on these; the LAW is conspicuous and decisive, that he may run who readeth.' And then, though not the primary object of divine teaching, the, in reality, most effective course is taken to secure substantial harmony of opinion in all ingenuous teachable minds. All the emotions appropriate to the spiritual life are stirred and kept alive by a few great facts bearing the fullest attestation. Of these the great fact that Christ died for our sins' stands like the sun in the centre, which, once revealed in its glory, irradiates the whole system. Accordingly we find the theology of the apostles projected from the cross; and the divine scheme can only be seen in its full and relative proportions from the point whence it radiates. Delivered under the light of the Divine Sacrifice, it is never abstract, never addressed to the intellect primarily, but to the rational soul, the centre and seat of the moral emotions. There quickened and stimulated by the entire teaching of Scripture, faith works by love, and through it reaches a substantial harmony, both subjective and objective. It is also worthy of being noted in this connection, that the teaching of Scripture is prevailingly in contact with social life. The discourses of Christ were addressed to audiences drawn from and living in the society around him; the greater part of the apostolic teaching was addressed in familiar letters to bodies of Christians, or to individuals sustaining the most important social and official relations. In each case the teaching was practical, bearing constantly on faith and duty. Replenished throughout the Scriptures are with the most momentous truth, but it is truth not of theory, but of obligation. It never terminates in making us think right, but passes on directly to the seat of responsibility, in order to make us feel right and do right. When this is secured, there is small danger to be apprehended from diversity of opinion; and if this is missed, what is uniformity worth, though centring in the purest scheme of orthodoxy ever devised.

All the great purposes of revelation might have been secured though theology as a science had never been developed, as they have been in myriads of redeemed and purified spirits who were never capable of taking it up as such. Philosophy is a want not of the moral but of the intellectual being, and this being has in every age remained dormant or undeveloped in the majority of the race. The speculative craving possesses but a small minority, though in that minority it operates with the force of destiny, impelling them in the search after the reason of things.' But to embody the fruits of the exercise of this temperament in a dogmatic form, and constructing a detailed system of doctrinal results and checks, to demand its reception of all, as the embodiment of Scripture saving truth; what course could betray a greater ignorance of human nature, or greater inattention to Divine procedure and example ?

THE

THE YOUTH OF DAVID, ILLUSTRATED
FROM THE PSALMS.

BY THE EDITOR.

SEEING how manifestly the Psalms of David are the outpourings of the writer's heart, and how numerous are the allusions to his experiences and his circumstances which they afford, it has often surprised us how little they have been used to illustrate his character and history. Most judgments concerning him are derived entirely from the circumstances of his career which the history records, and little, if any, use has been made of those beautiful compositions in which he unfolds his whole heart and character to us, so that we may read it like a book. It is also very safe to say that if the history of David had not been recorded in the books of Samuel and Chronicles, the substance of it might be collected from the Psalms alone, with the addition of many circumstances which the history does not embrace. We have of late years been furnished with very ample and interesting biographies of old poets and historians, founded on far scantier materials than the Psalms afford concerning David.

It is with the hope of illustrating our meaning, rather than with the intention of supplying the deficiency thus indicated, that we here purpose to inquire what information concerning the youth of David, and the growth of his character, may be derived from his Psalms. We chose this period for two reasons-because it is the period in which the historical information and the biographies founded upon it are most deficient; and because, if it be true that 'the child is father of the man,' this part of David's career is of importance, from the interest we naturally feel in tracing the formation or early developments of one of the most remarkable characters that any age has produced.

We know, historically, that David was the son of a native of Bethlehem, named Jesse, and that this Jesse was a descendant from that seemingly wealthy Bethlehemite named Boaz, who figures in the history of Ruth. At the first view it might seem that Jesse was the heritor of his wealth, and representative of the eldest branch of his descendants. But this is by no means clear from the known facts, as the genealogy of Jesse is given merely for the sake of indicating the line of descent which in the person of David was rendered royal, and ultimately became

Messianic.

Messianic. Jesse might be of a younger branch in the descent from Boaz, and if he represented the eldest, the manner in which landed heritages were divided among children with the Hebrews, renders it unlikely that Jesse possessed the entire heritage of Boaz. The matter is of some interest, as the recorded facts and the intimations in the Psalms do not seem to be in accordance with the prevailing impression on subject. It appears to us that Jesse was rather a poor than a rich man—not in abject poverty, certainly, but not in such circumstances as to be able to keep his family entirely free from privations.

It is important to observe that Jesse appears before us not, like Boaz, as a considerable landowner, but as a sheep-master, and that not of extensive flocks, but of a few sheep or a small flock, for which the care of his youngest son sufficed. This son was David.

It will be remembered that when Samuel went to Bethlehem to anoint one of Jesse's sons, and all the elder sons passed before him, this youngest was not thought of by his father or brothers as having anything to do in such a matter, until the prophet pointedly asked Jesse whether these were all his children, and then Jesse answered, there remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep' (1 Sam. xvi. 11), which seems clearly to imply that they were his sole charge. And this is confirmed by what happened when David was sent to the camp of Saul by his father to inquire after his three eldest brethren, who were there with the army. On that occasion 'David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper' (1 Sam. xvii. 20), not with any of the three brothers who still remained at Bethlehem, or who, at least, were not with the army; and the manner in which this is mentioned, seems to show that the keeper was specially employed for the occasion, and was not one who had ordinarily any charge of the flock. This interpretation is corroborated by the surprise expressed by the elder brother Eliab on his arrival, as to what would be done with the sheep in his absence, With whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness?' (1 Sam. xvii. 28). Had there been any other keeper than David, it would have been known or guessed that the sheep had been left in his charge during an absence intended to be short, and the question would have been superfluous.

It appears, therefore, that Jesse's flock was small, as, indeed, Eliab expressly says; and that David had the full charge of it. And by showing the comparative humbleness of Jesse's circumstances, a new and interesting light may be thrown upon those passages in which David, from his subsequent elevation, looks

back

back upon the state from which he was taken; as well upon those in which he speaks, probably from experience, of the exigencies and oppressions of the poor; and not less upon the allusions which are found to pastoral affairs, for the position was one requiring much labour and constant vigilance, and was very different from that of a young master superintending and directing his father's shepherds. We may also trace the influence of these circumstances upon the views which the Psalmist often takes of the course of human life, and the contrasts which he delights to draw between the hopes of the poor but righteous man, and the flourishing but evanescent prosperity of the wicked.

It will be observed that the general tenor of the quotations we shall have to produce, sustain these impressions. Most of them are wanted in illustration of other points; and, to avoid repetition, are not here produced for remark on this subject separately. We may, however, cite the following-not as being the strongest, but as best suited for separate production :

"Who is like the Lord our God,
Who dwelleth on high;

Who humbleth himself to behold

The things that are in the heaven and in the earth?

He raiseth up the poor out of the dust,

And lifteth the needy out of the dunghill;

That he may set him with princes,

Even with the princes of his people.'-Ps. cxiii. 5-8.

'He chose David also his servant,

And took him from the sheepfolds :

From following the ewes great with young,
He brought him to feed Jacob his people,

And Israel his inheritance.'-Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71.

There is strong reason to suspect that David did not experience much kind treatment in his family. It is usual for a man to cherish, like Jacob, the son of his old age, and to prize him above his other children, especially when the lad is handsome, as we know was the case with David. Yet no act of tenderness or care, or even of appreciation, on the part of Jesse, appears in the history, under circumstances which might have seemed to require his paternal kindness, and in which it would probably have been mentioned if it had been rendered. That Jesse did not produce David among his other sons before Samuel, and the slight way in which he at length, on being questioned, mentions the youngest who was away with the sheep, are suggestive circumstances. When Jesse sent David to the camp of Israel, there was nothing in it of regard to him, but for the sons who were with the army,

to

to whom he wished to send provisions, and of whose welfare he desired to be assured. The only other circumstance in which Jesse and his son are mentioned together is, that David, in the time of his trouble from the persecutions of Saul, took his parents to the land of Moab for safety, showing that whatever had been the treatment he had received, or rather, perhaps, whatever had been the neglect to which he had been subjected, he, on his part, was not unmindful of his filial duties. In corroboration of the impression which we have stated, it may be noted that in the Psalms David nowhere mentions his father but once, and that once in such a way as to sanction the impression we have been led to entertain. Taking this as a case of omission merely, it is of itself singularly suggestive in the case of one of so loving a temper as David, so susceptible of kindness, and so keenly alive as he was to all the tender influences of the paternal relation. When there is so much allusion in the Psalms to the unkindness and neglect of those nearest to him, and of the ingratitude of those he cherished, we may conceive the peculiar satisfaction which he would have felt in referring to the comfort he had found in his father's tenderness, had there been ground on which he could do so.

The single passage of the Psalms in which David mentions his father is this:

6 When my father and mother forsake me,

Then the Lord will take me up.'-Ps. xxvii. 10.

It has been remarked that the hypothetical form given to this verse in the Authorized Translation is not in accordance with the original, which would be better rendered,

6 For my father and mother have forsaken me,
But the Lord will take me up.'

Although this may seem to have special reference to the time when the mad jealousy of Saul exposed all who belonged to David to trouble on his account (as is indicated by a refuge in the land of Moab being eventually necessary), and when he probably had to endure many cruel reflections and hard speeches from them, yet it may seem, in connection with what has been already produced, to show that David was not, in his youth, blessed in any eminent degree with the comfort of a father's love. It is willingly granted that this passage taken by itself does not prove this; but when taken with passages of a corresponding tendency, it does as to the father; but it does not as to the mother, seeing that she is elsewhere mentioned by the son with kindness and respect. That he does in such terms mention her and not his father, is a further corroboration of the conjecture we have

hazarded