Page images
PDF
EPUB

but they worshipped him, not as God, for idolatry was the reigning crime of the nations; even the wifeft and greatest of them, Socrates and Plato not excepted, fell into this dangerous error.

From this display then we are led to conclude, that a revelation immediately from heaven is the only and effectual means to illuminate us with the beams of truth, and fecure us from the

darkness of error. And yet, alas! fuch is the perverfenefs of human nature, even revelation itself has not always been found fufficient to answer this great end. This glorious privilege was exclufively claimed by the Jewish people; who not only boasted a law, delivered by the God of nature himself to the great founder of their nation; but enjoyed fucceffively, from time to time, a communication with the divinity, in the perfons of their high priests and prophets. Yet were they hardly, at any time, conftant in the appointed worship of the God by whom they were delivered from Egyptian flavery, and who granted them such continual manifeftations of his peculiar regard: but were always adopting the idolatrous worship of the neighbouring nations! not crediting the Deity upon the evidences of his power, fo frequently and fo fignally employed in their favour; they must have a God always before their eyes, though it were but a block of ftone, or a log of wood!

But, fays Mr. Umfreville, Almighty God appointed facrifices, ritual and external performances among the Jews, agreeable to the imperfect ftate they were in, and to train them up to a ftate of perfection. But when the fullness of time was come, when the Son of God came into the world, Almighty God appointed a different way of worship among chriftian people; a way of worship agreeable to that ftate of perfection they are in, not with carnal ordinances, which were only types and fhadows of good things to come, but in a pure and fpiritual manner, more fuitable to the fpiritual nature of Almighty God, and that which pleases him beft.'-The fact, however, ftands thus. The Jews either rejected the law, or corrupted it with the most extreme fuperftition: in which latter ftate our Saviour found them. Therefore they loft the benefit of their preparatory law, and rejected the Meffiah; while his gofpel was accepted by the Gentiles, for whom no fuch ftate of probation had been provided.

In the beginning of the Difcourfe concerning the mysterious doctrine of the ever bleffed and glorious Trinity,' he acknowledges that this is a difficult fubject to difcourfe upon, in relation to fome people, who will not believe any doctrine but what they can understand or comprehend;' which is very likely to be the cafe: for there are fome people fo addicted to the ufe of their carnal reason, and fo bigotted to the notion that God gave it

them

them for a guide and director, that if their affent fhould be demanded to a propofition delivered in the Chinese, or any other (to them) unknown tongue, they would prove obftinate enough to with-hold it. This difcourfe is therefore calculated for fuch as are not fo fcrupulous. A fpecimen or two will enable the reader to judge of the clearness and precifion of his reasoning.

It is objected, he fays, that the doctrine of the Trinity contains abfurdity and contradiction: because it maintains that three divine perfons, or three diftinct almighty and all-knowing perfons, fhould be but one Almighty, but one all-knowing, or but one God; a man who confiders but with never fo little intention and fincerity, clearly fees that it cannot be in short; that it is not a mystery, but an abfurdity and a contradiction.

I cannot poffibly here perceive any contradiction, though I confider it with intention and fincerity: had it been afferted that three divine perfons, or three diftinct almighty and all-knowing perfons, are one divine perfon; it had been a manifeft abfurdity and a grofs contradiction. But that three divine persons, or three diftinct almighty and all-knowing perfons, are but one Almighty, but one all-knowing, or but one God, is indeed a propofition, which I must confefs is above the capacity of our fhallow understanding to comprehend; but it is by no means a contradiction. The divine nature, or effence in the Deity, being infinite and neceffarily exiftent, is but one, though there are three diftinct perfons in it; and therefore the three perfons, who have one and the fame divine nature or effence common to them all, may make or conftitute one Deity or Godhead, without any manner of contradiction. If the fcriptures had afferted that three are one in the fame refpect, as our reafon informs us three are not one; if the fcriptures had said that three persons are one perfon, and reafon aflures us that three perfons are not one perfon; then fcripture and reafon had contradicted each other: but when the fcripture aflerts, that three perfons are one in effence, and reafon does not and cannot fay the contrary, but only af fures us that three perfons are not one perfon; the verdict of fcripture and reafon are very confiftent with each other; because it is no contradiction to affirm, that they are three in one respect, and one in another.'-But does the fcripture really afcertain the distinction between effence and perfon, as this writer aflerts?

Again, fays Mr. Umfreville, it is objected, by what our blefled Saviour faid to the young man in the gofpel, that he is not God, or has not the divine nature refiding in him; because he faid unto him, Why calleft thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God, Matt. xix. 17. By thefe words the ob

jectors

jectors fay, that our Saviour denies himself to be God by denying himself to be good, which is the proper title that belongs to God. Our bleffed Saviour did not deny himself to be God, or tell the young man that he is not God; but he afks him the reafon why he called him good, when he did not acknowledge him to be God; why he gave him that title that properly belongs to God, when he looked upon him very likely to be only a mere man? And therefore our bleffed Saviour feems here to reprove this young man for giving him the title of good, which only belongs to God, when he did not confefs him to be God; upon which account he did not act a right and confiftent part. This being the only true meaning of this paffage, there is nothing that feems to intiinate that our Saviour disclaimed the title of God.'

As another objection he produces the following text, where bur Saviour fays, This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jefus Chrift whom thou haft fent. John xvii. 3. Our bleffed Saviour here calls God his Father the only true God, in oppofition to idols and falfe gods, gods improperly fo called: he does not exclude himself from being God, but only the vanities of the heathen; and therefore this paffage of fcripture does not any ways invalidate our Saviour's divinity. There is a great difference in thefe expreffions; the Father is the only true God, and the Father only is the true God: our Saviour here aflerts that the Father is the only true God, in oppofition to the falfe deities of the heathen; he doth not fay that the Father only is the true God, which expreffions would feem to exclude him from a fhare in the Deity; but the Father is the only true God, which by no means excludes him from it.'

His expofition of the word begotten deferves alfo to be attended to, as it throws great light upon the fenfe in which he uses it. When we fpeak of the word begotten, in relation to creatures, we understand what is faid; we understand that one creature is generated or begotten by another in the ordinary way of generation, in the common and natural manner of production. But when we speak of the word begotten, in relation to the Son of God, who is an uncreated and infinite Being; we speak in an ineffable manner, not after the manner of created beings, not in the manner as we speak of men, but in a manner that cannot be conceived, understood, expreffed, nor uttered.'

Reader! art thou fatisfied? if not, then buy the book, and let thy curiofity have its fill.

[merged small][ocr errors]

N

A De

A Defcription of the common Laws of England, according to the rules of art, compared with the prerogatives of the King. With the fubftance and effect of the Statutes (difpofed in their proper places) by which the common law is abridged, enlarged, or any ways altered, from the commencement of Magna Charta, anno 9 H. 3. until this day. By Henry Finch of Gray's-Inn, Apprentice of the Law. Originally written in French, and now firft tranflated into English, with variety of references to both the ancient and modern reports, and occafional remarks where the law has been altered by later refolutions, or acts of parlia ment, with many useful obfervations alfo on various points of law. With a compleat table of the principal matters. 8vo.

6 s. Millar.

N the preface to this work, the tranflator, with great propriety,

on

books, fuch as Glanvil, Bracton, Britton, Fleta, the Mirror, and the Year Books. But whether, fays he, it be out of an opinion that thefe and other old law tracts are grown obsolete and useless, or whether it be, that many are difcouraged from undertaking them, being intimidated at the difagreeable profpect of fighting with a dead language, furely the law does thereby lofe much of its beauty and perfection, not to fay what inconveniencies it may lie under from the many books of reports and other later treatifes, written in French, whereof this excellent book of great authority, is an inftance. Again, as in all arts and sciences, a man must first make it his business to become acquainted with the firft principles and grounds of the art, fo in the ftudy of the laws of England it is neceflary in a moft efpecial manner; for without that he can give no opinion, he can argue no cafe, he can, in fhort, make no figure as a lawyer. And fhould it be faid, that a man may attain this in the more modern books, without troubling himself with the language of thofe antient authors; I answer, that perhaps he may fucceed there, but yet he only receives them at fecond hand, whereas in the others he has them from the fountain head."

The writer then proceeds to recommend the translation of all the antient books of the law. A laborious work, he observes,

We do not think the translator justifiable in calling French a dead language: for though we are fenfible that there is a wide difference between the old law French and the modern French, yet the former does not differ from the latter fo greatly as to be accounted a dead language. They appear to be more nearly allied than the different dictions of Spencer and Addison: and there is fome difference between a language being obfolete, and being dead.

[ocr errors]

not to be expected in our age, unless thofe that fit at the helm, fhould be perfuaded to think it a matter worthy their regard and confideration. After having thus, fays he, hewn the emolument that would arife to the ftudents of the law, as well as redound upon the laws themfelves, by all our law books being rendered into our own langage, it will be unneceffary to urge the utility the public will receive from the tranflation of this book, the great and undoubted authority thereof being too well known to need any recommendation.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Here, unfortunately for his purpofe, the tranflator feems to have proved too much. Inftead of fhewing the emolument that would arife from rendering all our law books into our own language, he has, in fact, demonftrated that iuch verfion, if of any, would be of little and precarious fervice: for, to ufe his own words, they who read them in the tranflation, without troubling themselves with the language of thofe antient authors, may, perhaps, fucceed there,' but yet muft receive them at fecond hand,' instead of taking them from the fountain head.' Such are the inconfiftencies which men are generally led into, when they argue with a view to fome partial end. For our parts, we cannot difcover any utility which will redound from tranflating the books in queftion. They are proper only for the ftudy of those who are defirous of being radically acquainted with the common law: and fuch generally poffefs, or at leaft may quickly acquire, a competent knowledge of the French tongue, to read any of our books in that language. Perhaps too its not being fo familiar to them as their own tongue, may, by commanding extraordinary attention, ferve to imprint the matter more ftrongly in their memory.

In the fucceeding pages, the tranflator tells us, There is another treatise written by our author in English, called Finch's Law; this, fays he, I fancy, was published in the lifetime of the author himself, but is quite a different book from the prefent, and wrote upon a different plan; though, for the most part, the first book thereof, and here and there fome few paffages in the others (as muft neceffarily happen when they both flow froin the fame pen) correlpond with what we meet with here.'

From this paffage, the tranflator might induce us to believe that Finch's law was written by the author in English; whereas the fact is otherwife: as will appear from the preface to the tranflation of that work, published in the year 1636; and entitled, Law: or, a Difcourfe thereof, &c. The words of that preface are as follow,

This book, being formerly published in the proper and genuine language, had, as it well deferved, good acceptation; the author and the work mutually adding to each other's efteem. And

[ocr errors]

herein

« PreviousContinue »