64
The Fundamentals. in all his later experiences, and his associations with holy priests and prophets? He was certainly teachable: did God fail to make use of him in further revealing Himself to His people ? To deny these Psalms to David on the ground of his limited views of God in his early life, is this not to deny that God made successive revelations of Himself wherever He found suitable channels? If, further, we consider the unques tioned skill of David in the music of his nation and his age (I. Sam. 16:14-25), this will constitute a presupposition in favor of his interest in sacfed song. If, finally, we consider his personal career of danger and deliverance, this will appear as the natural means of awakening in him the spirit of varied religious poetry. His times were much like the Elizabethan period, which ministered unexampled stimulus to the English mind. From all this we may turn to the singular verdict of Pro fessor Jordan: “If a man says he cannot see why David could not have written Psalms 51 and 139, you are compelled to reply as politely as possible that if he did write them then any man can write anything.” So also we may say, “as politely as pos sible,” that if Shakespeare, with his “small Latin and less Greek,” did write his incomparable dramas, “then any man can write anything” ; that if Dickens, with his mere elemen tary education, did write his great novels, “then any man can write anything” ; and that if Lincoln, who had no early school ing, did write his Gettysburg address, “then any man can write anything.” SEVENTH FALLACY: DEUTERONOMY NOT WRITTEN BY MOSES. VTI. One of the fixed points of the higher criticism is its theory of the origin of Deuteronomy. In I. Kings 22 we ha-we the history of the finding of the book of the law in the temple, which was being repaired. Now the higher critics present this finding, not as the discovery of an ancient docu-
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker