these half-\nconscious references to the Bible. There were\ntwo sources from which he received his passionate\ndemocracy. One was the treatment he\nreceived at Eton, and later at Oxford; the other\nis his frequent reading of the English Bible, even\nthough he was in the spirit of rebellion against\nmuch of its teaching. In Browning's essay on\nShelley, he reaches the amazing conclusion that\n\"had Shelley lived, he would finally have ranged\nhimself with the Christians,\" and seeks to justify\nit by showing that he was moving straight toward\nthe positions of Paul and of David. Some\nof us may not see such rapid approach, but that\nShelley felt the drawing of God in the universe\nis plain enough.\n\nThe influence of the Bible is still more\nmarked on Byron. He spent his childhood years\nat Aberdeen. There his nurse trained him in\nthe Bible; and, though he did not live by it, he\nnever lost his love for it, nor his knowledge of\nit. He tells of his own experience in this way:\n\"I am a great reader of those books [the Bible],\nand had read them through and through before\nI was eight years old; that is to say, the Old\nTestament, for the New struck me as a task,\nbut the other as a pleasure.\"[1] One of the earliest\nbits of his work is a paraphrase of one of the\nPsalms. His physical infirmity put him at odds\nwith the world, while his striking beauty drew\nto him a crowd of admirers who helped to poison\nevery spring of his genius. Even so, he held\nhis love for the Bible. While Shelley often spoke\nof it in contempt, while he prided himself on his\ndivergence from the path of its teaching, Byron\nnever did. He wandered far, but he always\nknew it; and, though he could hardly find terms\nto express his contempt for the Church, there\nis no line of Byron's writing which is a slur\nat the Bible. On the other hand, much of his\nwork reveals a passion for the beauty of it as\nwell as its truth. His most melodious writing\nis in that group of Hebrew melodies which were\nwritten to be sung. They demand far more\nthan a passing knowledge of the Bible both\nfor their writing and their understanding. There\nis a long list of them, but no one without a\nknowledge of the Bible would have known what he\nmeant by his poem, \"The Harp the Monarch\nMinstrel Swept.\" \"Jephtha's Daughter\" presumes\nupon a knowledge of the Old Testament\nstory which would not come to one in a passing\nstudy of the Bible. \"The Song of Saul Before\nhis Last Battle\" and the poem headed \"Saul\"\ncould not have been written, nor can they be read\nintelligently by any one who does not know his\nBible. Among Byron's dramas, two of which\nhe thought most, were, \"Heaven and Earth\"\nand \"Cain.\" When he was accused of perverting\nthe Scripture in \"Cain,\" he replied that he\nhad only taken the Scripture at its face value.\nBoth of the dramas are not only built directly out\nof Scriptural events, but imply a far wider knowledge\nof Scripture than their mere titles suggest.\n\n\n[1] Taine, English Literature, II., 279.\n\n\nThere are striking references in many other\npoems, even in his almost vile poem, \"Don\nJuan.\" The most notable instance is in the\nfifteenth canto, where he is speaking of persecuted\nsages and these lines occur:\n\n \"Was it not so, great Locke? and greater Bacon?\n Great Socrates? And Thou Diviner still,\n Whose lot it is by men to be mistaken,\n And Thy pure creed made sanction of all ill?\n Redeeming worlds to be by bigots shaken,\n How was Thy toil rewarded?\"\n\nIn a note on this passage Byron says: \"As it\nis necessary in these times to avoid ambiguity,\nI say that I mean by 'Diviner still' Christ. If\never God was man--or man God--He was both.\nI never arraigned His creed, but the use or abuse\nof it. Mr. Canning one day quoted Christianity\nto sanction slavery, and Mr. Wilberforce had\nlittle to say in reply. And was Christ crucified\nthat black men might be scourged? If so, He\nhad better been born a mulatto, to give both\ncolors an equal chance of freedom, or at least\nsalvation.\" Byron could live far from the influence\nof the Bible in his personal life; but he\nnever escaped its influence in his literary work.\n\nOf Coleridge less needs to be said, because we\nthink of him so much in terms of his more\nmeditative musings, which are often religious.\nHe himself tells of long and careful rereadings\nof the English Bible until he could say: In the\nBible \"there is more that finds me than I have\nexperienced in all other books together; the\nwords of the Bible find me at greater depths of\nmy being.\" Of course, that would influence his\nwriting, and it did. Even in the \"Rime of the\nAncient Mariner\" much of the phraseology is\nScriptural. When the albatross drew near,\n\n \"As if it had been a Christian soul,\n We hailed it in God's name.\"\n\nWhen the mariner slept he gave praise to Mary,\nQueen of Heaven. He sought the shriving of\nthe hermit-priest. He ends the story because\nhe hears \"the little vesper bell\" which bids him\nto prayer. When you read his \"Hymn Before\nSunrise in the Vale of Chamounix\" you find\nyourself reading the Nineteenth Psalm. He calls\non the motionless torrents and the silent cataracts\nand the great Mont Blanc itself to praise\nGod. Coleridge never had seen Chamounix,\nnor Mont Blanc, nor a glacier, but he knew his\nBible. So he has his Christmas Carol along with\nall the rest. His poem of the Moors after the\nCivil War under Philip II. is Scriptural in its\nphraseology, and so is much else that he wrote.\nFrankly and willingly he yielded to its influence.\nIn his \"Table Talk\" he often refers to the value of\nthe Bible in the forming of literary style. Once\nhe said: \"Intense study of the Bible will keep\nany writer from being vulgar in point of style.\"[1]\n\n\n[1] June 14, 1830.\n\n\nThe very mention of Coleridge makes one\nthink of Wordsworth. They had a Damon and\nPythias friendship. The Wordsworths were\npoor; they had only seventy pounds a year, and\nthey were not ashamed. Coleridge called them\nthe happiest family he ever saw. Wordsworth\nwas not narrowly a Christian poet, he was not\nalways seeking to put Christian dogma into\npoetry, but throughout he was expressing the\nChristian spirit which he had learned from the\nBible. His poetry was one long protest against\nbanishing God from the universe. It was literally\ntrue of him that \"the meanest flower that\ngrows can give thoughts that too often lie too deep\nfor tears.\" If this were the time to be critical,\none would think that too much was sometimes\nmade of very minute occurrences; but this\ntendency to get back of the event and see how\nGod is moving is learned best from Scripture,\nwhere Wordsworth himself learned it. If you\nread his \"Intimations of Immortality,\" or the\n\"Ode to Duty,\" or \"Tintern Abbay,\" or even\nthe rather labored \"Excursion,\" you find yourself\nunder the Scriptural influence.\n\nThere remains in this Georgian group the\ngreat prose master, Walter Scott. Mr. Gladstone\nsaid he thought Scott the greatest of his\ncountrymen. John Morley suggested John Knox\ninstead. Mr. Gladstone replied: \"No, the line\nmust be drawn firmly between the writer and\nthe man of action--no comparison there.\"[1] He\nwent on to say that Burns is very fine and true,\nno doubt, \"but to imagine a whole group of\ncharacters, to marshal them, to set them to\nwork, and to sustain the action, I must count\nthat the test of highest and most diversified\nquality.\" All who are fond of Scott will realize\nhow constantly the scenes which he is describing\ngroup themselves around religious observances,\nhow often men are held in check from deeds of\nviolence by religious conception. Many of these\nscenes crystallize around a Scriptural event.\nScott's boyhood was spent in scenes that\nreminded him of the power the Scripture had.\nHe was drilled from his childhood in the knowledge\nof its words and phrases, and while his\nwriting as a whole shows more of the Old Testament\ninfluence than of the New, even in his style\nhe is strongly under Bible influence.\n\n\n[1] Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. iii, p. 424.\n\n\nThe preface to Guy Mannering tells us it is\nbuilt around an old story of a father putting a\nlad to test under guidance of an ancient astrologer,\nshutting him up in a barren room to be\ntempted by the Evil One, leaving him only one\nsafeguard, a Bible, lying on the table in the\nmiddle of the room. In his introduction to\nThe Heart of Midlothian, Scott makes one of the\ntwo men thrown into the water by the overturned\ncoach remind the other that they \"cannot\ncomplain, like Cowley, that Gideon's fleece\nremains dry while all around is moist; this is\nthe reverse of the miracle.\" A little later a\nspeaker describes novels as the Delilahs that\nseduce wise and good men from more serious\nreading. In the dramatic scene when Jeanie\nDeans faces the wretched George Staunton, who\nhas so shamed the household, she exclaims:\n\"O sir, did the Scripture never come into your\nmind, 'Vengeance is mine, and I will repay\nit?' \" \"Scripture!\" he sneers, \"why I had not\nopened a Bible for five years.\" \"Wae's me,\nsir,\" said Jeanie--\"and a minister's son, too!\"\nAnthony Foster, in Kenilworth, looks down on\npoor Amy's body in the vault into which she\nhas fallen, in response to what she thought was\nLeicester's whistle, and exclaims to Varney:\n\"Oh, if there be judgment in heaven, thou hast\ndeserved it, and will meet it! Thou hast destroyed\nher by means of her best affections--it\nis the seething of the kid in the mother's milk!\"\nAnd when, next morning, Varney was found\ndead of the secret poison and with a sneering\nsarcasm on his ghastly face, Scott dismisses him\nwith the phrase: \"The wicked man, saith the\nScripture, hath no bonds in his death.\"\n\nHis characters use freely the familiar Bible\nevents and phrases. In the Fortunes of Nigel, a\nstory of the very period when our King James\nversion was produced, Hildebrod declares that\nif he had his way Captain Peppercull should\nhang as high as Haman ever did. In Kenilworth,\nwhen Leicester gives Varney his signet-\nring, he says, significantly: \"What thou dost,\ndo quickly.\" Of course, Isaac, the Jew in Ivanhoe,\nexclaims frequently in Old Testament terms.\nHe wishes the wheels of the chariots of his\nenemies may be taken off, like those of the host\nof Pharoah, that they may drive heavily. He\nexpects the Palmer's lance to be as powerful as\nthe rod of Moses, and so on.\n\nScott was writing of the period when men\nstayed themselves with Scripture, and his men\nare all sure of God and Satan and angels and\njudgment and all eternal things. His son-in-\nlaw vouches for the old story that when Sir\nWalter was on his death-bed he asked Lockhart\nto read him something from the Book, and\nwhen Lockhart asked, \"What book?\" Scott replied:\n\"Why do you ask? There is but one\nbook, the Bible.\"\n\nAll this is scant justice to the Georgian group;\nbut it may give a hint of what the Bible meant\neven at that period, the period when its grip\non men was most lax in all the later English\nhistory.\n\n\nIt is in the Victorian age (1840-1900) that the\nfield is most bewildering. It is true, as Frederick\nHarrison says, that \"this Victorian age has no\nShakespeare or Milton, no Bacon or Hume, no\nFielding or Scott--no supreme master in poetry,\nphilosophy, or romance whose work is incorporated\nwith the thought of the world, who is\ndestined to form an epoch, to endure for\ncenturies.\"[1] The genius of the period is more\nscientific than literary, yet we would be helpless\nif we had not already eliminated from our discussion\neverything but the works and writers\nof pure literature. The output of books has been\nso tremendous that it would be impossible to\nanalyze the influences which have made them.\nThere are in this Victorian period at least twelve\ngreat English writers who must be known, whose\nwork affects the current of English literature.\nMany other names would need mention in any\nfull history or any minute study; but it is not\nharsh judgment to say that the main current\nof literature would be the same without them.\nA few of these lesser names will come to mind,\nand in the calling of them one realizes the\ninfluence, even on them, of the English Bible.\nAnthony Trollope wrote sixty volumes, the titles\nof most of which are now popularly unknown.\nHe told George Eliot that it was not brains that\nexplained his writing so much, but rather wax\nwhich he put in the seat of his chair, which held\nhim down to his daily stint of work. He could\nboast, and it was worth the boasting, that he\nhad never written a line which a pure woman\ncould not read without a blush. His whole\nFramley Parsonage series abounds in Bible\nreferences and allusions. So Charlotte Bronte is\nin English literature, and Jane Eyre does prove\nwhat she was meant to prove, that a commonplace\nperson can be made the heroine of a novel;\nbut on all Charlotte Bronte's work is the mark\nof the rectory in which she grew up. So Thomas\nGrey has left his \"Elegy\" and his \"Hymn to\nAdversity,\" and some other writing which most of\nus have forgotten or never knew. Then there\nare Maria Edgeworth and Jane Austen. We\nmay even remember that Macaulay thought\nJane Austen could be compared with Shakespeare,\nas, of course, she can be, since any one\ncan be; but neither of these good women has\nstrongly affected the literary current. Many\nothers could be named, but English literature\nwould be substantially the same without them;\nand, though all might show Biblical influence,\nthey would not illustrate what we are trying to\ndiscover. So we come, without apology to the\nunnamed, to the twelve, without whom English\nliterature would be different. This is the list\nin the order of the alphabet: Matthew Arnold,\nRobert Browning (Mrs. Browning being grouped\nas one with him), Carlyle, Dickens, George Eliot,\nCharles Kingsley, Macaulay, Ruskin, Robert\nLouis Stevenson, Swinburne, Tennyson, and\nThackeray.\n\n\n[1] Early Victorian Literature, p. 9\n\n\nIt is dangerous to make such a list; but it\ncan be defended. Literary history would not\nbe the same without any one of them, unless\npossibly Swinburne, whose claim to place is\nrather by his work as critic than as creator.\nNor is any name omitted whose introduction\nwould change literary history.\n\nBenjamin Jowett thought Arnold too flippant\non religious things to be a real prophet. At any\nrate, this much is true, that the books in which\nArnold dealt with the fundamentals of religion\nare his profoundest work. In his poetry the\nbest piece of the whole is his \"Rugby Chapel.\"\nHis Religion and Dogma he himself calls an \"essay\ntoward a better apprehension of the Bible.\"\nAll through he urges it as the one Book which\nneeds recovery. \"All that the churches can\nsay about the importance of the Bible and its\nreligion we concur in.\" The book throughout\nis an effort to justify his own faith in terms of\nthe Bible. The effort is sometimes amusing,\nbecause it takes such a logical and verbal agility\nto go from one to the other; but he is always\nat it. He is afraid in his soul that England will\nswing away from the Bible. He fears it may\ncome about through neglect of the Bible on one\nhand, or through wrong teaching about it on the\nother. Not in his ideas alone, but markedly in\nhis style, Arnold has felt the Biblical influence.\nHe came at a time when there was strong temptation\nto fall into cumbrous German ways of\nspeech. Against that Arnold set a simple\nphraseology, and he held out the English Bible\nconstantly as a model by which the men of\nEngland ought to learn to write. He never\ngained the simplicity of the old Hebrew sentence,\nand sometimes his secondary clauses follow one\nanother so rapidly that a reader is confused;\nbut his words as a whole are simple and direct.\n\nThere is no need of much word on the spell\nof the Bible over Robert Browning and Mrs.\nBrowning. It is not often that two singing-\nbirds mate; but these two sang in a key pitched\nfor them by the Scripture as much as by any one\ninfluence. Many of their greatest poems have\ndefinite Biblical themes. In them and in others\nBiblical allusions are utterly bewildering to men\nwho do not know the Bible well. For five years\n(1841-1846) Browning's poems appeared under\nthe title Bells and Pomegranates. Scores of\npeople wondered then, and wonder still, what\n\"Pippa Passes\" and \"A Blot in the Scutcheon \"\nand the others have to do with such a title.\nThey have never thought, as Browning did, of\nthe border of the beautiful robe of the high priest\ndescribed in the Book of Exodus. The finest\npoem of its length in the English language is\nBrowning's \"Saul\"; but it is only the story of\nDavid driving the evil spirit from Saul, sweeping\non to the very coming of Christ. \"The Death\nin the Desert\" is the death of John, the beloved\ndisciple. \"Karshish, the Arab Physician\" tells\nin his own way of the raising of Lazarus. The text\nof \"Caliban upon Setebos\" is, \"Thou thoughtest\nthat I was altogether such an one as thyself.\"\nThe text of \"Cleon\" is, \"As certain of your own\npoets have said.\" In \"Fifine at the Fair\" the\nCure expounds the experience of Jacob and his\nstone-pillow with better insight than some better-\nknown expositors show. In \"Pippa Passes,\"\nwhen Bluphocks, the English vagabond, is\nintroduced, Browning seems to justify his appearance\nby the single foot-note: \"He maketh His sun to\nrise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth\nrain on the just and on the unjust\"; and Mr.\nBluphocks shows himself amusingly familiar\nwith Bible facts and phrases. Mr. Sludge, \"the\nMedium,\" thinks the Bible says the stars are\n\"set for signs when we should shear sheep, sow\ncorn, prune trees,\" and describes the skeptic in\nthe magic circle of spiritual \"investigators\" as\nthe \"guest without the wedding-garb, the doubting\nThomas.\" Some one has taken the trouble\nto count five hundred Biblical phrases or allusions\nin \"The Ring and the Book.\" Mrs. Browning's\n\"'Drama of Exile\" is the woman's side of the\nfall of Adam and Eve. Ruskin thought her\n\"Aurora Leigh\" the greatest poem the century\nhad produced at that time. It abounds in\nScriptural allusions. Browning came by all this\nnaturally. Raised in the Church by a father\nwho \"delighted to surround him with books,\nnotably old and rare Bibles,\" and a mother\nCarlyle called \"a true type of a Scottish gentlewoman,\"\nwith all the skill in the Bible that that\nimplies, he never lost his sense of the majesty\nof the movement of Scripture ideas and phrases.\n\nWe need spend little time in discussing the\ninfluence of the English Bible on Thomas Carlyle.\nHe does not often use the Scripture for\nhis main theme; but he is constantly making\nBiblical allusions. On a railway journey when\nI was rereading Carlyle's Historical Sketches, I\nfound a direct Biblical reference for every five\npages, and almost numberless allusions beside.\n\nThe \"Everlasting Yea,\" of which he says\nmuch, he gets, as you at once recognize, from\nthe Scripture. His \"Heroes and Hero Worship\"\nis based on an idea of heroism which he learned\nfrom the Bible. He is an Old Testament prophet\nof present times; and, while he degenerated\ninto a scold before he was through with it, he\nyet spoke with the thunderous voice of a true\nprophet, and much of the time in the language\nof the prophets. Some one said once that the\nonly real reverence Carlyle ever had was for\nthe person of Christ. Certainly there is no note\nof sneer, but of the profoundest regard for the\nteaching, the ideas and the history of the Scripture.\n\nThe name of Charles Dickens suggests a\ndifferent atmosphere. He is a New Testament\nprophet. Where Carlyle has caught the spirit\nof rugged power in the Old Testament, Dickens\nhas caught the sense of kindly love in the New\nTestament. Dickens's love for the child, the\nfact that he could draw children as he could draw\nno one else and make them lovable, suggests the\nvalue to him of those frequent references which\nhe makes to Christ setting a child in the midst\nof the disciples. It is notable, too, how often\nDickens uses the great Scripture phrases for his\nmost dramatic climaxes. There are not in literature\nmany finer uses of Scripture than the scene\nin Bleak House, where the poor waif Joe is dying,\nand while his friend teaches him the Lord's\nPrayer he sees the light coming. A Christmas\nseason without Dickens's Christmas Carol would\nbe incomplete; but there again is the Scripture\nidea pressed forward.\n\nGeorge Eliot surely, if any writer, was under\nthe spell of the Scripture. One of her critics\ncalls her the historian of conscience. All of her\nheroes and heroines know the lash of the law.\nShe knows very little about the New Testament,\none would judge; but the one thing about which\nshe has no doubt is certainly the reign of moral\nlaw. If a man will not yield to its power, it will\nbreak him. There is no such thing as breaking\nthe moral law; there is nothing but being broken\nby it. Her characters are always quoting the\nBible. They preach a great deal. She tells\nthat she herself wrote Dinah Morris's sermon on\nthe green with tears in her eyes. She meant it\nall. While her own religious faith was clouded,\nher finest characters are never clouded in their\nreligious faith, and she grounds their faith quite\ninvariably on their early training in the Scripture.\nIt is an interesting fact that George Eliot\nhas no principal story which has not in it a\nchurch, and a priest or a preacher, with all that\nthey involve.\n\nCharles Kingsley is grouped hardly fairly in\nthis list, because he was himself a preacher, and\nnaturally all his work would feel the power of\nthe Book, which he chiefly studied. Professor\nMasson says that \"there is not one of his novels\nwhich has not the power of Christianity for its\ntheme.\" No voice was raised more effectively\nfor the beginning of the new social era in England\nthan his. Alton Locke and Yeast are epoch-\nmaking books in the life of the common people\nof England. Even Hypatia, which is supposed\nto have been written to represent entirely pagan\nsurroundings, is full of Bible phrases and\nideas.\n\nLord Macaulay had been held up for many a\nday as one of the masters of style. Such great\nwriting is not to be traced to any one influence.\nIt could not have been easy to write as Macaulay\nwrote. Thackeray may have exaggerated\nin saying that Macaulay read twenty books to\nwrite a sentence, and traveled a hundred miles\nto make a description; but all his writing shows\nthe power of taking infinite pains. It becomes\nthe more important, therefore, that Macaulay\nheld the Bible in such estimate as he did. \"In\ncalling upon Lady Holland one day, Lord\nMacaulay was led to bring the attention of his\nfair hostess to the fact that the use of the word\n'talent' to mean gifts or powers of the mind,\nas when we speak of men of talent, came from\nthe use of the word in Christ's parable of the\ntalents. In a letter to his sister Hannah he describes\nthe incident, and says that Lady Holland\nwas evidently ignorant of the parable. 'I\ndid not tell her,' he adds, 'though I might have\ndone so, that a person who professes to be a\ncritic in the delicacies of the English language\nought to have the Bible at his fingers' ends.' \"\nThat Macaulay practised his own preaching you\nwould quickly find by referring to his essays.\nTake three sentences from the Essay on Milton:\n\"The principles of liberty were the scoff of every\ngrowing courtier, and the Anathema Maranatha\nof every fawning dean. In every high place\nworship was paid to Charles and James, Belial\nand Moloch, and England propitiated these obscene\nand cruel idols with the blood of her best\nand brightest children. Crime succeeded to\ncrime, and disgrace to disgrace, until the race,\naccursed of God and man, was a second time\ndriven forth to wander on the face of the earth\nand to be a by-word and a shaking of the head\nto the nations.\" In three sentences here are\nsix allusions to Scripture. In that same essay,\nin the paragraphs on the Puritans, the allusions\nare a multitude. They are not even quoted.\nThey are taken for granted. In his Essay on\nMachiavelli, though the subject does not suggest\nit, he falls into Scriptural phrases over and\nover. Listen to this, \"A time was at hand when\nall the seven vials of the Apocalypse were to be\npoured forth and shaken out over those pleasant\ncountries\"; or this, \"All the curses pronounced\nof old against Tyre seemed to have\nfallen on Venice. Her merchants already stood\nafar off lamenting for their great city\"; or this,\n\"In the energetic language of the prophet,\nMachiavelli was mad for the sight of his eyes\nwhich he saw.\"\n\nAnd if Macaulay is baffling in the abundance\nof material, surely John Ruskin is worse. Carlyle's\nEnglish style ran into excess of roughness;\nMacaulay's ran into excess of balance and delicacy.\nJohn Ruskin's continued to be the smoothest,\neasiest style in our English literature. He\nalso was a Hebraic spirit, but of the gentler type.\nMr. Chapman calls him the Elisha to Carlyle's,\nElijah, a capital comparison.[1] Ruskin is one of\nthe few writers who have told us what formed\ntheir style. In the first chapter of Praeterita he\npays tribute to his mother. He himself chose\nto read Walter Scott and Pope's Homer; but he\nsays: \"My mother forced me by steady daily\ntoil to learn long chapters of the Bible by heart,\nas well as to read it, every syllable aloud, hard\nnames and all, from Genesis to the Apocalypse\nabout once a year; and to that discipline--\npatient, accurate, and resolute--I owe not only\na knowledge of the Book which I find occasionally\nserviceable, but much of my general power\nof taking pains and the best part of my taste\nin literature.\" He thinks reading Scott might\nhave led to other novels of a poorer sort.\nReading Pope might have led to Johnson's\nor Gibbon's English; but \"it was impossible\nto write entirely superficial and formal English\"\nwhile he knew \"by heart the thirty-\nsecond of Deuteronomy, the fifteenth of I\nCorinthians, the One hundred and nineteenth\nPsalm, or the Sermon on the Mount.\" In the\nsecond chapter of Praeterita he is even more\nexplicit. \"I have next with deeper gratitude to\nchronicle what I owed to my mother for the resolute\npersistent lessons which so exercised me in\nthe Scripture, as to make every word of them\nfamiliar in my ear as habitual music, yet in that\nfamiliarity reverenced as transcending all thought\nand ordering all conduct.\" He tells how his\nmother drilled him. As soon as he could read\nshe began a course of Bible work with him.\nThey read alternate verses from the Genesis to\nthe Revelation, names and all. Daily he had to\ncommit verses of the Scripture. He hated the\nOne hundred and nineteenth Psalm most; but\nhe lived to cherish it most. In his old Bible he\nfound the list of twenty-six chapters taught by\nhis mother.\n\n\n[1] English Literature in Account with Religion.\n\n\nNot only was Ruskin well trained in the Bible,\nbut he was a great teacher of it. In his preface\nto the Crown of Wild Olives he answers his critics\nby saying he has used the Book for some forty\nyears. \"My endeavor has been uniformly to\nmake men read it more deeply than they do;\ntrust it, not in their own favorite verses only,\nbut in the sum of it all; treat it not as a fetish\nor a talisman which they are to be saved by daily\nrepetition of, but as a Captain's order, to be held\nand obeyed at their peril.\" In the introduction\nto the Seven Lamps of Architecture he urges that\nwe are in no danger of too much use of the Bible.\n\"We use it most reverently when most habitually.\"\nMany of Ruskin's most striking titles\ncome straight out of the Scripture. Crown of\nWild Olives, Seven Lamps, Unto this Last--all\nthese are suggested by the Bible.\n\nIt is almost superfluous to speak of Robert\nLouis Stevenson. John Kelman has written a\nwhole book on the religion of Stevenson, and it\nis available for all readers. He was raised by\nCummy, his nurse, whose library was chiefly the\nBible, the shorter catechism, and the Life of\nRobert Murray McCheyne. He said that the\nfifty-eighth chapter of Isaiah was his special\nchapter, because it so repudiated cant and demanded\na self-denying beneficence. He loved\nBunyan's Pilgrim's Progress; but \"the Bible\nmost stood him in hand.\" Every great story\nor essay shows its influence. He was not critical\nwith it; he did not understand it; he did not\ninterpret it fairly; but he felt it. His Dr. Jekyll\nand Mr. Hyde is only his way of putting into\nmodern speech Paul's old distinction between\nthe two men who abide in each of us. They\ntold him he ought not to work in Samoa, and he\nreplied that he could not otherwise be true to\nthe great Book by which he and all men who\nmeant to do great work must live. Over the\nshoulder of our beloved Robert Louis Stevenson\nyou can see the great characters of Scripture\npressing him forward to his best work.\n\nNot so much can be said of Swinburne. There\nwas a strong infusion of acid in his nature, which\nno influence entirely destroyed. He is apt to\nlive as a literary critic and essayist, though he\nsupposed himself chiefly a poet. His own\nthought of poetry can be seen in his protest\nin behalf of Meredith. When he had been accused\nof writing on a subject on which he had\nno conviction to express (\"Modern Love\"), Swinburne\ndenied that poets ought to preach anyway.\n\"There are pulpits enough for all preachers\nof prose, and the business of verse writing\nis hardly to express convictions.\" Yet it is\nimpossible to forget Milton and his purpose to\n\"assert Eternal Providence, and justify the ways\nof God to men.\" Naturally, most poets do\npreach and preach well. Wordsworth declared\nbe wanted to be considered a teacher or nothing.\nMrs. Browning thought that poets were the only\ntruth-tellers left to God. But Swinburne could\nnot help a little preaching at any rate. His\n\"Masque on Queen Bersaba\" is an old miracle\nplay of David and Nathan. His \"Christmas\nAntiphones\" are hardly Christian, though they\nare abundant in their allusions to Scripture.\nThe first is a prayer for peace and rest in the\ncoming of the new day of the birth of Christ.\nThe second is a protest that neither God nor\nman has befriended man as he should, and the\nthird is an assurance that men will do for man\neven if God will not. Now, that is not Christian,\nbut the Bible phrases are all through it.\nSo when he writes his poem bemoaning Poland,\nhe needs must head it \"Rizpah.\" At the same\ntime it must be said that Swinburne shows less\nof the influence of the Bible in his style and\nin his spirit than any other of our great English\nwriters.\n\nWe come back again into the atmosphere of\nstrong Bible influence when we name Alfred\nTennyson. When Byron died, and the word\ncame to his father's rectory at Somersby, young\nAlfred Tennyson felt that the sun had fallen\nfrom the heavens. He went out alone in the\nfields and carved in the sandstone, as though it\nwere a monument: \"Byron is dead.\" That was\nin the early stage of his poetical life. At first\nCarlyle could not abide Tennyson. He counted\nhim only an echo of the past, with no sense for\nthe future; but when he read Tennyson's \"The\nRevenge,\" he exclaimed, \"Eh, he's got the\ngrip o' it\"; and when Richard Monckton Milnes\nexcused himself for not getting Tennyson a\npension by saying his constituents had no use\nfor poetry anyway, Carlyle said, \"Richard\nMilnes, in the day of judgment when you are\nasked why you did not get that pension, you\nmay lay the blame on your constituents, but it\nwill be you who will be damned!\" Dr. Henry van\nDyke studied Tennyson to best effect at just\nthis point. In his chapter on \"The Bible in\nTennyson\" are many such sayings as these: \"It\nis safe to say that there is no other book which\nhas had so great an influence upon the literature\nof the world as the Bible. We hear the echoes\nof its speech everywhere, and the music of its\nfamiliar phrases haunts all the field and grove\nof our fine literature. At least one cause of his\npopularity is that there is so much Bible in\nTennyson. We cannot help seeing that the poet\nowes a large debt to the Christian Scriptures, not\nonly for their formative influence on his mind\nand for the purely literary material in the way\nof illustrations and allusions which they have\ngiven him, but also for the creation of a moral\natmosphere, a medium of thought and feeling\nin which he can speak freely and with an assurance\nof sympathy to a very wide circle of\nreaders.\"\n\nI need not stop to indicate the great poems\nin which Tennyson has so often used Scripture.\nThe mind runs quickly to the little maid in\n\"Guinevere,\" whose song, \"Late, Late, so Late,\"\nis only a paraphrase of the parable of the\nfoolish virgins. \"In Memoriam\" came into the\nskeptical era of England, with its new challenge\nto faith, and stopped the drift of young men\ntoward materialism. Recall the fine use he\nmakes, in the heart of it, of the resurrection of\nLazarus, and other Biblical scenes. Dr. van\nDyke's \"four hundred direct references to the\nBible\" do not exhaust the poems. No one can\nget Tennyson's style without the English Bible,\nand no one can read Tennyson intelligently\nwithout a fairly accurate knowledge of the Bible.\n\nIn this Victorian group the last name is\nThackeray's. He is another whose mother\ntrained him in the English Bible. The title of\nVanity Fair is from Pilgrim's Progress, but the\nmotto is from the Scripture; and he wrote his\nmother regarding the book: \"What I want is\nto make a set of people living without God in\nthe world (only that is a cant phrase.)\" It is\ncertain his mother did not count it a cant phrase,\nfor he learned it from the Scripture. The subtitle\nof his Adventures of Philip says he is to show\nwho robbed him, who helped him, and who\npassed him by. Thackeray got those expressions\nfrom the Bible. Somewhere very early in any\nof his works he reveals the influence of his\nchildhood and manhood knowledge of the English\nBible.\n\nAll this about the Victorian group is meant\nto be very familiar to any who are fresh from\nthe reading of literature. They are great\nnames, and they have differences as wide as the\npoles; but they have this in common, that they\nhave drunk lightly or deeply from the same\nfountain; they have drawn from it ideas, allusions,\nliterary style. Each of them has weakened\nas he has gotten farther from it, and\nloyalty to it has strengthened any one of them.\n\n\nTurn now to the American group of writers.\nIf we except theological writers with Jonathan\nEdwards, Horace Bushnell, Henry Ward Beecher,\nand their like, and political writers with Jefferson,\nWebster, and their like, the list need not\nbe a long one. Only one writer in our narrower\nsense of literature must be named in the earlier\nday--Benjamin Franklin. In the period before\nthe Civil War must be named Edgar Allan Poe\n(died 1849) and Washington Irving (died 1859).\nThe Civil War group is the large one, and its\nnames are those of the later group as well. Let\nthem be alphabetical, for convenience: William\nCullen Bryant, poet and critic; George William\nCurtis, essayist and editor; Emerson, our\nnoblest name in the sphere of pure essay literature;\nHawthorne, the novelist of conscience, as\nSocrates was its philosopher; Oliver Wendell\nHolmes, whose \"two chief hatreds were orthodoxy\nin religion and heterodoxy in medicine\";\nJames Russell Lowell, essayist and poet, apt to\nlive by his essays rather than by his poetry;\nLongfellow, whose \"Psalm of Life\" and \"Hiawatha\"\nhave lived through as much parody and\nridicule as any two bits of literature extant,\nand have lived because they are predestined\nto live; Thoreau, whose Walden may show, as\nLowell said, how much can be done on little\ncapital, but which has the real literary tang to it;\nand Whittier, whose poetry is sung the world\naround.\n\nThat makes only twelve names from Franklin\nto Whittier. Others could be included; but\nthey are not so great as these. No one of these\ncould be taken out of our literature without\naffecting it and, in some degree at least, changing\nthe current of it. This is not to forget\nBret Harte nor Samuel L. Clemens. But each\nis dependent for his survival on a taste for a\ncertain kind of humor, not delicate like Irving's\nand Holmes's, but strong and sudden and a bit\nsharp. If we should forget the \"Luck of Roaring\nCamp,\" \"Truthful James,\" and the \"Heathen\nChinee,\" we would also forget Bret Harte. We\nare not apt to forget Tom Sawyer, nor perhaps\nThe Innocents Abroad, but we are forgetting much\nelse of Mark Twain. Whitman is not named.\nHis claims are familiar, but in spite of his admirers\nhe seems so charged with a sensuous egotism\nthat he is not apt to be a formative influence in\nliterary history. It is still interesting, however,\nto remember how frequently he reveals his reading\nof Scripture.\n\nFortunately, all these writers are so near, and\ntheir work is so familiar, that details regarding\nthem are not needed. Two or three general\nwords can be said. In the first place, observe\nthe high moral tone of all these first-grade\nwriters, and, indeed, of the others who may be\nspoken of as in second rank. There is not a\nmeretricious or humiliating book in the whole\ncollection. There is not one book which has\nlived in American literature which has the tone\nof Fielding's Tom Jones. Whether it is that the\nPuritan strain continues in us or not, it is true\nthat the American literary public has not taken\nhappily to stories that would bring a blush in\npublic reading. Professor Richardson, of Dartmouth,\ngives some clue to the reason of that.\nHe says that \"since 1870 or 1880 in America\nthere has been a marked increase of strength\nof theistic and spiritual belief and argument\namong scientific men, students of philosophy,\nreligious 'radicals,' and others.\" He adds that\nwhile much contemporary American literature\nand thought is outside the accepted orthodox\nlines, yet \"it is not hostile to Christianity; to\nthe principles of its Founder it is for the most\npart sincerely attached. On the other hand,\nmaterialism has scarcely any hold upon it.\"\nThen follows a very notable sentence which is\nsustained by the facts: \"Not an American book\nof the first class has ever been written by an\natheist or denier of immortality.\" That sentence\nneed not offend an admirer of Walt Whitman,\nfor he \"accepts both theism and the doctrine\nof the future life.\" American thought has\nremained loyal to the great Trinity, God, Freedom,\nand Immortality. So it comes about that\nwhile there are a number of these writers who\ncould be put under the ban of the strongly\northodox in religion, every one of them shows\nthe effect of early training in religion and in\nthe Scripture.[1]\n\n\n[1] This is fully worked out in Professor Richardson's American\nLiterature, with ample illustration and argument.\n\n\nAnother thing to be said is that America has a\nunique history among great nations in that it\nhas never been affected by any great religious\ninfluence except that which has issued from the\nScriptures. No religion has ever been influential\nin America except Christianity. For many\nyears there have been sporadic and spasmodic\nefforts to extend the influence of Buddhism or\nother Indian cults. They have never been successful,\nbecause the American spirit is practical,\nand not meditative. We are not an introspective\npeople. We do not look within ourselves\nfor our religion. Whatever moral and religious\ninfluence our literature shows gets back first or\nlast to our Scriptures. The point of view of\nnature that is taken by our writers like Bryant\nand Thoreau is that of the Nineteenth Psalm.\nMoreover, we have been strongly under the\nEnglish influence. Irving insisted that we ought\nto be, that we were a young nation, that we\nought frankly to follow the leadership of more\nexperienced writers. Longfellow thought we\nhad gone too far that way, and that our poets, at\nleast, ought to be more independent, ought to\nwrite in the spirit of America and not of traditional\npoetry. Whether we ought to have yielded\nto it or not, it is true that English influence\nhas told very strongly upon us, and the writers\nwho have influenced our writers most have been\nthose whom we have named as being themselves\nunder the Bible influence.\n\nWe need not go into detail about these writers,\nthough they are most attractive. Bryant did\nfor us what Wordsworth did for England. He\nmade nature seem vocal. \"Thanatopsis\" is not\na Christian poem in the narrow sense of the\nword, and yet it could hardly have been written\nexcept under Christian influence. His own genial,\nbeautiful character was itself a tribute to\nChristian civilization, and his life, as critic and\nessayist, has left an impression which we shall\nnot soon lose. Professor Richardson thinks\nthat the three problematical characters in American\nliterature are Emerson, Hawthorne, and\nPoe. The shrewdest estimate of Poe that has\never been given us is in Lowell's Fable for Critics:\n\n \"There comes Poe with his raven like Barnaby\n     Rudge,\n Three-fifths of him genius, and two-fifths sheer\n     fudge,\n Who has written some things quite the best of\n     their kind,\n But the heart somehow seems all squeezed out by\n     the mind.\"\n\nThat says it exactly. Poe knew many horrible\nsituations, but he did not know the way out;\nand of all our American writers laying claim to\nplace in the first class Poe shows least influence\nof the Bible, and apparently needs it most.\n\nIrving was the first American writer who\nstood high enough to be seen across the water.\nThackeray's most beautiful essay is on Irving and\nMacaulay, who died just one month apart. In\nit he describes Irving as the best intermediary\nbetween the nations, telling us Americans that\nthe English are still human, and assuring the\nEnglish that Americans are already human.\nIrving was trained early and thoroughly in the\nBible. All his life he was an old-fashioned\nEpiscopalian with no concern for new religious\nideas and with no rough edges anywhere.\nCharles Dudley Warner, speaking of Irving's\nmoral quality, says: \"I cannot bring myself to\nexclude it from a literary estimate, even in the\nface of the current gospel of art for art's sake.\"[1]\nLike Scott, he \"recognized the abiding value\nin literature of integrity, sincerity, purity, charity,\nfaith. These are beneficences, and Irving's\nliterature, walk around it and measure it by\nwhatever critical instruments you will, is a\nbeneficent literature.\"\n\n\n[1] American Men of Letters Series, Washington Irving, p. 302.\n\n\nThen there is Emerson, a son of the manse\nand once a minister himself. He was, therefore,\nperfectly familiar with the English Bible. He\ndid not accept it in all its religious teaching.\nIndeed, we have never had a more marked\nindividualist in our American public life than\nEmerson. At every point he was simply himself.\nThere is very little quotation in his writing,\nvery little visible influence of any one else.\nHe was not a follower of Carlyle, though he was\nhis friend. If there is any precedent for the\nconstruction of his sentences, and even of his\nessays, it is to be found in the Hebrew prophets.\nAs some one puts it, \"he uttered sayings.\" In\nmany of his essays there is no particular reason\nwhy the paragraphs should run one, two, three,\nand not three, two, one, or two, one, three, or\nin any other order. But Mr. Emerson was just\nhimself. It is yet true that \"his value for the\nworld at large lies in the fact that after all he\nis incurably religious.\" It is true that he could\nnot see any importance in forms, or in ordinary\ndeclarations of faith. \"He would fight no battle\nfor prelacy, nor for the Westminster confession,\nnor for the Trinity, but as against atheism,\npessimism, and materialism, he was an ally of\nChristianity.\" The influence of the Bible on\nEmerson is more marked in his spirit than in\nanything else. Once in a while, as in that familiar\naddress at Concord (1873), you run across\nScripture phrases: \"Shall not they who receive\nthe largest streams spread abroad the healing\nwaters?\" That figure appears in literature only\nin the Bible, and there are others like it in his\nwritings.\n\n\nAs for Longfellow, he is shot through with\nScripture. No man who did not know Scripture\nin more than a passing way could have written\nsuch a sentence as this: \"There are times when\nthe grasshopper is a burden, and thirsty with the\nheat of labor the spirit longs for the waters of\nShiloah, that go softly.\" There are two strikingly\nbeautiful expressions from Scripture. Take\nanother familiar saying in the same essay when\nhe says the prospect for poetry is brightening,\nsince but a short time ago not a poet \"moved\nthe wing or opened the mouth or peeped.\" He\ndid not run across that in general current writing.\nHe got that directly from the Bible. In\nhis poems is an amazing amount of reference\nto the Bible. One would expect much in the\n\"Courtship of Miles Standish,\" for that is a\nstory of the Puritans, and they spoke, naturally,\nin terms of the Bible; yet, of course, they could\nnot do it in Longfellow's poem, if Longfellow\ndid not know the language of the Bible very well.\nOne might not expect to find it so much in\n\"Evangeline,\" but it is there from beginning to\nend. In \"Acadia,\" the cock crowed\n\n               \"With the self-same\n Voice that in ages of old had startled the penitent\n     Peter.\"\n\nAnd,\n               \"Wild with the winds of September,\n Wrestled the trees of the forest, as Jacob of old\n     with the angel.\"\n\nEvangeline saw the moon pass\n\n Forth from the folds of the cloud, and one star\n     followed her footsteps,\n As out of Abraham's tent young Ishmael\n Wandered with Hagar.\"\n\nThere is a great deal of that sort of thing in his\nwriting. He has done for many what he did\nfor Lowell one day. Discouraged in settling\nthe form of a new edition of his own poems,\nLowell took up a volume of Longfellow just to\nsee the type, and presently found that he had\nbeen reading two hours. He wrote Longfellow\nhe could understand his popularity, saying:\n\"You sang me out of all my worries.\" That is\na great thing to do, and Longfellow learned from\nthe Scripture how to do that in the \"Psalm of\nLife\" and all his other poems.\n\nWe need only a word about Lowell himself.\nHe was the son of a minister, and so knew the\nBible from his infancy. He belonged to the\nBrahman caste himself, but a good deal of the\nruggedness of the Old Testament got into his\nwriting. It is in \"The Vision of Sir Launfal.\"\nIt is in his plea for international copyright where\nthe familiar lines occur:\n\n \"In vain we call old notions fudge,\n And bend our conscience to our dealing,\n The Ten Commandments will not budge,\n And stealing will continue stealing.\"\n\nThere is hint of it in his quizzical lines about\nhimself in the Fable for Critics. He says that\nhe is in danger of rattling away\n\n \"Until he is as old as Methusalem,\n At the head of the march to the last New Jerusalem.\"\n\n\nWhittier needs no words of ours. His hymns\nare part of our religious equipment. \"Snowbound\"\nand all the rest of the beautiful, quiet,\nQuaker-like writing of this beloved poet are\namong our national assets. We join in his sorrow\nas he writes the doom of Webster and his\nfame, and we do not wonder that he chose for\nit the Scriptural title \"Ichabod.\"\n\nWhatever is to be said about an individual\nhere or there, it is true that great American\nliterature shows the influence of the Bible. Like\neverything else in America, it has been founded\non a religious purpose. Writers in all lines have\nbeen trained in the Bible. If they feel any\nreligious influence at all, it is the Bible influence.\n\nThis has been a long journey from Shakespeare\nto Whittier, and it leaves untouched the\ngreat field of present-day writers. Let the\nunstarred names wait their time. Among them\nare many who can say in their way what Hall\nCaine has said of himself: \"I think I know my\nBible as few literary men know it. There is no\nbook in the world like it, and the finest novels\never written fall far short in interest of any one\nof the stories it tells. Whatever strong situations\nI have in my books are not of my creation,\nbut are taken from the Bible. The Deemster is\na story of the Prodigal Son. The Bondman is\nthe story of Esau and Jacob. The Scapegoat is\nthe story of Eli and his sons, but with Samuel\nas a little girl; and The Manxman is the story of\nDavid and Uriah.\" Take up any of the novels\nof the day, even the poorer ones, but notably\nthe better ones, and see how uniformly they show\nthe Scriptural influence in material, in idea, and\nin spirit. What the literature of the future will\nbe no one can say. This much is as sure as any\nfact in literary history, that the English Bible\nis part of the very fiber of great literature from\nthe day it first appeared in our tongue to this\nhour.\n\n\n\nLECTURE V\n\nTHE KING JAMES VERSION--ITS INFLUENCE ON\nENGLISH AND AMERICAN HISTORY\n\nTHE King James version of the Bible is\nonly a book. What can a book do in history?\nWell, whatever the reason, books have\nplayed a large part in the movements of men,\nspecially of modern men.\n\nThey have markedly influenced the opinion\nof men about the past. It is commonly said that\nHume's History of England, defective as it is,\nhas yet \"by its method revolutionized the writing\nof history,\" and that is true. Nearer our\nown time, Carlyle's Life of Cromwell reversed the\njudgment of history on Cromwell, gave all\nreaders of history a new conception of him and\nhis times and of the movement of which he\nwas the life. After the Restoration none were\nso poor as to do Cromwell reverence until Carlyle's\nBOOK gave him anew to the world.\n\nThere are instances squarely in our own time\nby which their mighty influence may be tested.\nThey are of books of almost ephemeral value\nsave for the student of history. As literature\nthey will be quickly forgotten; but as FORCES\nthey must be reckoned with. There is Uncle\nTom's Cabin. It would be absurd to say that\nit brought the American Civil War, or freed\nthe negroes, or saved the Union. It did none\nof those great things. Yet it is not at all absurd\nto name it among the potent powers in all\nthree. It is not to our purpose whether it is\ntrue or not as a statement of the whole fact.\nDoubtless it was not true of the general and\ncommon circumstances of Southern slavery; but\neverything in it was possible, and even frequent\nenough so that it could not be questioned. It\npretended no more. But its influence was simply\ntremendous. In book form it became available\nin 1852, and within three years, 1855, it\nwas common property of English-speaking people.\nNo other book ever produced so extraordinary\nan effect so quickly in the public mind.[1]\nIt held up slavery to judgment. It crystallized\nthe thoughts of common people. The work of\nthose strenuous years in the '60's could not have\nbeen done without the result of that book. It\nmade history. Come nearer our own day. We\ncould not be long in London without feeling\nthe concern of the better people for conditions\nin the East End. A new social impulse has\nseized them. To be sure, it lacks much yet of\nsuccess; but more has been done than most\npeople realize. The new movement, the awakening\nof that social sense, traces back to the book\nof Gen. William Booth, In Darkest England\n(1890). It has helped to change the life of a\nlarge part of London.\n\n\n[1] Rhodes, History of the United States, vol. i, pp. 185-303.\n\n\nOn this side, the new concern for city conditions\ndates from the book of a newspaper reporter,\nJacob A. Riis, How the Other Half Lives.\nIt thrust the Other Half into such prominence\nthat it has never been possible to forget it.\nMarked advance in all American cities, in legislation\nand life, goes straight back to it. Name\none other book still in the field of social service,\neven so unpleasant, so terrible, so obnoxious a\nbook as Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. It started\nand sustained movements which have unsettled\nbusiness and political life ever since it appeared.\nIt made some conditions vivid, unescapable.\n\nDo not misunderstand the argument. No\nman can tell what will be said in the histories\na century from now about these lesser books.\nWe can never go beyond guesses as to the whole\ncause of any chain of events.[1] As time passes,\nincidental elements in the causes gradually sink\nout of sight and a few great forces take the\nwhole horizon. Whatever the histories a century\nfrom now say about the relative place of\nsuch books as we have named, it is certain that\nthey have influenced the movements mightily.\nThe literary histories will say nothing at all\nabout them. They are not great literature, but\nthey were born of a passion of the times and\nvoiced and aroused it anew.\n\n\n[1] MacPhail, Essays on Puritanism, p. 278.\n\n\nWhen, therefore, it is urged that the English\nBible has influenced history, it is not making an\nundue claim for it. When it is further urged\nthat of all books in English literature it has been\nmost influential, it has most made history, it\nhas most determined great movements, the\nargument only claims for it the highest place\namong books.\n\nAnd it would not be surprising if it should\nhave such influence. It is the one great piece\nof English literature which is universal property.\nSince the day it was published it has been kept\navailable for everybody. No other book has\never had its chance. English-speaking people\nhave always been essentially religious. They\nhave always had a profound regard for the terms,\nthe institutions, the purposes of religion. Partly\nthat has been maintained by the Bible; but the\nBible in its turn has been maintained by it. So\nit has come about that English-speaking people,\nthough they have many books, are essentially\npeople of one Book. Wherever they are, the\nBible is. Queen Victoria has it near by when the\nmessenger from the Orient appears, and lays her\nhand upon it to say that this is the foundation\nof the prosperity of England. But the poor\nhousewife in the cottage, with only a crust for\nfood, stays her soul with it. The Puritan creeps\ninto hiding with the Book, while his brother sails\naway to the new land with the Book. The settler\nmay have his Shakespeare; he will surely\nhave his Bible. As the long wagon-train creeps\nacross the plain to seek the Western shore, there\nmay be no other book in all the train; but the\nBible will be there. Find any settlement of\nmen who speak the English tongue, wherever\nthey make their home, and the Bible is among\nthem. When did any book have such a chance\nto influence men? It is the one undisturbed\nheritage of all who speak the English tongue. It\nbinds the daughter and the mother country together,\nand gathers into the same bond the scattered\nremnants of the English-speaking race the\nworld around. Its language is the one speech\nthey all understand. Strange it would be if it\nhad not a profound influence upon history!\n\nAnother fact that has helped to give the Bible\nits great influence is the power of the preaching\nit has inspired. The periods of greatest preaching\nhave always been the periods of freest access\nto the Bible. No one can overlook the immense\npower of the sermons of history. There have\nbeen poor, inept, banal expositors, doubtless;\nbut even they turned men's minds to the Bible.\nReading the Bible makes men thinkers, and so\nmakes preachers inevitably. Witness the Scotch.\nJames was raised in Scotland and believed in\nthe power of preaching. At one time he wanted\nto settle endowments for the maintenance of\npreaching under government control. But Archbishop\nWhitgift convinced him that much preaching\nwas \"an innovation and dangerous,\" since it\nis quite impossible to control a man's mouth\nonce it is given a public chance. Under Charles\nI. the sermon was mighty in the service of the\nPuritans until it was suppressed or restricted.\nThen men became lecturers and expounded the\nBible or taught religious truth in public or private.\nRich men engaged private chaplains since\npublic meetings could not be held. Somehow\nthey taught the Bible still. Archbishop Laud\nforbade both. Yet the leaven worked the more\nfor its restriction. At least one good cook I\nknow says that if you want your dough to rise\nand the yeast to work, you must cover it. Laud\ndid not want it to rise, but he made the mistake\nof covering it.\n\nThere has never been a book which has provoked\nsuch incessant preaching and discussion\nas has the Bible. The believers in the Koran\nteach it as it is, word for word. Believers in the\nBible have never stopped with that. They\nhave always tried to come together and hear it\nexpounded. Such gatherings and such constant\npressure of the Book on groups of hearers would\ninevitably give the Bible great influence. When\nit is remembered that in America alone there\nare each week approximately four hundred thousand\ngatherings of people which have for their\navowed purpose instruction or inspiration in\nreligion, and that the instruction and inspiration\nare professedly and openly drawn from the Bible,\nthat more than three hundred thousand sermons\nare preached every week from it and passages\nof it read in all the gatherings, it appears that the\nBible had and still has such a chance to influence\nlife as no other book has had. President Schurman\ntraces a large part of our own stronger\nAmerican life to the educative power of our\nSundays. But central in the education of those\ndays is now, and has been from the first of our\nnational history, the English Bible.\n\nThe influence of the Bible comes also from\nthe fact that it makes its chief appeal to the\ndeeper elements in life. \"Human history in its\nreal character is not an account of kings and of\nwars; it is the unfolding of the moral, the political,\nthe artistic, the social, and the spiritual\nprogress of the human family. The time will\nyet come when the names of dynasties and of\nbattles shall not form the titles of its chapters.\nThe truths revealed in the Bible have been the\ntouchstone which has tried men's spirits.\"[1]\n\n\n[1] H. B. Smith, Faith and Philosophy, p. 54.\n\n\nThose words go to the heart of the fact. The\ninfluence of the English Bible on English-\nspeaking history for the last three hundred\nyears is only the influence of its fundamental\ntruths. It has moved with tremendous impact\non the wills of men. It has made the great\nhuman ideals clear and definite; it has made\nthem beautiful and attractive; but that has not\nbeen enough. It has reached also the springs of\naction. It has given men a sense of need and\nalso a sense of strength, a sense of outrage and a\nsense of power to correct the wrong. There it\nhas differed from most books. Frederick Robertson\nsaid that he read only books with iron in\nthem, and, as he read, their atoms of iron entered\nthe blood, and it ran more red for them.\nThere is iron in this Book, and it has entered\nthe blood of the human race. Where it has\nentered most freely, the red has deepened; and\nnowhere has it deepened more than in our\nEnglish-speaking races. The iron of our blood\nis from this King James version.\n\nBismarck explained the victories of the Germans\nover the French by the fact that from\nchildhood the Germans had been trained in the\nsense of duty, as the French had not been trained,\nand as soldiers had learned to feel that nothing\ncould escape the Eye which ever watched their\ncourse. They learned that, Bismarck said, from\nthe religion which they had been taught. There\nis no mistaking the power of religion in rousing\nand sharpening the sense of duty. Webster\nspoke for the English-speaking races, and found\nhis phrases in the Bible, when he said that this\nsense \"pursues us ever. It is omnipresent like\nthe Deity. If we take to ourselves the wings\nof the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts\nof the sea, duty performed or duty violated is\nstill with us for our happiness or our misery.\nIf we say the darkness shall cover us, in the\ndarkness as in the light our obligations are yet\nwith us. We cannot escape from their power or\nfly from their presence.\" It is religion which\nmakes that sense of duty keen; and, whatever\nreligion has done among English-speaking races,\nthe English Bible has done, for it has been the\ntext-book and the final authority of those races\nin the moving things of their faith.\n\nIt would be easiest in making the argument\nto single out here and there the striking events\nin which the Bible has figured and let them stand\nfor the whole. There are many such events,\nand they are attractive.\n\nWe can imagine ourselves standing on the shore\nat Dover in 1660, fifty years after the version\nwas issued, waiting with the crowd to see the\nbanished King return. The civil war is over,\nthe protectorate under Cromwell is past. Charles\nII., thick-lipped, sensuous, \"seeming to belong\nrather to southern Europe than to Puritan England,\"\nis about to land from France, whence the\npeople, wearied with Puritan excesses, have called\nhim back. There is a great crowd, but they do\nnot cheer wildly. There is something serious\non hand. They mean to welcome the King; but\nit is on condition. Their first act is when the\nMayor of Dover places in his hands a copy of\nthe English Bible, which the King declares he\nloves above all things in the world. It proves\nonly a sorry jest; but the English people think\nit is meant for truth, and they go to their homes\nrejoicing. They rejoiced too soon, for this is\nthat utterly faithless king for whom his witty\ncourtier proposed an epitaph:\n\n \"Here lies our sovereign lord, the king,\n     Whose word no man relies on;\n Who never said a foolish thing,\n     And never did a wise one.\"[1]\n\n\n[1] White, in his History of England, says that Charles replied\nthat the explanation was easy: His discourses were his own, his\nactions were his ministry's!\n\nAs at other times, the King was only talking\nwith no meaning; but the people did not know\nhim yet. They had made their Bible the great\ntest of their liberties: will a king stand by that\nor will he not? If he will not, let him remember\nCharles the First! And from that day no English\nking, no American leader, has ever successfully\nrestricted English-speaking people from\nfree access to their great Book. It has become\na banner of their liberties. The child was wiser\nthan he knew when he was asked what lesson\nwe may learn from Charles I., and replied that\nwe may learn that a man should not lose his\nhead in times of excitement. Charles lost his\nhead long before he laid it on the block.\n\nBesides the scene at Dover, we may watch\nthat great emigration of the Scotch-Irish from\nUlster, beginning in 1689, seventy years after\nthe Puritan exodus and eighty years after the\nversion was issued, which peopled the backwoods\nof America with a choice, strong population.\nThey were only following the right to worship\nfreely, the right to their Bible without chains\non its lids or on the lips of its preachers. They\nwere making no protest against Romanism nor\nagainst Anglicanism in themselves. They only\nclaimed the right to worship as they would.\nUnder William and Mary, after James II. had\nfled to France, toleration became the law in\nEngland; but when Ireland was reconquered\nby William's generals, the act of toleration was\nnot extended to it. Baptists, Presbyterians, all\nexcept the small Anglican Church, were put\nunder the ban and forbidden to worship. But\nthe Bible had made submission impossible, and\nthere came about that great exodus to the new\nland which has so blessed it.\n\nThere are other signal events which might be\nobserved. But all the while there would be\ndanger of magnifying the importance of events\nwhich seem to prove the point. The view needs\nto be a more general one instead. The period\nis not long--three hundred years at the most--\nthough it has a background of all English history.\nWe have already seen how from the first\nthere have been determined efforts to make the\nBible common to the people; yet, of course, the\ninfluence of our version can appear only in these\nthree hundred years since it was issued. That\nshort period has not only been interesting almost\nto the point of excitement in English life, but\nit covers virtually all American life. Take,\ntherefore, the broader view of the influence of\nthe English Bible on history, apart from these\nstriking events.\n\nIt is to be assumed at once that much of its\ninfluence is indirect. Indeed, its chief influence\nmust be through men who prove to be leaders\nand through that public sentiment without which\nleaders are powerless. If leaders live by it and\nstand or fall by its teaching, then their work is\nits work. If they find a public sentiment issuing\nfrom it which gives them power, a sentiment\nwhich crystallizes around them when they appear,\nbecause it is of kindred spirit with themselves,\nthen the power of that sentiment is the power\nof the Bible. The influence of Pilgrim's Progress\nor The Saint's Rest is the influence of Bunyan\nand Baxter; but back of them is the Bible. In\nlanguage, in idea, in spirit, they were only making\nthe Bible a common Book to their readers.\nTheir value for life and history is the Bible's\nvalue for life and history.\n\nThe power of great souls is frequently and\neasily underestimated. Scientific study has\ntended to that by magnifying visible conditions\nand by trying to calculate the force of\nlaws which are in plain sight. Buckle's theory\nof civilization has influenced our times greatly.\nIt explains national character as the outcome of\nnatural conditions, and lays such stress on circumstances as left\nit possible for Buckle to declare\nthat history and biography are in different\nspheres. It is still true, however, that most\nhistory turns on biography. Great souls have\nbeen the chief factors in great movements.\nWhether the movement could have occurred\nwithout them will never be possible to decide,\nif it should be disputed. In a chemical laboratory\nthe essential factors of any phenomenon\ncan be determined by the process of elimination.\nAll the elements which preceded it except one\ncan be introduced; if the result is the same as\nin its presence, manifestly it is not essential.\nSo the experiment can go on until the result becomes\ndifferent, when it is evident that the last\nomitted element is an essential one. But no\nsuch process is possible in great historical movements.\nThe only course open to us is to consider\ncarefully the elements which do appear.\n\nTake three great movements which are easiest\nto follow in these three centuries. Whether the\nspiritual independence of England would have\nbeen secured without the Quakers may be debated;\nbut this fact can hardly be debated:\ncertainly it was not so secured; whether or not\nthe Quakers could have been without George\nFox, certainly they did not occur without him.\nTake the second: whether or not some other\nmovement could have done what Puritanism\ndid is hardly a question for history; Puritanism\nactually did the work for England and America\nwhich gave both their strongest qualities. There\nis no testing the period to see whether Puritanism\ncould be left out. There it stands as a\npowerful factor, and no analysis of the history\ncan possibly omit it. Or the third: it is not a\nquestion for a historian whether English history\ncould have been the same without Methodism\nand whether Methodism could have been at all\nwithout the Wesleys; certainly nothing took its\nplace, nor did any one else stand at the head of\nthe movement.\n\nHere are these three great movements, not\nto seek others. All of them have had tremendous\ninfluence in the religious and political history\nof both the nations where they have moved\nmost freely. Each of them is a direct and\nundisputed result of the influence of the Bible.\nMuch has already been said of the Puritans in\nEngland, and there will be occasion to see what\nwas their influence in America. But think for\na moment of the Quakers. James Freeman\nClark calls them the English mystics; certainly\nthey were more than that.[1] George Fox had\nlittle learning but the Bible; that he knew well.\nHe first came to himself out in the fields alone\nwith the Bible. He was not stirred to the origin\nof the movement nor to his greatest activity by\nexperiences he had in public places. He came\nto those public places profoundly affected by his\nfamiliarity with the English Bible. He came at\na time when his protest was needed, a protest\nagainst formalism, against mere outward conformity.\nA thousand years before, Mohammedanism\nhad really saved the Christian faith by\nits protest, violent and merciless, against its\nerrors, challenging it to purity in faith and life.\nNow Fox and the Quakers saved church life by\nprotest against church life. The Bible was still\nthe law, but not the Bible which you read for\nme, but that which you read for you and I for\nme, each of us guided by an inner light. The\nQuaker movement was a distinct protest against\nchurch formalism in the interests of freedom of\nthe Bible.\n\n\n[1] David Gregg, The Quakers in America.\n\n\nThat Quaker influence was far stronger in\nAmerica than it ever proved to be in England.\nGeorge Fox himself visited the colonies and extended\nits influence. Three great effects are\neasily traceable. The very presence of the\nQuakers in the New England colonies, notably\nin Massachusetts, and the persecutions which\nthey endured, did more to purify the Puritans\nthan any other one influence. One is only loyal\nto the Puritan character and teaching in declaring\nthat in the manner of the Puritans toward\nthe Quakers they were wrong; they were wrong\nbecause they were untrue to their own belief,\nuntrue to their own Bibles, and when the more\nthoughtful among them found that they were\ntaking the attitude toward the Quakers which\nthey had resented toward themselves, remembering\nthat the Quakers were drawing their\nteaching from the same Bible as themselves,\nthey were naturally checked. And, while the\nQuakers in New England suffered greatly, their\nsuffering proved the purification of the Puritans.\nIt accented and so it removed the narrowness of\nPuritan practice. Further, the Quaker movement\ngave to American history William Penn\nand the whole constitution of Pennsylvania. It\nwas there that a state first lived by the principle\nwhich William Penn pronounced: \"Any government\nis free where the people are a party to the\nlaws enacted.\" So it came about that Independence\nHall is on Quaker soil. The Declaration\nof Independence appeared there, and not\non Puritan soil. It may be there was more\nfreedom of thought in Pennsylvania. It may\nbe explained on purely geographical ground,\nPhiladelphia being the most convenient center\nfor the colonies. But it remains significant\nthat not on Cavalier soil in Virginia, not on\nDutch soil in New York, not on Puritan soil in\nBoston, but on Quaker soil in Philadelphia the\nmovement for national independence crystallized\naround a general principle that \"any\ngovernment is free where the people are a party\nto the laws enacted,\" but that no government is\nfree whose people have not a voice. That is not\nminimizing the power of Puritanism, nor forgetting\nFanueil Hall and the Tea Party. It only\naccents what should be familiar: that Puritanism\ndrew into itself more of the fighting element\nof Scripture, while the Quaker movement drew\ninto itself more of the uniting, pacifying element\nof Scripture. The third effect of the Quaker\nmovement is John Greenleaf Whittier, with his\ngentle but never weak demand that national\nfreedom should not mean independence of other\npeople alone, but the independence of all people\nwithin the nation. So that while the Quaker\nspirit helped the colonies to break loose from\nforeign control and become a nation, it helped\nthe nation in turn to break loose from internal\nshackles. The nation stood free within itself\nas well as free from others. Yet the Quaker\nmovement--and this is the argument--is itself\nthe result of the English Bible, and the Quaker\ninfluence is the influence of the English Bible\non history.\n\nThere is not need for extended word about the\ngreat Wesleyan movement in the midst of this\nperiod, which has so profoundly affected both\nEnglish and American history. It has not\nworked out into such visible political forms.\nBut any movement that makes for larger spiritual\nlife makes for the strengthening of the entire\nlife of the nation. The mere figures of the early\nWesleyan movement are almost appalling. Here\nwas a man, John Wesley, an Oxford scholar,\nwho spent nearly fifty years traveling up and\ndown and back and forth through England on\nhorseback, covering more than two hundred and\nfifty thousand miles, preaching everywhere more\nthan forty thousand times, writing, translating,\nediting two hundred works. When death ended\nhis busy life there were in his newly formed\nbrotherhood one hundred and thirty-five\nthousand members, with five hundred and fifty\nitinerants who were following his example with\nincessant preaching and Bible exposition. It\nwas the old Wiclif-Lollard movement over again.\nAnd here was the other Wesley, Charles, teaching\nEngland to sing again, teaching the old\ntruths of the Bible in rhyme to many who could\nnot read, so that they became familiar, writing\non horseback, in stage-coaches, everywhere,\nwriting with one passion, to help England back\nto the Bible and its truth. Such activity could\nnot leave the nation unmoved; all its religious\nlife felt it, and its political life from serf to king\nwas deeply affected by it. It is a common saying\nthat the Wesleyan movement saved English\nliberty from European entanglement. Yet the\nWesleyan movement issued from the Bible and\nled England back to the Bible.\n\nBut apart from these wide movements and\nthe great souls who led them, there is time for\nthought of one typical character on each side\nof the sea who did not so much make a movement\nas he proved the point around which a\ngreat fluid idea crystallized into strength. Across\nthe sea the character shall be that man whom\nCarlyle gave back to us out of obloquy and\nmisunderstanding, Oliver Cromwell. Choosing him,\nwe pass other names which crowd into memory,\nnames of men who have served the need of England\nwell-Wilberforce, John Howard, Shaftesbury, Gladstone--who drew\ntheir strength from\nthis Book. Yet we choose Cromwell now for\nargument. On this side it must be that best\nknown, most beloved, most typical of all Americans,\nAbraham Lincoln.\n\nAn English historian has said that the most\ninfluential, the most unescapable years in English\nhistory are those of the Protectorate. That\nis a strong saying. They were brief years.\nThere were many factors in them. Oliver Cromwell\nwas only one, but he was chief of all. He\nwas not chief in the councils which resulted in\nthe beheading of Charles I. on that 30th of\nJanuary, 1649, though he took part in them.\nIncreasingly in the movements which led to\nthat event and which followed it he was growing\ninto prominence. After Marston Moor,\nPrince Rupert named him Ironsides, and his\nregiment of picked men, picked for their spirit,\nwent always into battle singing psalms, \"and\nwere never beaten.\" As he rode out to the field\nat Naseby (1645) he knew he faced the flower\nof the loyalist army, while with him were only\nuntrained men; yet he smiled, as he said afterward,\nin the \"assurance that God would, by\nthings that are not, bring to naught things that\nare.\" Then he adds, \"God did it.\" Never\ndid he raise his flag but in the interests of the\nliberty of the people, and back of every movement\nof his army there was his confidence in the\nBible, which was his mainstay. They offered\nhim the throne; he would not have it. He dissolved\nthe Parliament which had dragged on\nuntil the patience of the people was exhausted.\nHe called another to serve their need. The\nevening before it met he spent in meditation on\nthe One hundred and third Psalm. The evening\nbefore the second Parliament of his Protectorate\nhe brooded on the Eighty-fifth Psalm, and\nopened the Parliament next day with an exposition\nof it. The man was saturated with Scripture.\nYes, the times were rude. It was an Old\nTestament age, and in right Old Testament\nspirit did Cromwell work. And it seemed that\nhis work failed. There was no one to succeed\nhim, and soon after his death came the Restoration\nand the return of Charles II., of which we\nhave already spoken, in which occurred that\nhint of the real sentiment of the English people\nwhich a wise man had better have taken.\nYet, recall what actually happened. Misunderstanding\nthe spirit of the English people, which\nCromwell had helped to form, but which in\nturn had made Cromwell possible, the servile\ncourtiers of the false king unearthed the Protector's\nbody, three years buried, hanged it on\na gallows in Tyburn for a day, beheaded it, and\nthrew the trunk into a pit. His head they\nmockingly set on a pinnacle of the Parliament\nHall, whence for some weeks it looked over the\ncity which he had served. Then, during a\ngreat storm, it came clattering down, only a poor\ndried skull, and disappeared no one knows where.\nBut when you stand opposite the great Parliament\nbuildings in London to-day, the most\nbeautiful buildings for their purpose in the world,\nthe buildings where the liberties of the English\nexpress themselves year after year, whose is the\none statue that finds place within the inclosure,\nnear the spot where that poor skull came rattling\ndown? Not Charles II.--you shall look in\nvain for him. Not George Monk, who brought\nback the King--you shall not find him there.\nThe one statue which England has cared to plant\nbeside its Parliament buildings is that of Oliver\nCromwell, its Lord Protector. There he stands,\nwarning kings in the interests of liberty. John\nMorley makes no ideal of him. He thinks he\nrather closed the medieval period than opened\nthe modern period; but he will not have Cromwell\ncompared to Frederick the Great, who\nspoke with a sneer of mankind. Cromwell \"belonged\nto the rarer and nobler type of governing\nmen, who see the golden side, who count faith,\npiety, hope among the counsels of practical\nwisdom, and who for political power must ever\nseek a moral base.\" That is a rare and noble\ntype of men, whether they govern or not. But\nno man of that type governs without red blood\nin his veins; and the iron that made this man's\nblood run red came from the English Bible.\n\nIt is a far cry from Oliver Cromwell to Abraham\nLincoln--far in years, far in deeds, far in\nmethods, but not far in spirit. Great men are\nkindred, generations over. We pass from the\nOld Testament into the New when we pass from\nCromwell to Lincoln; but we still feel the spirit\nof liberty. From the days of the Puritans, the\nQuakers and the Dutch, history had been preparing\nfor this time. Benjamin Franklin had\ndone his great work for human liberty; he had\nsummed up his hope for the nation in his memorable\naddress in 1787, when he stood eighty-\none years old, before the convention assembled to\nframe a constitution for the new government. He\nreminded them that at the beginning of the contest\nwith the British they had had daily prayers\nin that room in Philadelphia for the Divine protection,\nand said: \"I have lived for a long time,\nand the longer I live the more convincing proof\nI see of this truth, that God governs in the\naffairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall\nto the ground without His notice, is it probable\nthat an empire can rise without His aid? We\nhave been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings,\nthat 'Except the Lord build the house, they labor\nin vain that build it.' I firmly believe this, and\nI also believe that without His concurring aid\nwe shall proceed in this political building no\nbetter than the builders of Babel. I therefore\nbeg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring\nthe assistance of Heaven and its blessing\non our deliberation be held in this assembly\nevery morning before we proceed to business,\nand that one or more of the clergy of this city\nbe requested to officiate in that service.\"\n\nGeorge Washington sounded a familiar note\nin his farewell address: \"Of all the dispositions\nand habits which lead to political prosperity,\nreligion and morality are indispensable supports.\nA volume could not trace all their connection\nwith private and public felicity. Let us with\ncaution indulge the supposition that morality\ncan be maintained without religion. Whatever\nmay be conceded to the influence of refined education\non minds of peculiar structure, reason and\nexperience both forbid us to expect that national\nmorality can prevail in exclusion of religious\nprinciples.\" Thomas Jefferson, of whom it is\nsometimes said that he was indifferent to religion,\nhad yet done his great work under inspiration,\nwhich he himself acknowledges in his\ninaugural address, when he speaks of the nation\nas \"enlightened by a benign religion, professed\nindeed, and practised in various forms, yet all\nof them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance,\ngratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging\nand adoring an overruling Providence, which\nby all its dispensation proves that it results in\nthe happiness of man here and his greater happiness\nhereafter.\" Greater than Jefferson had\nappeared John Marshall, greatest of our Chief\nJustices, like in spirit to that John Marshall\nHarlan, whose death marked the year which\nhas just closed, of whom his colleagues said that\nhe went to his rest each night with one hand on\nthe Bible and the other on the Constitution of\nthe United States, a description which could\nalmost be transferred to his great predecessor\nin that court. Moreover, when Lincoln came,\nJoseph Story, the greatest teacher of law which\nour country had produced, had only just died\nfrom his place on the Supreme Bench, In his\nPhi Beta Kappa address at Harvard (1826), in\na brilliant and masterful analysis of \"The\nCharacteristics of the Age,\" he had paid tribute after\ntribute to the power of religion and the Bible.\nHe had declared his belief that the religion of\nthe Bible had \"established itself in the hearts\nof men by all which genius could bring to illumine\nor eloquence to grace its sublime truths.\" Of\nthe same period with Lincoln was also Webster,\nwho was called the \"concordance of the House.\"\nMany of his stately periods and great ideas came\nfrom the Bible. Indeed, there is no oratory of\nour history, which has survived the waste of the\nyears, which does not feel and show the power\nof the Scriptures. The English Bible has given\nour finest eloquence its ideas, its ideals, its\nillustrations, its phrases.\n\nThe line is unbroken. And it leads to this tall\nfigure, crowned with a noble head, his face the\nsaddest in American history, who knew Gethsemane\nin all its paths. The heart of the American\npeople has always been touched by his early\nyears of abject poverty. But there were\ncompensations. He had few books, and they entered\nhis blood and fiber. In his earliest formative\nyears there were six books which he read and\nre-read. Nicolay and Hay name the Bible first\nin the list, with Pilgrim's Progress as the fourth.\nMr. Morse calls it a small library, but nourishing,\nand says that Lincoln absorbed into his own\nnature all the strong juice of the books.[1] How\nmuch he drew from the pages of the Holy Book\nlet any reader of his speeches say. Quotation,\nreference, illustration crowd each other. The\nphrases are familiar. The man is full of the\nBook. And what the man does is part of the\nwork of the Book.\n\n\n[1] American Statesman Series, Abraham Lincoln, i, 12, 13.\n\n\nOne of his biographers says that there is\nnothing in the life or work of Lincoln which cannot\nbe explained without reference to any supernatural\ninfluence or power. That depends on\nwhat is meant by supernatural. There were no\nmiracles, no astounding visions nor experiences.\nBut there ran into Lincoln's life from his young\nmanhood onward this steady and strong current\nof ideas and ideals from the Bible. In his\nsecond inaugural address he worded the thought\nthat was the deepest horror of the Civil War--\nthat on both sides of the strife men were reading\nthe same Bible, praying to the same God, and invoking\nHis aid against each other! In that very\nbrief inaugural Mr. Lincoln quotes in full three\nBible verses, and makes reference to two others,\nand the whole address lasted barely four minutes.\nThere could be no mistaking the solemn importance\nof the fact to which he referred in the\ninaugural, the presence on the other side of men\nwho held their Bibles high in regard. \"Stonewall\"\nJackson was devout beyond most men.\nThe two books always at his hand were his\nBible and the Manual of the Rules of War.\nRobert E. Lee was a cultured, Christian gentleman,\nas were many others with him, while\nthroughout the South were multitudes who\nloved and reverenced the Bible as fully as could\nany in the North. As we look back over half a\ncentury, this comes out plainly: that so far as\nthe American civil war was a strife about union\npure and simple, having one nation or two here\nin our part of the continent, it was matter of\njudgment, not of religion. There grew around\nthat question certain others of national honor and\nobligation, which were not so clear then as now.\nBut men on opposite sides of the question might\nread the same Bible without finding authoritative\nword about it. In so far, however, as the war\nhad at its heart the matter of human slavery,\nit was possible for men to differ only when one\nside read the letter of the Bible while the other\nread its manifest spirit. Written in times when\nslavery was counted matter of course, its letter\ndealt with slavery as a fact. It could be read as\nthough it approved slavery. But long before\nthis day men had found its true spirit. England\nhad abolished slavery (1808) under the insistence\nthat it was foreign to all right understanding\nof God's Word. Lincoln knew its letter\nwell; he cared for its spirit more, and he found\nhis strength not in the familiar saying that God\nwas on his side, but in the more forceful one\nthat he believed himself to be on God's side.\nSo he became a point around which the great\nfluid idea crystallized into strength--a point\nmade and sustained by the influence of the Bible,\nwhich he knew only in the King James version.\n\n\nWe have spoken of some wide movements and\nof men around whom they crystallized, finding\nin them the influence of the Bible. It will be\nwell to note two outstanding traits of the Bible\nwhich in English or any other tongue would\ninevitably tend to strong and favorable influence\non the history of men. Those two traits are,\nfirst, its essential democracy, and, secondly, its\npersistent moral appeal.\n\nHere must be recalled that century before\nthe King James version, when by slow filtration\nthe fundamental ideas of the Bible were entering\nEnglish life. Surely it is beyond words that\nthe Bible made Puritanism, though it was in\nstrong swing when James came to the throne.\nNow John Richard Green is well within the fact\nwhen he says that \"Puritanism may fairly claim\nto be the first political system which recognized\nthe grandeur of the people as a whole.\"[1] It, was\nthe magnifying of the people as a whole over\nagainst some people as having peculiar rights\nwhich marked Puritanism, and which is democracy.\nShakespeare knew nothing of it, and had\nno influence on the movement for larger democracy.\nAfter we have said our strong word of\nShakespeare's powerful influence upon literature\nit yet must be said that it is difficult to lay\nfinger on one single historical movement except\nthe literary one which Shakespeare even remotely\ninfluenced. The Bible, meanwhile, was absolutely\ncreating this movement. Under its influence\n\"the meanest peasant felt himself ennobled\nas the child of God, the proudest noble\nrecognized a spiritual equality with the meanest\nsaint.\" That was the inevitable result of a\nfresh reading of the Bible in every home. It assured\neach man that he is a son of God, equal in\nthat sonship with all other men. It assured\nhim no man has right to lord it over others,\nas though his relation to God were peculiar.\nThe Bible constantly impresses men that this\nrelation to God is the essential one. Everything\nelse is incidental. Granted now a people freshly\nunder the influence of that teaching, you have\na large explanation of the movement which followed\nthe issuance of this version.\n\n\n[1] Short History of the English People, chap. vii, sec. vii.\n\n\nJames opened his first parliament (1604) with\na speech claiming divine right, a doctrine which\nhad really been raised to meet the claim of the\nright of the pope to depose kings. James argued\nthat the state of monarchy is the supremest\nthing on earth, for kings are not only God's\nlieutenants on earth and set upon God's throne,\nbut even by God Himself are called gods. (He\nnever found that in the Genevan version or its\nnotes!) As to dispute what God may do is\nblasphemy, so it is sedition in subjects to dispute\nwhat the king may do in the height of his\npower. \"I will not be content that my power\nbe disputed on.\" The House of Commons sat by\nhis grace and not of any right.\n\nSet that idea of James over against the idea\nwhich the Bible was constantly developing in\nthe mind of the people, and you see why Trevelyan\nsays that the Bible brought in democracy,\nand why he thinks, as we have already seen,\nthat the greatest contribution England has made\nto government is its treatment of the Stuarts,\nwhen it transferred sovereignty from the king\nto Parliament. Among the men who listened\nto that kind of teaching were Eliot, Hampden,\nPym, all Puritans under the spell of the Bible.\nBut the strife grew larger than a merely Puritan\none. The people themselves were strongly feeling\ntheir rights. \"To the devout Englishman,\nmuch as he might love his prayer-book and hate\nthe dissenters, the core of religion was the life\nof family prayer and Bible study, which the\nPuritans had for a hundred years struggled not\nin vain to make the custom of the land.\" It was\nthis spirit which James met.\n\nWe have already thought sufficiently of the\nevents which actually followed. The final rupture\nof Charles I. with parliamentary institutions\nwas due to the religious situation. There were\nmany Bible-reading families, learning their own\nrights, while kings and favorites were plotting\nwar. Laud and the bishops forbade non-conforming\ngatherings, but they could not prevent\na man's gathering his household about him while\nhe read the great stories of the Bible, in which\nno king ruled when he had ceased to advance\nhis kingdom, in which each man was shut up\nto God in the most vital things of his life. The\ndiscussion of the time grew keen about predestination\nand free-will. One meant that only\nGod had power; the other meant that men, and\nif men, then specially kings, might control other\nmen if only they could. Not fully, but vaguely,\nthe crowd understood. Very fully, and not\nvaguely, the leaders understood. Predestination\nand Parliament became a cry. That is,\ncontrol lifted out of the hands of the free-will\nof some monarch into the hands of a sovereign\nGod to whom every man had the same access\nthat any other man had. Laud decreed that all\nsuch discussion should cease. He revived an\nold decree that no book could be printed without\nconsent of an archbishop or the Bishop of\nLondon. So the books became secret and more\nvirulent each year. The civil war (1642-46)\nbetween Charles and Parliament was a war of\nideas. It is sometimes called a war of religion,\nnot quite fairly. It was due to the religious\nsituation, but actually it was for the liberties\nof the people against the power of the king. And\nthat question rooted far down in another regarding\nthe rights of men to be free in their\nreligious life. Charles struck his coin at Oxford\nwith the Latin inscription: \"The Protestant religion;\nthe laws of England; the liberties of\nParliament.\" But he struck it too late. He\nhad been trifling with the freedom of the people,\nand they had learned from their fireside Bibles\nand from their pulpits that no man may command\nanother in his relation to God. It was long\nafter that Burns described \"The Cottar's Saturday\nNight\"; but he was only describing a condition\nwhich was already in vogue, and which was\nhaving tremendous influence in England as well\nas in Scotland:\n\n \"The cheerfu' supper done, wi' serious face,\n     They, round the ingle, form a circle wide;\n The sire turns o'er, wi' patriarchal grace,\n     The big ha' Bible, ance his father's pride:\n His bonnet rev'rently is laid aside,\n     His lyart haffets wearing thin an' bare;\n Those strains that once did sweet in Zion glide,\n     He wales a portion with judicious care,\n And 'Let us worship God!' he says, with solemn air.\"\n\n\nUnder such guidance as this the people of\nEngland, Puritans and others, relaxed the power\nof the Stuarts and became a democracy. For\ndemocracy is not a form of government. It can\nexist under monarchy, provided the monarchy\nis a convenience of the will of the people, as it\nis in England. It can exist under institutions\nlike our own, provided they also are held as a\nconvenience of the people. This was no rebellion\nagainst some form of monarchy. It was simply\na claim of every man to have his rights before\nGod. Under the Parliament of eighteen years\nduration, the Independensts, Presbyterians, and\nall other non-conforming bodies suffered as\nheavily as under James and Charles, yet they did\nnot flee the land. Their battle was really won.\nThey believed the time would come when they\nas part of \"the people\" who now governed\nshould assert themselves. If they were persecuted,\nit was under a government where yet\nthey might hope for their rights. Fleeing from\nEngland in 1620 was heroism; fleeing in 1640\nwould have been cowardly. It is impossible to\ncalculate what was the revelation to the readers\nof the English Bible of their rights.\n\nLet Trevelyan tell the story: \"While other\nliterary movements, however noble in quality,\naffect only a few, the study of the Bible was\nbecoming the national education. Recommended\nby the king, translated by the Bishops, yet in\nchief request with the Puritans, without the\nrivalry of books and newspapers, the Bible told\nto the unscholarly the story of another age and\nrace, not in bald generalization and doctrinal\nharangue, but with such wealth of simple narrative\nand lyrical force that each man recognized\nhis own dim strivings after a new spirit, written\nclear in words two thousand years old. A deep\nand splendid effect was wrought by the monopoly\nof this Book as the sole reading of common\nhouseholds, in an age when men's minds were\ninstinct with natural poetry and open to receive\nthe light of imagination. A new religion arose,\nof which the mythus was the Bible stories and\nthe pervading spirit the direct relations of man\nwith God, exemplified in the human life. And\nwhile imagination was kindled, the intellect was\nfreed by this private study of the Bible. For its\nprivate study involved its private interpretation.\nEach reader, even if a Churchman, became in\nsome sort a church to himself. Hence the hundred\nsects and thousand doctrines that astonished\nforeigners and opened England's strange path\nto intellectual liberty. The Bible cultivated\nhere, more than in any other land, the growth\nof intellectual thought and practice.\"[1]\n\n\n[1] England under the Stuarts.\n\n\nAll that has seemed to refer only to England,\nbut the same essential democracy of the Bible\ncame to America and founded the new nation.\nIt was a handful of Puritans turned Pilgrims\nwho set out in the Mayflower to give their Bible\nideas free field. In a dozen years (1628-40),\nunder Laud's persecution, twenty thousand Englishmen\nfled to join those Pilgrims. And how\nmuch turned on that! Suppose it had not happened.\nThen the French of the North and the\ncavaliers of Virginia, with the Spanish of the\nSouth, would have had only the Dutch between\nthem. And of the four, only the Dutch had\nfree access to the Bible. The new land would\nnot have been English. It is an English writer\nwho says that North America is now preparing\nthe future of the world, and English speech is\nthe mold in which the folk of all the world are\nbeing poured for their final shaping.[1] It is the\ndemocracy of the Bible which is the fundamental\ndemocracy of America, in which every man has\nit accented to him that he is so much a child\nof God that his rights are inalienable. They\ncover life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\nAnd though we have held that principle\nof democracy inconsistently at times, and have\npaid a terrible price for our inconsistency in the\npast, and may pay it in the future again, it is\nstill true that the fundamental democracy of our\nAmerican life is only that essential democracy\nof the Bible, where every man is made the equal\nof his fellow by being lifted into the same relation\nwith Almighty God.\n\n\n[1] Trevelyan, England under the Stuarts, p. 174.\n\n\nThe Bible makes its moral appeal on the same\nbasis. If a man is a child of God, then he is\nshut up to duties which cannot be avoided.\nSome one else may tell a man his duty in a true\nmonarchy. In a democracy each man stands\nalone at the most solemn point of his duty.\nThere is no safe democracry where men refuse\nto stand alone there. In Jefferson's great speech,\nreplying to the forebodings of Patrick Henry, he\ninsisted that if men were not competent to govern\nthemselves they were not competent to\ngovern other people. The first duty of any man\nis to take his independent place before God.\nDemocracy is the social privilege that grows out\nof the meeting of these personal obligations.\n\nSeveral facts strengthen this persistent moral\nappeal. For one thing, the Book is absolutely\nfair to humanity. It leaves out no line or\nwrinkle; but it adds none. The men with whom\nit deals are typical men. The facts it presents\nare typical facts. There are books which flatter\nmen, make them out all good, prattle on about\nthe essential goodness of humanity, while men\nwho know themselves (and these are the only\nones who do things) know that the story is not\ntrue. On the other hand, there are books which\nare depressing. Their pigments are all black.\nThey move from the dignity of Schopenhauer's\npessimism to the bedlam of Nietzsche's contempt\nfor life and goodness. But here, also, the sane\ncommon sense of humanity comes to the rescue.\nThe picture is not true if it is all white or all\nblack. The Bible is absolutely fair to humanity.\nIt moves within the circle of man's experience;\nand, while it deals with men, it results in a treatment\nof man.\n\nThat is how it comes about that the Bible inspires\nmen, and puts them at their best. No\nmoral appeal can be successful if it fails to reach\nthe better part of a man, and lays hold on him\nthere. Just that it did for the English people.\n\"No greater moral change ever passed over a\nnation than passed over England during the\nyears that parted the middle of the reign of\nElizabeth from the meeting of the Long Parliament.\nEngland became the people of a Book,\nand that Book was the Bible.\"[1]\n\n\n[1] Green, Short History of the English People.\n\n\nAdd to that personal appeal and that absolute\nfairness to humanity the constant challenge\nof the Bible to the nobler elements of humanity.\nIt never trifles. It is in deadly earnest. And\nit makes earnest men. Probably we cannot illustrate\nthat earnestness more clearly than by\na study of one element in Puritan history, which\nis confused in many minds. It is the matter\nof the three great antagonisms of Puritanism in\nEngland and America. They can never be understood\nby moral triflers. They may not be approved\nby all the morally serious, but they will\nbe understood by them. What are those three\nmarked antagonisms? The antagonism to the\nstage, to popular frivolity, and to the pleasure\nSabbath.\n\n1. The early English stage had the approval\nof virtually all the people. There were few\nvoices raised against the dramas of Shakespeare.\nBut the cleavage between the Puritans and the\nstage grew greater as the years went on. There\nwere riotous excesses. The later comedy after\nShakespeare was incredibly gross. The tragedies\nwere shallow, they turned not on grave scenes\nof conscience, but on common and cheap intrigues\nof incest and murder. In the mean time,\n\"the hatred of the Puritans for the stage was\nonly the honest hatred of God-fearing men\nagainst the foulest depravity presented in poetic\nand dramatic forms.\" The Bible was laying\nhold on the imagination of the people, making\nthem serious, thoughtful, preparing them for\nthe struggle for liberty which was soon to come.\nThe plays of the time seemed too trifling or else\ntoo foul. The Puritans and the English people\nof the day were willing to be amused, if the stage\nwould amuse them. They were willing to be\ntaught, if the stage would teach them. But\nthey were not willing to be amused by vice and\nfoulness, and they were not willing to be taught\nby lecherous actors who parroted beautiful sentiments\nof virtue on the stage and lived filthy\nlives of incest and shame off the stage. Life had\nto be whole to the Puritan, as indeed it has to\nbe to other thoughtful men. And the Bible\ntaught him that. His concern was for the higher\nelements of life; his appeal was to the worthier\nvalues in men. The concern of the stage of his\nday was for the more volatile elements in men.\nThe test of a successful play was whether the\ncrowds, any crowds, came to it. And as always\nhappens when a man wants to catch the interest\nof a crowd, the stage catered to its lowest interests.\nYou can hardly read the story of the\ntimes without feeling that the Puritan made\nno mistake in his day. He could not have been\nthe thoughtful man who would stand strong in\nthe struggle for liberty on that side of the sea\nand the struggle for life on this side of the sea\nwithout opposing trifling and vice.\n\n2. The antagonism of the early Puritan to\npopular frivolity needs to have the times around\nit to be understood. No great movement carries\neverybody with it, and while it is still struggling\nthe majority will be on the opposing side. While\nthe real leadership of England was passing into\nthe stronger and more serious hands the artificial\nexcesses of life grew strong on the people.\n\"Fortunes were being sunk and estates mortgaged\nin order that men should wear jewels and\ndress in colored silks.\"[1] In the pressure of\ngrave national needs men persisted in frivolity.\nThe two reigning vices were drunkenness and\nswearing. In their cups men were guilty of\nthe grossest indecencies. Even their otherwise\nharmless sports were endangered. The popular\nnotion of the May-pole dances misses the real\npoint of the Puritan opposition to it in Old and\nNew England. It was not an innocent, jovial\nout-door event. Once it may have been that.\nVery often it was only part of a day which\nbrought immorality and vice in its train. It was\npart of a rural paganism. Some of the customs\ninvolved such grave perils, with their seclusion\nof young people from early dawn in the forests,\nas to make it impossible to approve it. Over\nagainst all these things the Puritans set themselves.\nSometimes they carried this solemnity\nto an absurd length, justifying it by Scripture\nverses misapplied. Against the affected elegancies\nof speech they set the plain yea, yea\nand nay, nay of Scripture. In their clothing,\ntheir homes, their churches, they, and in even\nmore marked degree, the Quakers, registered\ntheir solemn protest against the frivolity of the\ntimes. If they went too far, it is certain their\nprotest was needed. Macaulay's epigram is\nfamiliar, that the Puritan \"hated bear-baiting,\nnot because it gave pain to the bear, but because\nit gave pleasure to the spectators.\" In so far\nas that is true, it is to the credit of the Puritan;\nfor the bear can stand the pain of being baited\nfar better than human nature can stand the\ncoarsening effects of baiting him, and it is nobler\nto oppose such sport on human grounds than on\nanimal grounds. But, of course, the epigram is\nMacaulay's, and must be read with qualification.\nThe fact is, and he says it often enough without\nepigrams, that the times had become trifling\nexcept as this grave, thoughtful group influenced\nthem.\n\n\n[1] Trevelyan, England under the Stuarts, p. 66.\n\n\n3. The attitude of the Puritans toward the\nSabbath came from their serious thought of the\nBible. Puritanism gave England the Sabbath\nagain and planted it in America as an institution.\nOf course, these men learned all that they knew\nof it from the Bible. From that day, in spite\nof much change in thought of it, English-\nspeaking people have never been wilful abusers\nof the Sabbath. But the condition in that day\nwas very different. Most of the games were on\nthe day set apart as the Sabbath. There were\nbull-baiting, bear-baiting, and football on Sunday.\nCalvin himself, though not in England,\nbowled on Sunday, and poor Knox attended\nfestivities then, saying grimly that what little\nis right on week-days is not wrong on Sundays.\nAfter the service on Sunday morning the people\nthronged to the village green, where ale flowed\nfreely and games were played until the evening\ndance was called. It was a work-day. Elizabeth\nissued a special injunction that people work\nafter service on Sundays and holidays if they\nwished to do so. Employers were sustained in\ntheir demand for Sunday work.\n\nThere are always people in every time who\ncount that the ideal Sabbath. The Puritans\nfound it when they appeared. The English\nReformation found it when it came. And the\nBible found it when at last it came out of\nobscurity and laid hold on national conditions.\nWhatever is to be said of other races, every\nperiod of English-speaking history assures us\nthat our moral power increases or weakens with\nthe rise or fall of Sabbath reverence. The\nPuritans saw that. They saw, as many other\nthoughtful people saw, that the steady, repeated\nobservance of the Sabbath gave certain\nnational influences a chance to work; reminded\nthe nation of certain great underlying and undying\nprinciples; in short, brought God into\nhuman thought. The Sunday of pleasure or\nwork could never accomplish that. Both as religionists\nand as patriots, as lovers of God and\nlovers of men, they opposed the pleasure-Sunday\nand held for the Sabbath.\n\nBut that comes around again to the saying\nthat the persistent moral appeal of the Bible\ngives it inevitable influence on history. It centers\nthought on moral issues. It challenges men\nto moral combats.\n\nSuch a force persistently working in men's\nminds is irresistible. It cannot be opposed; it\ncan only fail by being neglected. And this is\nthe force which has been steadily at work everywhere\nin English-speaking history since the\nKing James version came to be.\n\n\n\nLECTURE VI\n\nTHE BIBLE IN THE LIFE OF TO-DAY\n\nTHIS lecture must differ at two points from\nthose which have preceded it. In the first\nplace, the other lectures have dealt entirely with\nfacts. This must deal also with judgments. In\nthe earlier lectures we have avoided any consideration\nof what ought to have been and have\ncentered our interest on what actually did occur.\nWe especially avoided any argument based on\na theory of the literary characteristics or literary\ninfluence of the Bible, but sought first to find\nthe facts and then to discover what explained\nthem. It might be very difficult to determine\nwhat is the actual place of the Bible in the\nlife of to-day. Perhaps it would be impossible\nto give a broad, fair judgment. It is quite certain\nthat the people of James's day did not\nrealize the place it was taking. It is equally\ncertain that many of those whom it most influenced\nwere entirely unconscious of the fact.\nIt is only when we look back upon the scene that\nwe discover the influence that was moving them.\nBut, while it is difficult to say what the place of\nthe Bible actually is in our own times, the place\nit ought to have is easier to point out. That will\ninvolve a study of the conditions of our times,\nwhich suggest the need for its influence. While\nwe must consider the facts, therefore, we will be\ncompelled to pass some judgments also, and\ntherein this lecture must differ from the others.\n\nThe second fact of difference is that while the\nearlier lectures have dealt with the King James\nversion, this must deal rather with the Bible.\nFor the King James version is not the Bible.\nThere are many versions; there is but one\nBible. Whatever the translators put into the\nvarious tongues, the Bible itself remains the\nsame. There are values in the new versions;\nbut they are simply the old value of the Bible\nitself. It is a familiar maxim that the newest\nversion is the oldest Bible. We are not making\nthe Bible up to date when we make a new version;\nwe are only getting back to its date. A\nrevision in our day is the effort to take out of\nthe original writings what men of King James's\nday may have put in, and give them so much the\nbetter chance. There is no revised Bible; there is\nonly a revised version. Readers sometimes feel\ndisturbed at what they consider the changes\nmade in the Bible. The fact is, the revision\nwhich deserves the name is lessening the changes\nin the Bible; it is giving us the Bible as it\nactually was and taking from us elements which\nwere not part of it. One can sympathize with\nthe eloquent Dr. Storrs, who declared, in an\naddress in 1879, that he was against any new\nversion because of the history of the King James\nversion, describing it as a great oak with roots\nrunning deep and branches spreading wide. He\ndeclared we were not ready to give it up for any\nmodern tulip-tree. There is something in that,\nthough such figures are not always good argument.\nYet the value to any book of a worthy\ntranslation is beyond calculation. The outstanding\nliterary illustration of that fact is\nfamiliar. The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam lay\nin Persian literature and in different English\ntranslations long before Fitzgerald made it a\nhousehold classic for literary people. The translator\nmade the book for us in more marked way\nthan the original writer did. In somewhat the\nsame way the King James version gave to the\nEnglish-speaking people the Bible; and no other\nversion has taken its place.\n\nYet that was not a mistaken move nearly\nforty years ago, when the revision of the King\nJames version was proposed and undertaken.\nThirty years ago (1881) it was completed in what\nwe ordinarily call the Revised Version, and ten\nyears ago (1901) the American form of that\nRevised Version appeared. Few things could\nmore definitely prove the accepted place of the\nKing James version than the fact that we seem\nto hear less to-day of the Revised Version than\nwe used to hear, and that, while the American\nRevised Version is incomparably the best in\nexistence in its reproduction of the original, even\nit makes way slowly. In less than forty years\nthe King James version crowded all its competitors\noff the field. The presence of the Revised\nVersion of 1881 has not appreciably affected\nthe sales or the demand for the King James version.\nIn the minds of most people the English\nand the American revisions stand as admirable\ncommentaries on the King James version. If\none wishes to know wherein the King James\nversion failed of representing the original, he will\nlearn it better from those versions than from\nany number of commentaries; but the number\nof those to whom one or other of the versions\nhas supplanted the King James version is not\nso large as might have been expected.\n\nThere were several reasons for a new English\nversion of the Bible. It was, of course, no\nindignity to the King James version. Those\ntranslators frankly said that they had no hope\nto make a final version of the Scriptures. It\nwould be very strange if in three hundred years\nlanguage should not have grown by reason\nof the necessities of the race that used it, so that\nat some points a book might be outgrown. In\nanother lecture it has been intimated that the\nEnglish Bible, by reason of its constant use, has\ntended to fix and confirm the English language.\nBut no one book, nor any set of books, could\nconfine a living tongue. Some of the reasons for\na new version which give value to these two revisions\nmay be mentioned.\n\n1. Though the King James version was made\njust after the literary renaissance, the classical\nlearning of to-day is far in advance of that day.\nThe King James version is occasionally defective\nin its use of tenses and verbs in the Greek and\nalso in the Hebrew. We have Greek and Hebrew\nscholars who are able more exactly to reproduce\nin English the meaning of the original.\nIt would be strange if that were not so.\n\n2. Then there have been new and important\ndiscoveries of Biblical literature which date\nearlier in Christian history than any our fathers\nknew three hundred years ago. In some instances\nthose earlier discoveries have shown that\na phrase here or there has been wrongly\nintroduced into the text. There has been no marked\ninstance where a phrase was added by the revisers;\nthat is, a phrase dropped out of the\noriginal and now replaced. One illustration of\nthe omission of a phrase will be enough. In\nthe fifth chapter of I John the seventh verse\nreads: \"For there are three that bear record\nin heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy\nGhost, and these three are one.\" In the revised\nversions it is omitted, because it seems\nquite certain that it was not in the original\nwriting. It does not at all alter the meaning\nof Scripture. While it appears in most of the\nbest manuscripts which were available for the\nKing James translators, earlier manuscripts\nfound since that time have shown that it was\nformerly written at the side as a gloss, and was\nby some transcriber set over in the text itself.\nThe process of making the early manuscripts\nshows how easily that could have occurred.\nLet us suppose that two or three manuscripts\nwere being made at once by different copyists.\nOne was set to read the original; as he read, the\nothers wrote. It would be easy to suppose that\nhe might read this marginal reference as a suitable\ncommentary on the text, and that one or\nmore of the writers could have written it in the\ntext. It could easily happen also that a copyist,\neven seeing where it stood, might suppose it had\nbeen omitted by the earlier copyist, and that he\nhad completed his work by putting it on the\nmargin. So the next copyist would put it into\nhis own text. Once in a manuscript, it would\nreadily become part of the accepted form. Discoveries\nthat bring that sort of thing to light\nare of value in giving us an accurate version of\nthe original Bible.\n\n3. Then there are in our King James version\na few archaic and obsolete phrases. We\nhave already spoken of them. Most of them\nhave been avoided in the revised versions. The\nneuter possessive pronoun, for example, has been\nput in. Animal names have been clarified,\nobsolete expressions have been replaced by more\nfamiliar ones, and so on.\n\n4. Then there were certain inaccuracies in\nthe King James version. The fact is familiar\nthat they transliterated certain words which\nthey could not well translate. In the revised\nversions that has been carried farther still. The\nwords which they translated \"hell\" have been\nput back into their Hebrew and Greek equivalents,\nand appear as Sheol and Hades. Another\ninstance is that of an Old Testament word,\nAsherah, which was translated always \"grove,\"\nand was used to describe the object of worship\nof the early enemies of Israel. The translation\ndoes not quite represent the fact, and the revisers\nhave therefore replaced the old Hebrew\nword Asherah. The transliterations of the King\nJames version have not been changed into translations.\nInstead, the number of transliterations\nhas been increased in the interest of accuracy.\nAt one point one might incline to be adversely\ncritical of the American revisers. They have\ntransliterated the Hebrew word Jehovah; so\nthey have taken sides in a controversy where\nscholars have room to differ. The version would\nhave gained in strength if it had retained the\ndignified and noble word \"Lord,\" which comes\nas near representing the idea of the Hebrew word\nfor God as any word we could find. It must be\nadded that the English of neither of our new\nversions has the rhythm and movement of the old\nversion. That is partly because we are so\naccustomed to the old expressions and new ones\nstrike the ear unpleasantly. In any case, the\nversions differ plainly in their English. It seems\nmost unlikely that either of these versions shall\never have the literary influence of the King\nJames, though any man who will prophesy about,\nthat affects a wisdom which he has not.\n\nThese, then, are the two differences between\nthis lecture and the preceding ones, that in this\nlecture we shall deal with judgments as well as\nfacts, and that we shall deal with the Bible\nof to-day rather than the King James version.\n\nPassing to the heart of the subject, the question\nappears at once whether the Bible has or\ncan have to-day the influence or the place which\nit seems to have had in the past. Two things,\nforce that question: Has not the critical study\nof the Bible itself robbed it of its place of\nauthority, and have not the changes of our times\ndestroyed its possibilities of influence? That is,\non the one hand, has not the Bible been changed?\nOn the other hand, has it not come into such new\nconditions that it cannot do its old work?\n\nIt is a natural but a most mistaken idea that\nthe critical study of the Bible is a new thing.\nFrom long before the childhood of any of us\nthere has been sharp controversy about the\nBible. It is a controversy-provoking Book. It\ncannot accept blind faith. It always has made\nmen think, and it makes them think in the line\nof their own times. The days when no questions\nwere raised about the Bible were the days when\nmen had no access to it.\n\nThere are some who take all the Bible for\ngranted. They know that there is indifference\nto it among friends and in their social circle;\nbut how real the dispute about the Bible is no\none realizes until he comes where new ideas, say\nideas of socialism, are in the air. There, with\nthe breaking of other chains, is a mighty effort\nto break this bond also. In such circles the\nBible is little read. It is discussed, and time-\nworn objections are bandied about, always growing\nas they pass. In these circles also every\nsupposedly adverse result of critical study is\nwelcomed and remembered. If it is said that\nthere are unexplained contradictions in the Bible,\nthat fact is remembered. But if it is said further\nthat those contradictions bid fair to yield to\nfurther critical study, or to a wiser understanding\nof the situations in which they are involved, that\nfact is overlooked. The tendency in these circles\nis to keep alive rather the adverse phases\nof critical study than its favorable phases. Some\nof those who speak most fiercely about the study\nof the Bible, by what is known as higher criticism,\nare least intelligent as to what higher\ncriticism actually means. Believers regret it,\nand unbelievers rejoice in it. As a matter of\nfact, in developing any strong feeling about higher\ncriticism one only falls a prey to words; he\nmistakes the meaning of both the words involved.\n\nCriticism does not mean finding fault with the\nBible.[1] It is almost an argument for total\ndepravity that we have made the word gain an\nadverse meaning, so that if the average man\nwere told that he had been \"criticized\" by another\nbe would suppose that something had been\nsaid against him. Of course, intelligent people\nknow that that is not necessarily involved.\nWhen Kant wrote The Critique of Pure Reason\nhe was not finding fault with pure reason. He\nwas only making careful analytical study of it.\nNow, critical study of the Bible is only careful\nstudy of it. It finds vastly more new beauties\nthan unseen defects. In the same way the adjective\n\"higher\" comes in for misunderstanding. It\ndoes not mean superior; it means more difficult.\nLower criticism is the study of the text itself.\nWhat word ought to be here, and exactly what\ndoes that word mean? What is the comparative\nvalue of this manuscript over against that\none? If this manuscript has a certain word and\nthat other has a slightly different one, which\nword ought to be used?\n\n\n[1] Jefferson, Things Fundamental, p. 90.\n\n\nTake one illustration from the Old Testament\nand one from the New to show what lower or\ntextual criticism does. In the ninth chapter of\nIsaiah the third verse reads: \"Thou hast multiplied\nthe nation and not increased the joy.\"\nThat word \"not\" is troublesome. It disagrees\nwith the rest of the passage. Now it happens\nthat there are two Hebrew words pronounced\n\"lo,\" just alike in sound, but spelled differently.\nOne means \"not,\" the other means \"to him\"\nor \"his.\" Put the second word in, and the sentence\nreads: \"Thou hast multiplied the nation\nand increased its joy.\" That fits the context\nexactly. Lower criticism declares that it is\ntherefore the probable reading, and corrects the\ntext in that way.\n\nThe other illustration is from the Epistle of\nJames, where in the fourth chapter the second\nverse reads: \"Ye lust, and have not; ye kill,\nand desire to have, and cannot obtain; ye fight\nand war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.\"\nNow there is no commentator nor thoughtful\nreader who is not arrested by that word \"kill.\"\nIt does not seem to belong there. It is far more\nviolent than anything else in the whole text,\nand it is difficult to understand in what sense\nthe persons to whom James was writing could\nbe said to kill. Yet there is no Greek manuscript\nwhich does not have that word. Well, it\nis in the field of lower criticism to observe that\nthere is a Greek word which sounds very much\nlike this word \"kill,\" which means to envy;\nthat would fit exactly into the whole text here.\nAll that lower criticism can do is to point out\nsuch a probability.\n\n\nWhen this form of criticism has done its part,\nand careful study has yielded a text which holds\ntogether and which represents the very best\nwhich scholarship can find for the original, there\nis still a field more difficult than that, higher in\nthe sense that it demands a larger and broader\nview of the whole subject. Here one studies\nthe meaning of the whole, the ideas in it, seeks\nto find how the revelation of God has progressed\naccording to the capacities of men to receive it.\nHigher criticism is the careful study of the\nhistorical and original meanings of Scripture, the\neffort to determine dates and times and, so far\nas may be, the author of each writing, analyzing\nits ideas, the general Greek or Hebrew style, the\nrelation of part to part. That is not a thing to\nbe afraid of. It is a method of study used in\nevery realm. It is true that some of the men\nwho have followed that method have made others\nafraid of it, because they were afraid of these\nmen themselves. It is possible to claim far\ntoo much for such study. But if the result of\nhigher criticism should be to show that the latter\nhalf of the prophecy of Isaiah is much later than\nthe earlier half, that is not a destruction of the\nWord of God. It is not an irreverent result of\nstudy. If the result of higher criticism is to show\nthat by reason of its content, and the lessons\nwhich it especially urges, the Epistle to the Hebrews\nwas not written by the Apostle Paul, as it\ndoes not at any point claim to have been, why,\nthat is not irreverent, that is not destructive.\nThere is a destructive form of higher criticism;\nagainst that there is reason to set up bulwarks.\nBut there is a constructive form of it also.\nScholarly opinion will tell any one who asks\nthat criticism has not affected the fundamental\nvalues of the Bible. In the studies which have\njust now been made we have not instanced anything\nin the Bible that is subject to change.\nNo matter what the result of critical study may\nbe, the fundamental democracy of the Scripture\nremains. It continues to make its persistent\nmoral appeal on any terms. Both those great\nfacts continue. Other great facts abide with\nthem. And on their account it is to our interest\nto know as much as we can learn about it. The\nBible has not been lessened in its value, has not\nbeen weakened in itself, by anything that has\ntaken place in critical study. On the other hand,\nthe net result of such studies as archaeology has\nbeen the confirmation of much that was once\ndisputed. Sir William Ramsay is authority for\nsaying that the spade of the excavator is to-day\ndigging the grave of many enemies of the Bible.\n\nTake the second question, whether these times\nhave not in them elements that weaken the hold\nof the Bible. There again we must distinguish\nbetween facts and judgments. There are certain\nthings in these times which relax the hold\nof any authoritative book. There is a general\nrelaxing of the sense of authority. It does not\ncome alone from the intellectual awakening, because\nso far as that awakening is concerned, it\nhas affected quite as much men who continue\nloyal to the authority of the Bible as others.\nNo, this relaxing of the sense of authority is the\nresult of the first feeling of democracy which\ndoes not know law. Democracy ought to mean\nthat men are left independent of the control of\nother individuals because they realize and wish\nto obey the control of God or of the whole equally\nwith their fellows. When, instead, one feels\nindependent of others, and adds to that no sense\nof a higher control which he must be free to\nobey, the result is not democracy, but individualism.\nDemocracy involves control; individualism\ndoes not. A vast number of people\nin passing from any sense of the right of another\nindividual to control them have also passed out\nof the sense of the right of God or of the whole\nto control them. So that from a good many all\nsense of authority has passed. It is characteristic\nof our age. And it is a stage in our progress\ntoward real democracy, toward true human\nliberty.\n\nObserve that relaxed sense of authority in the\ncommon attitude toward law. Most men feel\nit right to disregard a law of the community\nwhich they do not like. It appears in trivial\nthings. If the community requires that ashes\nbe kept in a metal receptacle, citizens approve\nit in general, but reserve to themselves the right\nto consider it a foolish law and to do something\nelse if that is not entirely convenient. If the\nlaw says that paper must not be thrown on the\nsidewalk, it means little that it is the law. Those\nwho are inclined to be clean and neat and do\nnot like to see paper lying around will keep the\nlaw; those who are otherwise will be indifferent\nto it. That is at the root of the matter-of-\ncourse saying that a law cannot be enforced\nunless public opinion sustains it. Under any\ndemocratic system laws virtually always have the\nmajority opinion back of them; but the minority\nreserve the right to disregard them if they\nchoose, and the minority will be more aggressive.\nRising from those relaxations of law into far\nmore important ones, it appears that men in\nbusiness life, feeling themselves hampered by\nlegislation, set themselves to find a way to evade\nit, justifying themselves in doing so. The mere\nfact that it is the law does not weigh heavily.\nThis is, however, only an inevitable stage in\nprogress from the earliest periods of democracy\nto later and more substantial periods. It is a\nstage which will pass. There will come a democracy\nwhere the rule of the whole is frankly\nrecognized, and where each man holds himself\nindependent of his fellows only in the sense that\nhe will claim the right to hold such relation to\nGod and his duty as he himself may apprehend.\n\nIn these times, also, the development of temporal\nand material prosperity with the intellectual\nmood which is involved in that affects\nthe attitude of the age toward the Bible. Sometimes\nit is spoken of as a scientific age over\nagainst the earlier philosophical ages. Perhaps\nthat will do for a rough statement of the facts.\nIt is the age of experiment, of trying things out,\nand there naturally works into men a feeling\nthat the things that will yield to the most material\nscientific experimentation are the things\nabout which they can be certain and which are\nof real value. That naturally involves a good\ndeal of appreciation of the present, and calls for\nthe improvement of the conditions of present\nlife first of all. It looks more important to see\nthat a man is well fed, well housed, well clothed,\nand well educated than that he should have the\ninterests of eternity pressed on his attention.\nThat is a comparatively late feeling. It issues\npartly from the fact that this is a scientific age,\nwhen science has had its attention turned to the\nneeds of humanity.\n\nAnother result of our scientific age is the magnifying\nof the natural, while the Bible frankly\nasserts the supernatural. No effort to get the\nsupernatural out of the Bible, in order to make\nit entirely acceptable to the man who scouts\nthe supernatural, has thus far proved successful.\nOf course, the supernatural can be taken out of\nthe Bible; but it will destroy the Bible. Nor is\nthere much gain in playing with words and insisting\nthat everything is supernatural or that\neverything is natural. There is a difference between\nthe two, and in an age which insists upon\nnature or natural laws or forces or events as all-\nsufficient it is almost inevitable that the Bible\nshould lose its hold, at least temporarily.\n\nRegarding all this there are some things that\nneed to be said. For one thing, this, too, is a\npassing condition. As a matter of fact, men are\nnot creatures of time. They actually have\neternal connections, and the great outstanding\nfacts which have always made eternity of importance\ncontinue. The fact is that men continue\nto die, and that the men who are left behind\ncannot avoid the sense of mystery and awe\nwhich is involved in that fact. The fact also\nis that the human emotions cannot be explained\non the lower basis, and the only reason men\nthink they can be is because they have in the\nback of their minds the old explanations which\nthey cast into the lower forms, deceiving themselves\ninto thinking they are new ideas when\nthey are not.\n\nIt ought to be added that the Bible has greatly\nsuffered in all its history at the hands of men\nwho have believed in it and have fought in its\nbehalf. Many of the controversies which were\nhottest were needless and injurious. All the\nfolly has not been on one side. Some one referred\nthe other day to a list of more than a\nhundred scientific theories which were proposed\nat the beginning of the last century and abandoned\nat the end of it. Scientific men are feeling\ntheir way, many of them reverently and\ndevoutly, some of them rather blatantly and\nwith a readiness for publication, which hastens\nthem into notoriety. But there has been enough\nfolly on both sides to make every one go\ncautiously. It has been remarked that in Dr.\nDraper's book The Conflict Between Science and\nReligion he makes science appear as a strong-\nlimbed angel of God whereas religion is always\na great ass. The title of the book itself is\nnot fair. In no proper understanding of the\nwords can there be any conflict between science\nand religion. There can be a conflict, as Dr.\nAndrew D. White puts it, between science and\ntheology. There can certainly be contest between\nscientists and religionists. Science and\nreligion have no conflict.\n\nIt is interesting to observe how far back most\nof the supposed conflicts actually lie. There is\nno warfare now; and, while our fathers one or two\ngenerations ago felt that they must fly to the\ndefense of religion against the attacks of science,\nno man wastes his strength doing that to-day.\nThat period has passed. The trouble is that some\ngood people do not know it, and are just fond\nenough of a bit of a tussle to keep up the fighting\nin the mountain-passes while out in the plain\nthe main armies have laid down their arms and\nare busy tilling the soil.\n\nThe period of conflict is past, partly because\nwe are learning to distinguish between the Bible\nas it really is and certain long-established ideas\nabout the Bible which came from other sources\nand have become attached to it until it seemed\nto sustain them. The proper doctrine of evolution\nis entirely compatible with the Bible. The\ngreat Dr. Hodge declared that the consistent\nDarwinian must be an atheist. For that matter,\nShelley defended himself by saying that, of\ncourse, \"the consistent Newtonian must necessarily\nbe an atheist.\" But fifty years have made\ngreat changes in the doctrine of evolution, and\nthe old scare has been over for some time. Newton\nis honored in the church quite as much as\nin the university, and Darwin is not a name\nto frighten anybody. Understanding evolution\nbetter and knowing the Bible better, the two do\nnot jangle out of tune so badly but that harmony\nis promised.\n\nThe doctrine of the antiquity of the world is\nentirely compatible with the Bible, though it is\nnot compatible with the dates which Archbishop\nUssher, in the time of King James, put\nat the head of the columns. That is so with\nother scientific theories. Any one who has read\nmuch of history has attended the obsequies of\nso many theories in the realm of science that he\nought to know that he is wasting his strength\nin trying to bring about a constant reconciliation\nbetween scientific and religious theories. It\nis his part to keep an open mind in assurance of\nthe unity of truth, an assurance that there is no\nfact which can possibly come to light and no\ntrue theory of facts which can possibly be formed\nwhich does not serve the interest of the truth,\nwhich the Bible also presents. The Bible does\nnot concern itself with all departments of knowledge.\nSo far as mistakes have been made on\nthe side of those who believe it, they have issued\nfrom forgetting that fact more than from any\nother one cause.\n\nOn the other hand, it has sometimes occurred\nthat believers in the Bible have been quite too\neager to accommodate themselves to purely\npassing phases of objection to it. The matter\nmentioned a moment ago, the excision of the\nsupernatural, is a case in point. The easy and\nglib way in which some have sought to get\naround difficulties, by talking in large terms\nabout the progressiveness of the revelation, as\nthough the progress were from error to truth,\ninstead of from half light to full light, is another\nillustration. The nimble way in which we have\nturned what is given as history into fiction, and\nallowed imagination to roam through the Bible,\nis another illustration. One of our later writers\ntells the story of Jonah, and says it sounds like\nfiction; why not call it fiction? Another tells\nthe story of the exodus from Egypt, and says it\nsounds like fiction; why not call it fiction?\nWell, certainly the objection is not to the presence\nof fiction in the Bible. It is there, openly,\nconfessedly, unashamed. Fiction can be used with\ngreat profit in teaching religious truth. But\nfiction may not masquerade in the guise of history,\nif men are to be led by it or mastered by\nit. If the way to be rid of difficulties in a narrative\nis to turn it into pious fiction, there are\nother instances where it might be used for relief\nin emergencies. The story of the crucifixion\nof Christ can be told so that it sounds like\nfiction; why not call it fiction? Certainly the\nstory of the conversion of Paul can be made to\nsound like fiction; why not call it fiction?\nAnd there is hardly any bit of narrative that can\nbe made to sound so like fiction as the landing\nof the Pilgrims; why not call that fiction? It\nis the easy way out; the difficulties are all gone\nlike Alice's cat, and there is left only the broad\nsmile of some moral lesson to be learned from\nthe fiction. It is not, however, the courageous\nnor the perfectly square way out. Violence has\nto be done to the plain narrative; historical\nstatement has to be made only a mask. And\nthe only reason for it is that there are difficulties\nnot yet cleared. As for the characters involved,\nCharles Reade, the novelist, calling himself \"a\nveteran writer of fiction,\" declares that the\nexplanation of these characters, Jonah being one\nof them, by invention is incredible and absurd:\n\"Such a man [as himself] knows the artifices\nand the elements of art. Here the artifices are\nabsent, and the elements surpassed.\" It is not\nuncommon for one who has found this easy\nway out of difficulties to declare with a wave of\nhis hand, that everybody now knows that this\nor that book in the Bible is fiction, when, as a\nmatter of fact, that is not at all an admitted\nopinion. The Bible will never gain its place\nand retain its authority while those who believe\nin it are spineless and topple over at the first\ntouch of some one's objection. It could not be a\ngreat Book; it could not serve the purposes of a\nrace if it presented no problems of understanding\nand of belief, and all short and easy methods\nof getting rid of those problems are certain to\nleave important elements of them out of sight.\n\nAll this means that the changes of these times\nrather present additional reason for a renewed\nhold on the Bible. It presents what the times\npeculiarly need. Instead of making the influence\nof the Bible impossible, these changes\nmake the need for the Bible the greater and\ngive it greater opportunity.\n\n\nAdd three notable points at which these times\nfeel and still need the influence of the Bible.\nFirst, they have and still need its literary influence.\nSo far as its ideas and forces and words\nare interwoven in the great literature of the past,\nit is essential still to the understanding of that\nliterature. It remains true that English literature,\ncertainly of the past and also of the present,\ncannot be understood without knowledge of the\nBible. The Yale professor of literature, quoted\nso often, says: \"It would be worth while to read\nthe Bible carefully and repeatedly, if only as a\nkey to modern culture, for to those who are\nunfamiliar with its teachings and its diction all\nthat is best in English literature of the present\ncentury is as a sealed book.\"\n\nFrom time to time there occur painful reminders\nof the fact that men supposed to know\nliterature do not understand it because they are\nnot familiar with the Bible. Some years ago\na college president tested a class of thirty-four\nmen with a score of extracts from Tennyson,\neach of which contained a Scriptural allusion,\nnone of them obscure. The replies were suggestive\nand quite appalling. Tennyson wrote, in\nthe \"Supposed Confessions\":\n\n \"My sin was a thorn among the thorns that\n     girt Thy brow.\"\n\nOf these thirty-four young men nine of them\ndid not understand that quotation. Tennyson\nwrote:\n\n \"Like Hezekiah's, backward runs\n The shadow of my days.\"\n\nThirty-two of the thirty-four did not know what\nthat meant. The meaning of the line,\n\n \"For I have flung thee pearls and find thee swine,\"\n\nwas utterly obscure to twenty-two of the thirty-\nfour. One of them said it was a reference to\n\"good opportunities given but not improved.\"\nAnother said it was equivalent to the counsel\n\"not to expect to find gold in a hay-stack.\"\nEven the line,\n\n          \"A Jonah's gourd\n Up in one night, and due to sudden sun,\"\n\nwas utterly baffling to twenty-eight of the\nthirty-four. One of them spoke of it as an\n\"allusion to the uncertainty of the length of\nlife.\" Another thought it was a reference to\n\"the occasion of Jonah's being preserved by the\nwhale.\" Another counted it \"an allusion to the\nemesis of Jonah by the whale.\" Another considered\nit a reference to \"the swallowing of\nJonah by a whale,\" and yet another considered\nthat it referred to \"things grand, but not worthy\nof worship because they are perishable.\" It is\namazing to read that in response to Tennyson's\nlines,\n\n \"Follow Light and do the Right--for man can\n     half control his doom--\n Till you find the deathless Angel seated in the\n     vacant tomb,\"\n\nonly sixteen were able to give an explanation of\nits meaning! The lines from the \"Holy Grail\"\nwere equally baffling:\n\n \"Perhaps like Him of Cana in Holy Writ,\n Our Arthur kept his best until the last.\"\n\nTwenty-four of these thirty-four young men\ncould not recall what that meant. One said that\nthe keeping of the best wine until the last meant\n\"waiting till the last moment to be baptized!\"\n\nAll that may be solely the fault of these young\nmen. Professor Lounsbury once said that his\nexperience in the class-room had taught him the\ninfinite capacity of the human mind to withstand\nthe introduction of knowledge. Very\nlikely earnest effort had been made to teach\nthese young men the Bible; but it is manifest\nthat they had successfully resisted the efforts.\nIf Tennyson were the only poet who could not\nbe understood without knowledge of the Bible,\nit might not matter so much, but no one can\nread Browning nor Carlyle nor Macaulay nor\nHuxley with entire intelligence without knowledge\nof the greater facts and forces of Scripture.\nThe value of the allusions can be shown by comparing\nthem with those of mythology. No one\ncan read most of Shelley with entire satisfaction\nwithout a knowledge of Greek mythology. That\nis one reason why Shelley has so much passed\nout of popularity. We do not know Greek\nmythology, and we have very largely lost Shelley\nfrom our literary possession. The chief power\nof these other great writers will go from us when\nour knowledge of the Scripture goes.\n\nThe danger is not simply with reference to the\ngreat literature of the past. There is danger of\nlosing appreciation of the more delicate touches\nof current literature, sometimes of a complete\nmissing of the meaning. An orator describing\npresent political and social conditions used a fine\nphrase, that \"it is time the nation camped for a\nseason at the foot of the mount.\" Only a knowledge\nof Bible history will bring as a flash before\none the nation in the desert at Sinai learning\nthe meaning and power of law. Yet an intelligent\nman, hearing that remark, said that\nhe counted it a fine figure, that he thought there\ndid come in the life of every nation a time before\nit began its ascent to the heights when it\nought to pause and camp at the foot of the\nmountain to get its breath! After Lincoln's\nassassination Garfield stood on the steps in New\nYork, and said: \"Clouds and darkness are around\nabout him! God reigns and the government at\nWashington still lives!\" Years after, some one\nreferring to that, said that it was a beautiful\nsentence, that the reference to \"clouds and\ndarkness\" was a beautiful symbolism, but that\nGarfield had a great knack in the building-up of\nfine phrases! He lacked utterly the background\nof the great Psalm which was in Garfield's mind,\nand which gives that phrase double meaning.\nIf we go back to Tennyson again, some one has\nproposed the inquiry why he should have called\none of his poems \"Rizpah,\" since there was no\none of that name mentioned in the whole poem!\nWhen, some years ago, a book was published,\nThe Children of Gideon, one of the reviewers\ncould not understand why that title was used,\nsince no one of that name appeared in the entire\nvolume. And when Mrs. Wharton's book, The\nHouse of Mirth, came out some one spoke of the\nirony of the title; but it is the irony of the Scriptures\nand the book calls for a Scriptural knowledge\nfor its entire understanding.\n\nTake even an encyclopedia article. Who can\nunderstand these two sentences without instant\nknowledge of Scripture? \"Marlowe and Shakespeare,\nthe young Davids of the day, tried the\narmor of Saul before they went out to battle,\nthen wisely laid it off.\" \"Arnold, like Aaron\nof old, stands between the dead and the living;\nbut, unlike Aaron, he holds no smoking censor of\npropitiation to stay the plague which he feels\nto be devouring his generation.\"[1] That is in an\nencyclopedia to which young people are often\nreferred. What will they make out of it without\nthe Bible? In a widely distributed school\npaper, in the question-and-answer department,\noccurs the inquiry: \"Who composed the inscription\non the Liberty Bell?\" The inscription\nis, \"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land to\nall the inhabitants thereof.\"[2] It is to be hoped\nit was a very young person who needed to ask\nwho \"composed\" that expression!\n\n\n[1] New International Encyclopedia, art. on English Literature.\n\n[2] Current Events, January 12, 1912.\n\n\nThis applies to all the great classics. There\nhas come about a \"decay of literary allusions,\"\nas one of our papers editorially says. In much\nof our writing, either the transient or the permanent,\nmen can no longer risk easy reference\nto classical literature. \"Readers of American\nbiography must often be struck with the important\npart which literary recollection played\nin the life of a cultured person a generation or\ntwo ago. These men had read Homer, Xenophon\nand Virgil, Shakespeare, Byron and Wordsworth,\nLamb, De Quincey and Coleridge. They\nwere not afraid of being called pedants because\nthey occasionally used a Latin phrase or referred\nto some great name of Greece or Rome.\"\nThat is not so commonly true to-day. Especially\nis there danger of losing easy acquaintance\nwith the great Bible references.\n\nThere are familiar reasons for it. For one\nthing, there has been a great increase of literature.\nOnce there was little to read, and that\nlittle became familiar. One would have been\nashamed to pretend to culture and not to know\nsuch literature well. Now there is so much that\none cannot know it all, and most men follow the\nline of least resistance. That line is not where\ngreat literature lies. Once the problem was how\nto get books enough for a family library. Now the\nproblem is how to get library enough for the books.\nMagazines, papers, volumes of all grades overflow.\n\"The Bible has been buried beneath a\nlandslide of books.\" The result is that the\ngreatest literary landmark of the English tongue\nthreatens to become unknown, or else to be\nlooked upon as of antiquarian rather than present\nworth. There our Puritan fathers had the advantage.\nAs President Faunce puts it: \"For\nthem the Bible was the norm and goal of all\nstudy. They had achieved the concentration\nof studies, and the Bible was the center. They\nlearned to read that they might read the literature\nof Israel; their writing was heavy with\nnoble Old Testament phrases; the names of Old\nTestament heroes they gave to their children;\nits words of immortal hope they inscribed on\ntheir tombstones; its Mosaic commonwealth they\nsought to realize in England and America; its\ndecalogue was the foundation of their laws, and\nits prophecies were a light shining in a dark\nplace. Such a unification of knowledge produced\na unified character, simple, stalwart, invincible.\"\nIt is very different in our own day.\nAs so-called literature increases it robs great\nliterature of its conspicuous outstanding character,\nand many men who pride themselves on\nthe amount they read would do far better to\nread a thousandth part as much and let that\nsmaller part be good.\n\nAnother reason for this decay of the influence of\nliterary knowledge of the Bible is the shallowness\nof much of our thinking. If the Bible were\nneeded for nothing else in present literary life,\nit would be needed for the deepening of literary\ncurrents. The vast flood of flotsam and jetsam\nwhich pours from the presses seldom floats on a\ndeep current. It is surface matter for the most\npart. It does not take itself seriously, and it\nis quite impossible to take it seriously. It does\nnot deal with great themes, or when it touches\nupon them it deals with them in a trifling way.\nTo men interested chiefly in literature of this\nkind the Bible cannot be of interest.\n\nThat is a passing condition, and out of it is certain\nto come here and there a masterpiece of\nliterature. When it does appear, it will be\nfound to reveal the same influences that have\nmade great literature in the past, issuing more\nlargely from the Bible than from any other book.\nThat is the main point of a bit of counsel which\nProfessor Bowen used to give his Harvard\nstudents. To form a good English style, he\ntold them, a student ought to keep near at hand\na Bible, a volume of Shakespeare, and Bacon's\nessays. That group of books would enlarge the\nvocabulary, would supply a store of words,\nphrases, and, allusions, and save the necessity\nof ransacking a meager and hide-bound diction\nin order to make one's meaning plain. Coleridge\nin his Table-Talk adds that \"intense study of the\nBible will keep any writer from being VULGAR in\npoint of style.\" So it may be urged that these\ntimes have and still need the literary influence\nof the Bible.\n\nAdd that the times have and still need its\nmoral steadying. Every age seems to its own\nthoughtful people to lack moral steadiness, and\nthey tend to compare it with other ages which\nlook steadier. That is a virtually invariable\nopinion of such men. The comparison with\nother ages is generally fallacious, yet the fact is\nreal for each age. Many things tend in this age\nto unsettle moral solidity. Some of them are\npeculiar to this time, others are not. But one\nof the great influences which the Bible is perpetually\ntending to counteract is stated in best\nterms in an experience of Henry M. Stanley.\nIt was on that journey to Africa when be found\nDavid Livingstone, under commission from one\nof the great newspapers. Naturally he had made\nup his load as light as possible. Of books he\nhad none save the Bible; but wrapped about his\nbottles of medicine and other articles were many\ncopies of newspapers. Stanley says that \"strangest\nof all his experiences were the changes wrought\nin him by the reading of the Bible and those\nnewspapers in melancholy Africa.\" He was frequently\nsick with African fever, and took up the\nBible to while away his hours of recovery.\nDuring the hours of health he read the newspapers.\n\"And thus, somehow or other, my views\ntoward newspapers were entirely recast,\" while\nhe held loyal to his profession as a newspaper\nman. This is the critical sentence in Stanley's\ntelling of the story: \"As seen in my loneliness,\nthere was this difference between the Bible and\nthe newspapers. The one reminded me that\napart from God my life was but a bubble of air,\nand it made me remember my Creator; the\nother fostered arrogance and worldliness.\"[1]\nThere is no denying such an experience as that.\nThat is precisely the moral effect of the Bible\nas compared with the moral effect of the newspaper\naccounts of current life. Democracy\nshould always be happy; but it must always\nbe serious, morally steady. Anything that tends\nto give men light views of wrong, to make evil\nthings humorous, to set out the ridiculous side\nof gross sins is perilous to democracy. It not\nonly is injurious to personal morals; it is bound\nsooner or later to injure public morals. There\nis nothing that so persistently counteracts that\ntendency of current literature as does the\nBible.\n\n\n[1] Autobiography, p. 252.\n\n\nFrom an ethical point of view, \"the ethical\ncontent of Paul is quite as important for us as\nthe system of Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. The\norganization of the New England town meeting is\nno more weighty for the American boy than the\norganization of the early Christian Church. John\nAdams and John Hancock and Abraham Lincoln\nare only the natural successors of the great\nHebrew champions of liberty and righteousness\nwho faced Pharoah and Ahab and put to flight\narmies of aliens.\" But aside from the definite\nethical teaching of the Bible there is need for\nthat strong impression of ethical values which it\ngives in the characters around which it has\ngathered. The conception of the Bible which\nmakes it appear as a steady progression should\nadd to its authority, not take from it. The\ndevelopment is not from error to truth, but from\nlight to more light. It is sometimes said that\nthe standards of morality of some parts of\nScripture are not to be commended. But they\nare not the standards of morality of Scripture,\nbut of their times. They are not taught in\nScripture; they are only stated; and they are so\nstated that instantly a thoughtful man discovers\nthat they are stated to be condemned. When\ndid it become true that all that is told of a good\nman is to be approved? It is not pretended\nthat Abraham did right always. David was\nconfessedly wrong. They move much of the time\nin half-light, yet the sum total of the impression\nof their writings is inevitably and invariably for\na more substantial morality. These times need\nthe moral steadying of the Bible to make men,\nnot creatures of the day arid not creatures of\ntheir whims, but creatures of all time and of\nfundamental laws.\n\nAdd the third fact, that our times have and\nstill need the religious influence of the Bible.\nNo democracy can dispense with religious culture.\nNo book makes for religion as does the\nBible. That is its chief purpose. No book can\ntake its place; no influence can supplant it.\nMax Muller made lifelong study of the Buddhist\nand other Indian books. He gave them to the\nEnglish-speaking world. Yet he wrote to a\nfriend of his impression of the immense superiority\nof the Bible in such terms that his\nfriend replied: \"Yes, you are right; how tremendously\nahead of other sacred books is the\nBible! The difference strikes one as almost unfairly\ngreat.\"[1] Writing in an India paper,\nThe Kayestha Samachar, in August, 1902, a\nHindu writer said: \"I am not a Christian; but\nhalf an hour's study of the Bible will do more\nto remodel a man than a whole day spent in\nrepeating the slokas of the Purinas or the\nmantras of the Rig-Veda.\" In the earlier\nchapters of the Koran Christians are frequently\nspoken of as \"people of the Book.\" It is a\nsuggestive phrase. If Christianity has any value\nfor American life, then the Bible has just that\nvalue. Christianity is made by the Bible; it\nhas never been vital nor nationally influential\nfor good without the Bible.\n\n\n[1] Speer, Light of the World, iv.\n\n\nSometimes, because of his strong words regarding\nthe conflict between science and theology,\nthe venerable American diplomat and educator,\nDr. Andrew D. White, is thought of as a\nfoe to religion. No one who reads his biography\ncan have that impression half an hour. Near\nthe close of it is a paragraph of singular insight\nand authority which fits just this connection:\n\"It will, in my opinion, be a sad day for this or\nfor any people when there shall have come in\nthem an atrophy of the religious nature; when\nthey shall have suppressed the need of communication,\nno matter how vague, with a supreme\npower in the universe; when the ties which bind\nmen of similar modes of thought in the various\nreligious organizations shall be dissolved; when\nmen, instead of meeting their fellow-men in\nassemblages for public worship which give them a\nsense of brotherhood, shall lounge at home or in\nclubs; when men and women, instead of bringing\nthemselves at stated periods into an atmosphere\nof prayer, praise, and aspiration, to hear\nthe discussion of higher spiritual themes, to be\nstirred by appeals to their nobler nature in behalf\nof faith, hope, and charity, and to be moved\nby a closer realization of the fatherhood of God\nand the brotherhood of man, shall stay at home\nand give their thoughts to the Sunday papers,\nor to the conduct of their business, or to the\nlanguid search for some refuge from boredom.\"[1]\nThose are wise, strong words, and they sustain\nto the full what has been urged, that these\ntimes still need the religious influence of the\nBible.\n\n\n[1] Autobiography, vol. ii, p. 570.\n\n\nThe influence of the Bible on the literary,\nmoral, and religious life of the times is already\napparent. But that influence needs to be constantly\nstrengthened. There remains, therefore,\nto suggest some methods of giving the Bible\nincreasing power. It should be recognized first\nand last that only thoughtful people will do it.\nNo help will come from careless people. Moreover,\nonly people who believe in the common\nfolk will do it. Those who are aristocrats in\nthe sense that they do not believe that common\npeople can be trusted will not concern themselves\nto increase the power of the Bible. But\nfor those who are thoughtful and essentially\ndemocratic the duty is a very plain one. There\nare four great agencies which may well magnify\nthe Bible and whose influence will bring the\nBible into increasing power in national life.\n\nFirst among these, of course, must be the\nChurch. The accent which it will place on the\nBible will naturally be on its religious value,\nthough its moral value will take a close second\nplace. It is essential for the Church to hold\nitself true to its religious foundations. Only\nmen who have some position of leadership can\nrealize the immense pressure that is on to-day\nto draw the Church into forms of activity and\nmethods of service which are much to be\ncommended, but which have to be constantly\nguarded lest they deprive it of power and concern\nin the things which are peculiar to its own\nlife and which it and it alone can contribute to\nthe public good. The Church needs to develop\nfor itself far better methods of instruction in\nthe Bible, so that it may as far as possible drill\nthose who come under its influence in the knowledge\nof the Bible for its distinctive religious\nvalue. This is neither the time nor the place\nfor a full statement of that responsibility. It is\nenough to see how the very logic of the life of\nthe Church requires that it return with renewed\nenergy to its magnifying and teaching of the\nBible.\n\nThe second agency which may be called upon\nis the press. The accent of the press will be\non the moral value of the Bible, the service which\nits teaching renders to the national and personal\nlife. There seems to be a hopeful returning\ntendency to allusions to the Scripture in newspaper\nand magazine publications. It is rare to\nfind among the higher-level newspapers an\neditorial page, where the most thoughtful writing\nappears, in which on any day there do not\nappear Scripture allusions or references. When\nthat is seriously done, when Scripture is used\nfor some other purpose than to point a jest, it\nhelps to restore the Bible to its place in public\nthought. In recent years there has been a\nnoticeable return of the greater magazines to\nconsideration of the moral phases of the Scripture.\nThat has been inevitably connected with\nthe development of a social sense which condemns\nmen for their evil courses because of\ntheir damage to society. The Old Testament\nprophets are living their lives again in these\ndays, and the more thoughtful men are being\ndriven back to them for the great principles on\nwhich they may live safely.\n\nThe third agency which needs to magnify the\nBible is the school. The accent which it will\nchoose will naturally be the literary value of the\nBible, though it will not overlook its moral\nvalue as well. Incidental references heretofore\nhave suggested the importance of religion in a\ndemocracy. But there are none of the great\nbranches of the teaching of the schools, public\nor private, which do not involve the Bible. It\nis impossible to teach history fairly and fully\nwithout a frank recognition of the influence of\nthe Bible. Study the Reformation, the Puritan\nmovement, the Pilgrim journeys, the whole of\nearly American history! We can leave the Bible\nout only by trifling with the facts. Certainly\nliterature cannot be taught without it. And if it\nis the purpose of the schools to develop character\nand moral life, then there is high authority for\nsaying that the Bible ought to have place.\n\nForty years ago Mr. Huxley, in his essay on\n\"The School Boards: What They Can Do, and\nWhat They May Do,\" laid a broad foundation\nfor thinking at this point, and his words bear\nquoting at some length: \"I have always been\nstrongly in favor of secular education, in the\nsense of education without theology; but I must\nconfess I have been no less seriously perplexed to\nknow by what practical measures the religious\nfeeling, which is the essential basis of conduct,\nwas to be kept up, in the present utterly chaotic\nstate of opinion on these matters, without the\nuse of the Bible. The pagan moralists lack life\nand color, and even the noble stoic, Marcus\nAurelius Antoninus, is too high and refined for\nan ordinary child. Take the Bible as a whole;\nmake the severest deductions which fair criticism\ncan dictate for shortcomings and positive\nerrors; eliminate, as a sensible lay teacher would\ndo if left to himself, all that is not desirable\nfor children to occupy themselves with; and there\nstill remains in this old literature a vast residuum\nof moral beauty and grandeur. And then consider\nthe great historical fact that, for three centuries,\nthis Book has been woven into the life of\nall that is best and noblest in English history;\nthat it has become the national epic of Britain,\nand is as familiar to noble and simple, from\nJohn-o'-Groat's House to Land's End, as Dante\nand Tasso once were to the Italians; that it is\nwritten in the noblest and purest English, and\nabounds in exquisite beauties of mere literary\nform; and, finally, that it forbids the veriest\nhind who never left his village to be ignorant\nof the existence of other countries and other\ncivilizations, and of a great past, stretching back\nto the furthest limits of the oldest nations of the\nworld. By the study of what other book could\nchildren be so much humanized and made to\nfeel that each figure in that vast historical procession fills,\nlike themselves, but a momentary\nspace in the interval between two eternities;\nand earns the blessings or the curses of all time,\naccording to its effort to do good and hate evil,\neven as they also are earning their payment for\ntheir work? On the whole, then, I am in favor\nof reading the Bible, with such grammatical,\ngeographical, and historical explanations by a lay\nteacher as may be needful, with rigid exclusion\nof any further theological teaching than that contained\nin the Bible itself.\" Mr. Huxley is an Englishman,\nthough, as Professor Moulton says, \"We\ndivide him between England and America.\" But\nProfessor Moulton himself is very urgent in this\nsame matter. If the classics of Greece and Rome\nare in the nature of ancestral literature, an equal\nposition belongs to the literature of the Bible.\n\"If our intellect and imagination have been\nformed by Greece, have we not in similar fashion\ndrawn our moral and emotional training\nfrom Hebrew thought?\" It is one of the curiosities\nof our civilization that we are content\nto go for our liberal education to literatures\nwhich morally are at opposite poles from ourselves;\nliteratures in which the most exalted\ntone is often an apotheosis of the sensuous,\nwhich degrade divinity, not only to the human\nlevel, but to the lowest level of humanity. \"It\nis surely good that our youth during the formative\nperiod should have displayed to them, in a literary\ndress as brilliant as that of Greek literature,\na people dominated by an utter passion for\nrighteousness, a people whose ideas of purity,\nof infinite good, of universal order, of faith in\nthe irresistible downfall of moral evil, moved\nto a poetic passion as fervid and speech as\nmusical as when Sappho sang of love or Eschylus\nthundered his deep notes of destiny.\"[1]\n\n\n[1] Literary Study of the Bible, passim.\n\n\nBut there is a leading American voice which\nwill speak in that behalf, in President Nicholas\nMurray Butler, of Columbia University. In his\naddress as President of the National Educational\nAssociation, President Butler makes strong plea\nfor the reading of the Bible even in public schools.\n\"His reason had no connection with religion. It\nwas based on altogether different ground. He\nregarded an acquaintance with the Bible as absolutely\nindispensable to the proper understanding\nof English literature.\" It is unfortunate in the\nextreme, he thought, that so many young men\nare growing up without that knowledge of the\nBible which every one must have if he means\nto be capable of the greatest literary pleasure\nand appreciation of the literature of his own\npeople. Not only the allusions, but the whole\ntone and bias of many English authors will become\nto one who is ignorant of the Bible most\ndifficult and even impossible of comprehension.\n\nThe difficulties of calling public schools to\nthis task appear at once. It would be monstrous\nif they should be sectarian or proselytizing.\nBut the Bible is not a sectarian Book.\nIt is the Book of greatest literature. It is the\nBook of mightiest morals. It is governing history.\nIt is affecting literature as nothing else\nhas done. A thousand pities that any petty\nsquabbling or differences of opinion should prevent\nthe young people in the schools from realizing\nthe grandeur and beauty of it!\n\nBut the final and most important agency.\nwhich will magnify the influence of the Bible\nmust necessarily be the home. It will gather\nup all its traits, religious, moral, and literary.\nHere is the fundamental opportunity and the\nfundamental obligation. Robert Burns was right\nin finding the secret of Scotia's power in such\nscenes as those of \"The Cottar's Saturday Night.\"\nOne can almost see Carlyle going back to his\nold home at Ecclefechan and standing outside\nto hear his old mother making a prayer in his\nbehalf. A newspaper editorial of recent date\nsays this decay of literary allusion is traceable\nin part to the gradual abandonment of family\nprayers. Answering President Butler, it is\nurged that it is not so important that the Bible\nbe in the public schools as that it get back again\ninto the homes. \"Thorough acquaintance with\nthe Bible is desirable; it should be fostered.\nThe person who will have to foster it, though,\"\nsays this writer, \"is not the teacher, but the\nparent. The parent is the person whom Dr.\nButler should try to convert.\" Well, while\nthere may be differences about the school, there\ncan be none about the place of the Bible in the\nhome. It needs to be bound up with the earliest\nimpressions and intertwined with those impressions\nas they deepen and extend.\n\nSo, by the Church, which will accent its religious\nvalue; by the press, which will accent its\nmoral power; by the school, which will spread\nits literary influence; and by the home, which\nwill realize all three and make it seem a vital\nconcern from the beginning of life, the Bible\nwill be put and held in the place of power to-day\nwhich it has had in the years that are gone, and\nwill steadily gain greater power.","title":"The Greatest English Classic: A Study of the King James Version of the Bible and Its Influence on Life and Literature","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":64120}