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.