Images de page







to Mr. Pitt: who can endure such a fellow? The other has given dead thrust to Gibbon, and a living blow to Payne :- away with him a-la lanterne. But Dr. Toulmin !what an COURSEHe has effectually corrected a prevalent and mischievous mistake : the candid and attentive reader will not be surprized that this sermon is published in consequence of earnest quest. Such is the langaage of the Monthly Review.

Let us, Sir, put on our spectacles, and look a little nearer at this excellent discourse. I am no child, to be led by the nose by a Critic, and do not always coincide in opinion even with Aristotle hiniself. Let us first contemplate Dr. Toulmin's orthography. We find, - It cometh from, it includes and chiefly signifierh, &c.': Again, 'Jehovah addresseth himself, he expatiates, &c.' Again, . It is the

' name which giveth confirmation, and it characteriscs, &c. Again, • the seas, and whatsoever passeth the paths thereof, he created, and He governs.' Such a multitude of instances of the confusion of the old and new modes of expressing the third person of the present tense, could not have been accidental; and they show, that whatever Dr. Toulmin's attainments may be, he is at least not very correct in the English Grammar. Are such blunders to be found in Pretty may and Hurdis? Having slipped so often in his English, it is clear that Dr. T. is right in the only Greek word which he has used ? In one of the three Hebrew words which he has quoted, there is unquestionably ani erratum. What an excellent writer!

Let us next examine his doctrine, Mr. Editor. It is acknowledged, upon very

face of the sermon, that it was preached at the Chapel in Essex-street, that is, at the UNITARIAN Chapel. Dr. Toulmin, therefore, is a supporter of that damnable doctrine and heresy, not of the Church of Rome, but of the school of Cracow, de Jesu Chrisia servatore; that abominable heresy, of which the Christian world was guiltless almost sixteen hunulred years ; which was gencrated in the hot brain of she turbulent schismatic Fæustus Socinus; and which, widethroated as he is, is too gross-even for a Papist to swallow ; that heresy, I will add, which has found fewer followers, than any heresy started in these latter times of degenerate Christianity; the heresy, that Jesus was mere man. This circumstance it is, Sir, which makes his sermon appear to be an EXCELLENT DISCOURSE in the estimation of the Monthly Reviewers. For we need not to be informed, Mr. Editor, though our readers may, that the Socinian error has long been a favourite with them. Other instances of their blind attachment to it inight be produced; but it is sufficient for my purpose, that their critique upon Dr. Toulinin is a mo:lern proof, and that I can readily produce an ancient one from their Review for February, 1754, P. 117. There, an author having asserted that the DivINÉ WORD dil lead a miserable life, and did undergo a painful death, the Monthly Reviewer thought proper to remark, that it was absolutely incompatible with supreme Deity to be capable of suffering and death. I cannot refer to the passage, without observing upon it, that we have the testimony of an Evangelist that the WORD. WAS MADE FLESH. And if we are compelled, by the credibility of this heavenly messenger, to believe that the word as made fies), it-secms to me to follow of



course, that the same DIVINE WORD was capable of suffering and death. It is an inference such as plain common sense would have drawn; and there hardly needed an addition to the narrative, to satisfy us that it was possible. The Monthly Reviewers, therefore, are such now, Sir, as they ever have been, quales ab incepto : avd Dr. Toulmin is an excellent writer with them; because he is a Socinian. The manifest drift and design of his fermon, is to elevate the title of the supreme being to the utmost poslible height of human conception. Every attempt to give sublimity and dignity to the name of God is commendable, but an endeavour of that kind is not to be engaged in, with a sinister intention of depreffing the fon, and robbing him of that glory in which he has been invested from eternity. Yet such is manifeftly Dr. Toulmin's design. He has four times directed our attention to that expression of feripture, the God and father of our Lord Jesus Cbrift; for the purpose, no doubt, of inculcating a perfuafion, that since the Lord of Hofts was God (as well as fatber) of our Lord Jesus Chrift, the supreme dignity of the latter, as maintained by Christians in general, is erroneous. " This name, indeed, involves in it, (lays he) the idea of fupremacy above all earthly and heavenly powers, above even tbe name of Jesus, the Lord of all, who hath, ot berwise, a name above every name.” That Jesus is inferior to Jehovah, as touching bis manhood, I will readily concede to Dr. Toulmin ; but more, I believe cannot be allowed to him, by any man who studies the fcriptures, with that singleness of heart, which divests itself of every prejudice. Dr. Toulmin himself, while attempting to drown che divinity of the lon in the bright effulgence of the father, has unintentionally given it a fplendor which is insupportable to the

Tbis bigh name, fays he, the Lord of Hosts, is due to the being wbo created universal nature. And ebo, let us ask him, Greated universal nature? Does not St. Paul expressly lay of Chrift, by nim were all things created that are in beaven, and' tbat are in eartb, vihble and invisible : all things were created by him, and for Him; and he is before all tbtngs, and by him all tbings confijt ?* And does not the lame divine writer assure us, that it is to the son God speaks, when he says, the throne, O God, is for ever and ever : THOU, LORD, in tbe beginning bas laid (the foundation of tbe eartb, and the beavens ave tbe works of Thine hands at If then this high name be due to tbe being wbo created universal nature, it must follow, from Dr. Toulmin's own words, that it is due to Christ. Yes, to bim is tbe name due : it is bis prerogative : it is bis glory : it is bis distinguising character, and exalts bis name above every name. I

apa peal to the fermon itself, Mr. Editor, as manifestly juftifying this inference Nevertheless, I do not maintain that this high name is to be applied to Chrift; that is, I do not maintain that the {criptures warrant the application. Great pains have been wasted by Dr. Eveleigh, to prove that Christ is once denominated Jebcvab. Upon my mind his arguments have left no convi&tion. And if there be a pallage in fcripture which will justify our stiling Jesus

human eye.


* Coloff, I. xvi. 17.

+ Hebrews, I. vtil. 10.


the Lord of Hofts, or Jebovab Sabaoth, I am yet to be made ac quainted with it. He is certainly named, by the prophet, THE MIGHTY GOD and tbe EVERLASTING FATHER ; and he has pronounced himself to be the KING of Israel; titles, which approach fo near to the high name we are dwelling upon, that it feems to be inextricably involved in them. It is to be remarked also, that Christ frequently describes himself, as presiding in such elevated situations of power and great glory that we are ready to exclaim, verily tbeu art Jebivah. That a similar conclusion was frequently drawn from his words and actions, by those who constantly fur. rounded him, cannot be doubted, when we consider the strong ex. preslions which they made use of. But to give to him the high name on which Dr. Toulmin discourses, they well knew would expose them to the severeft punishment. If they refrained from inferting among their numerical characters the two Hebrew letters, which, when combined, were expressive of the name of God I say, if they refrained from inserting these letters among their figures, that God's name might not be filently and accidentally profaned; it is not to be wondered at, that they never applied to Jesus the title of Jebovab, or Jebovab Sabaoth, by open dejign. But I haften to descend from this awful.difcufion; which I believe is, and which I think ought always to be, interdicted by the statutes of the land, that a subjec so holy may not be hourly subject to violation from the shallow and incompetent reasonings of inlufficient man; especially when his mind is not informed to the full extent of what is revealed, and while he irreverently detracts from his Saviour attributes which better information must have compelled him to alJow. If at the close of a paragraph which I have written with a trembling hand, but with a firm and assured underftanding, I might be permitted to turn and smile at Dr. Toulmin, I should say exultingly to him and his Monthly Reviewer, what an excellent divine!

Let us now consider Dr. Toulmin's merits as a critic. And here let us previously observe, that all language whatever has had its origin from, earth. The words by which we understand one another, and all their correspondent lymbols upon paper, have been coined and invented by man, for the use of himself, and his fellow-creatures. Every image, therefore, which is delivered over to language, and at the repetition of some particular foạnd is again revived in the mind, was originally taken by the human eye from the visible objects of this world, and in a manner set to music, ly being married to certain letters and syllables, and to that tone of expression which represents it and them. Whatever word, therefore, is used, must be referred to this original interchange of sound for lense, if we wish to determine its meaning with critical accuracy. Suppose then that a divine messenger should come down from heaven ; he can no other. wise be understood by the inhabitants of this world, but by adopting these tones and their corresponding images; that is, by {peaking the language of man. If he adopts this language, it is ablolutely necesary that we believe him to make use of it, always with a strict seference to that imagery from which it was borrowed y We are .


not to go up into heaven for a glossary, and a tribe of invisible images, which are to let down the subject matter of his communi. cation to the level of our capacities. This being granted, I contend that the plain and obvious interpretation of Hosts, both in Hebrew and English, according to the current language of this world, is ARMIES. The Lord of Hofis, therefore, is the Lord of ermies, the Lord of those armies which men bring into the field; whenever it stands alone, unaccompanied by any additional expression, puposely used to give it a metaphorical and figurative turn. Consequently, whenever we read of the Lord of Hofts in fcripture, it is our duty, unless admonished to the contrary, to believe it to mean (as the Pfalmift has explained it) the Lord strong and mighty, THE LORD MIGHTY IN BATTLE.

I dwell the more particularly on this explanation, Mr. Editor, because the Monthly Reviewer has advanced a step farther than Dr. Toulmin, and asserted, that so to understand this high name, is @ prevalent and mischievous mistake; an error, which it might bave been expected that Christian ministers, instead of countenancing, would apply themselves to rectify. He has added, that this name of God bas been greatly mistaken and abnfid, when it bas been supposed to teach us to lcok up to bim as the patron of war.

Dr. Toulmin is not so rash. He allows that the word Sabaoth, or Hots, comes from a root which means to assemble in orderly ranks, and that it sometimes fignifies militaries bodies of men. He says, in another place, • The word : translated bost, doth in one instance describe all the tribes of Israel led out of Egypt, and in another, the armies of that people. He quotes allo from Benson, that " it is an observation of the Hebrews, that when God doth mercy to the world, he is called Jehovab: but when he WARRETH he is called Sabaoth, LORD of Hosts.” In a's fourth place he admits, that the title includes God's providence as God of the armies of Israel ; that it includes his power to mufter the bost for the battle, to enroll the strong ones of the earth as bis warriors, ard to gatber together the kingdoms and the nations to execute his anger. In a word, he allows that it includes God's agency in making wars to case, in breaking the bow and snapping the spear asunder, and in burning the cbariot in the fire. The error, therefore, the prevalent and mischerous mistake at which the Monthly Reviewer points his finger (if it be an error and a mistake) is not correčied, nor is it in a way to be corrected by Dr. Toulmin.

But is is no error; whatever may be thought of it by that fage adept in what he stiles the divinity of the Old Testament. The LORD is a MAN OF WAR, said the lawgiver himself, in the very beginning. At a very early period, he went forth out of Seir, and marched out of the field of Edom. He is afterwards lublimely described, as putting on righteousness for a breast.plate, and placing the helmet of fala vation upon his head. The garments of vengeance are his clothing and he is clad with zeal as a ciak. He takes Judah for his bow and Ephraim for his arrow, and mukes a sword of the fons of Sion : he fays to Israel, thou art my batt!e-axe and weapons of war; with thee. will I break in pieces the nations. He brings forth the chariot and the i horse, the army and the power ; he lifts up an enfign on the mountains. ; .


[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

te blows a trumpet to collect tbe inhabitants of the world together. He even roars from on high, he utters ' his voice from his holy habitation, he gives a fbout against the inhabitants of the earth. He makes his onlet in wbirlwinds of the fouth, he rides apon the horses and chariots of salvation, he is mounted upon a swift cloud. His bow is made naked, his arrows go fortb as the ligbrning; the sun and moon ftmad still at tbe ligbt of them, and at the

sbining of bis glittering spear. He marches througb the land in indignation, be walks through tbe fea; he bobolds and drives afunder the nations, he soakes bis band over them, and obey become timorous as women. The pain of tbe Lord are many. Fer bis indignation is upon all nations, bis fury upon all tbeir armies, be des livers them to tbe slaugbter; their Jain are cast out, and the mountains are melted with tbeir, blood.

Let the Monthly Reviewer, by help of his concordance, refer to all the passages which așe here compressed, and impartially decide, whecher the divinity of the Old Testament will any longer suffer him to doubt, that the Lord of Hofts, is the Lord of ARMIES, in its first and most general sense. But when I call upon him to allow fo much, let him not suppose that I will suffer him to adopt the gran tuitous assumption of Dr. Toulmin, that by means of this interpretation, men are led to conceive, that in the title of the Lord of Hofts, there is a fanction to political schemes of hoftility and bloodshed, Very weak, indeed, must be that understanding, which could draw fwch a conclufion. The absurdity even of Voltaire did not advance {o far: nor can I be persuaded that it ever entered into the mind of any cool and dispassionate reader of the scriptures, to entertain fa low and contracted an idea of his Maker. From the heart of a Socinian, accustomed to derogate from the dignity of the fon, un worthy notions of the father may originate; but they who believe in the divinity of the Son, are in no danger of degrading the Father to the level of the heathen god of war. The well-informed examiner, who is not a bigot to the anti-christian doctrines of Socinianism, will perceive in the title of the Lord of Hofts, a title of great dignity, and of great comfort. He will be senlible, that from the beginning, nation has been divided against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. He will know, that man is a creature who delights in war.

He will recolleet, that aras of universal peace (if æras of that kind have existed) have been short and soon interrupted. He will almost be cf opinion, that the state of warfare is a flate of nafure. But, ready as man is to shed blood, ready as kings are to rise ap, and rulers to take counsel together, he will be lenlible that there is one in heaven, who has announced himself to be the King of Kings, and Lord of armies. Under that title, he will perceive that his God is no filent and indifferent spectator of the commotions of this world. He will feel that nothing is left to the decision of chances but that there is an author of fuccess as well as of defeat. He will bave often remarked, that when the probabilities of victory were peculiarly in favour of the stronger lide, an issue attended their exertions which no sagacity could forelce, and for which no philosophy could account. The divine interference has been to hiin, 80. XXXI. YOL. VI i.



« PrécédentContinuer »