The works of the Rev. John Wesley, Vol. 06 (of 32)

by John Wesley

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.