Chapter V (7)

There are some other egregious errors which I intended to have remarked, but I am already got beyond the proper bounds of a letter.――But holy _David_’s case, I cannot but mention, as sufficient to have deterred the Doctor from an hypothesis, which has obliged him to place this sweet finger of _Israel_ amongst those, who had not the least thought of any eternal relation to God. This holy _David_, the type of Christ, “who knew that God had sworn with an oath, that out of the fruit of his loins, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne:” this great prophet, who foretold the resurrection of Christ, _that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption_; this _David_, thus deep in the counsels of God, and acquainted with the great article of the resurrection, this spiritual, typical, prophesying _David_, is, for the sake of the Doctor’s project, crowded amongst those, who were not allowed to have any other relation to God, or any thing else to hope from him, or thank him for, but the blessings of a temporal life, till death had put the same end, to all of _David_, as it did to those few sheep, that he once kept. And what is still worse, the same _David_ is made the most zealous preacher of the folly of fearing, or hoping for any thing after death: and is appealed to by the Doctor, and his assistant, as giving the most full evidence against all happiness, but that of this life, and represented in his divine transports, as setting forth the wisdom of believing that the life of man ends like that of rotten sheep, in a death _that_ brings him into the dark land of forgetfulness; singing gloriously, “the dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. In death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?”

Thus it is, that _David_, by these gentlemen is made a preacher against a future state; not considering that such infidelity would have been worse in _David_ than it possibly can be in any modern infidel. But the truth is, the holy prophet in all passages of this kind, is only calling upon God for the continuance and full manifestation of the blessings of _that_ temporal theocracy, which could only be given by God, or received by man whilst he was on this side death. And the _darkness_, _silence_, or _insensibility_ affirmed of death, has no relation to a _total end_ of life and sensibility, but solely to an end of all _enjoyment_, of the blessings promised by the divine theocracy. _David_, as _son_ of _Abraham_, _Isaac_ and _Jacob_, had their faith and piety, and such his psalms are full of heavenly devotion, and flaming with divine love. But _David_, as a _son_ of the covenant made with _Moses_, was also an heir of the temporal blessings of the theocracy; and in this capacity, had a right to say, _Why do the wicked prosper? Wilt thou shew thy wonders in the grave?_ That is, canst thou give thy promised temporal blessings, when death has taken away all possibility of receiving them?

But if it could be supposed, that _David_ by the foregoing expressions, meant to give up the promises of eternal redemption made to all his forefathers, and called the world to look for no more but what they could get in this vale of misery; what excuse can be made for the Christian church, which from first to last, has made such heathenish songs a part of the gospel service? For in this case, these psalms may be justly esteemed prophane, as having a more direct tendency to beget and fix infidelity in the hearts of men, than the hymns of the Heathen poets.

I must yet add a word, upon the Doctor’s most theological account of man’s first ability to speak articulate words.

“In judging, says he, only from the _nature of things_, one should be apt to embrace the opinion of _Diodorus Siculus_, that first the men lived for some time in woods and caves, after the manner of beasts, uttering only _confused sounds_.”¹ And yet it is hardly possible for a man to make a judgment more contrary to the nature of things. For does not the nature of almost all animals, beasts and birds shew us, that they have a natural untaught language, not consisting of _confused sounds_, but distinct by an articulate difference and intelligible to every one of the same species? If therefore the nature of things will allow us to suppose, that man was created as perfect in his kind as the animals were in theirs, then it will oblige us to affirm, that the first of mankind had from nature, an untaught language, as suitable to the ends of their creation, as distinct and intelligible to themselves, as that of birds or beasts is to them in their several kinds. Now it must not be said that the Doctor has adopted the whole opinion of _Diodorus_, tho’ so highly (as he thinks) conformable to the nature of things; for he has given up that of man’s living _in woods and caves_, and has only chosen to stand by that which is much the worst part of it, namely, his natural inability to utter any thing _but confused sounds_.――However, to make amends for all this poverty of speech, in which man was brought forth by God; the Doctor has a conjecture, how it soon came to be better with him. In scripture, says he, “we find that God taught the first man religion, and can we think he would not at the same time teach him language? Again, when God created man he made woman for his companion, but the only means of enjoying that benefit was the use of speech. Can we believe that he would leave them to get out of the _forlorn condition of brutality_ as they could?”²――Shocking and even blasphemous words! For little short can it be of that, to say, that man, created in the image and likeness of God, was created in a _forlorn condition of brutality_? Can any infidel more despise and ridicule all that is said both in the Old and New Testament, concerning man’s creation, his high birth and destination, his fall and redemption, than is here done?

¹ D. L. Vol. II. page 81.

² D. L. ibid.

In the scripture we are told, that man in the first, perfect state of his creation, came forth a living image and likeness of the all-perfect God; that he came forth in this exalted state of perfection, above all other animals of this world, in order to be a lord and ruler over them. Can there be a more open ridicule made of all this, than to hold, that this first glorious image of God came forth in a _forlorn brutal condition_, unable to utter any thing, but _confused sounds_? Or what can be more unbecoming a Christian Doctor, than to espouse such a paltry notion from the authority of a pagan _Greek_, in full contradiction to all that _Moses_, Christ and his apostles have said of the first heavenly nature, divine birth and glorious prerogative of man? What a mockery is here made of the whole Christian system, which supposes man to have fallen from such a high degree of heavenly union with God, that nothing less than the birth of the Son of God in fallen man, could restore him to that perfection which he had at first? What a folly to talk of the fall of man, if he came out of the hands of God in a forlorn condition of brutality?

But the Doctor comes now to his full proof, that man had at first no articulate speech, and that he was actually taught it afterwards by God; “God brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air unto _Adam_, to see what he would call them.”

And yet, so unlucky is the Doctor, that no words can give a higher proof, that _Adam_ had not only an articulate speech, but in such a degree of perfection, as none of his natural sons, not the whole tribe of linguists, critics, and grammarians, ever had, or can possibly have. For if it could be supposed, that any man was a hundred times more knowing than the Doctor is, in what he calls his _enigmatic_, _curiologic_, _hierogliphic_, _emblematic_, _symbolic_ profundities, yet if all the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were to be brought before him to be distinguished from one another, by articulate sounds of his voice, even such a man would be as unequal to the task, as a _Tom Thumb_. And of all the absurdities, _that_ ever were heard of, surely none can equal that, of supposing, that _Adam_ had not articulate speech, but had it to learn at a time, when he was called to the exercise of the highest perfection of language, namely, to distinguish such an infinite number of creatures, by different articulate sounds of his voice. It is like supposing, that a man whose eyes had no natural power of distinguishing one thing from another, should on that account, have all the creatures in the world, brought before him, that he might describe every difference in form, and figure, that belonged to them.

The Doctor has by strength of genius, and great industry, amassed together no small heap of learned decisions of points, doctrines, as well Heathenish, as Christian, much the greatest part of which, the Christian reader will find himself obliged to drive out of his thoughts, as soon as he can in good earnest say, _What must I do to be saved?_――This collection of decisions, he calls his _projected defence of Christianity_, which if it was such, Christianity must have been but poorly provided for its support by the four gospels. I shall make no doubt of his intending, what he says by them. But a project in defence of Christianity, is not more promising, than a trap to catch humility. The nature of things allows no more of the one, than of the other. To be a defender of Christianity, is to be a defender of Christ, but none can defend him in any other degree, than so far as he is his follower. To be with Christ, is _to walk as he walked_, and he _that_ is not so with him, is _against him_.

There are two ways of embracing Christianity, the one is as a _sinner_, the other as a _scholar_; the former is the way taught by Christ and his apostles, the latter is the invention of men, fallen from the Christian life under the power of natural reason, and verbal learning.――Now these two ways are not to be considered, as only the one better than the other, but in such a difference, as right and wrong, true and false, bear to one another. For there is no possibility of taking one step in Christianity, but as a sinner, for it has no errand but to the sinner, has no relief but for sin, and nothing can receive it, but the heart wounded, and wearied with the burden of its own sin. All the gospel is but a foreign tale, a dead letter to the most logically learned man in the world, who does not feel in the depth of his soul, that all the reasonableness, and excellency of gospel truth, lies in that fund of sin, impurity, and corrupt tempers, which are inseparable from him, till he is born again. And if the Doctor, in his application to the Deists, had pressed home this affecting truth, which stands at the door of every man’s heart, and is the only ground of Christian redemption, he had shewn a better care and concern for their souls, and had done more to awaken them out of their infidelity, than by all that wit and satyr in his dedication of his book to them. For like begets like; love and seriousness in the speaker, beget love and seriousness in the hearer; and he that has no earnestness towards unbelievers, but that of perswading them not to lose their share of the love and mercy of God in Christ Jesus, towards helpless fallen men, can only do it, in the spirit and language of that love and goodness, in whose arms, he longs to see them embraced.

But as no man ever came to Christ, but because he was weary, and heavy laden with the burden of his own natural disorder, and wanted rest to his soul, so nothing can help men to find the necessity of coming to Christ, but that which helps him to find and feel a misery of sin and corruption, which in some, the care and pleasures of this life, and in others the happiness of finding themselves wits, and polite scholars, never suffered them to feel before.

Our Lord’s parable of the _prodigal_ son, contains the whole matter between God and fallen man. It relates nothing particular to this, or that person, but sets forth the strict truth of every man’s state, with regard to his heavenly Father. For every son of _Adam_ has every thing in him, that is said of that prodigal; he has lost his first state, is wandered as far from his heavenly Father and country, has abused and wasted his Father’s blessings, and is that very poor swineherd, craving husks in a land of famine, instead of living in the glory of his Father’s family; and of every reader of that parable, it may be justly said, _Thou art the man_. And no son of _Adam_, do what he will, can possibly come out of the poverty, shame, and misery of his fallen state, ♦till he finds and feels, and confesses from the bottom of his heart, all that which the penitent prodigal found, felt and confessed.

♦ “tell” replaced with “till”

I should have had much uneasiness, my Lord, in exposing so many gross errors both in the matter, and manner of the Doctor’s books, did not my heart bear me witness, that no want of good-will, or due respect towards him, but solely a regard to that which ought only to be regarded, has directed my pen.

The End of the SIXTH VOLUME.