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 difplay 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 perverseness of human nature, even revelation itself has not always been found fufficient to anfwer this great end. This glorious privilege was exclufively claimed by the Jewish people; who not only boafted 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 persons 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 fuch 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 state 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 state 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 best.'-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 gospel 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 rela tion 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 use of their gave carnal reafon, and fo bigotted to the notion that God

them

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

• It is objected, he fays, that the doctrine of the Trinity contains abiurdity and contradiction: because it maintains that three divine períóns, or three diftinct almighty and all-knowing perfons, should 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 fhort; that it is not a mystery, but an abfurdity and a contradiction.

• I cannot pofibly here perceive any contradiction, though I confider it with intention and fincerity: had it been afferted that three divine perions, or three diftinct almighty and all-knowing perfons, are one divine perfon; it had been a manifeft abfurdity and a groís contradiction. But that three divine perfons, or three diftinct almighty and all-knowing perfons, are but one Almighty, but one all-knowing, or but one God, is indeed a proposition, which I muft confefs is above the capacity of our shallow 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 distinct perfors 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 cne Deity or Godhead, without any manner of contradiction. If the fcriptures had afferted that three are one in the fame respect, as our reafon informs us three are not one; if the fcriptures had faid that three persons are one perfon, and reafon 2:fures us that three persons are not one perfon; then fcripture and reaion had contradicted each other: but when the feripture alerts, that three persons are one in effence, and reason does not and cannot fay the contrary, but only affures 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 afirm, that they are three in one refpect, and one in another.'-But does the fcripture really afcertain the diftinction between fence and perfon, as this writer allerts?

Again, fays Mr. Umfreville, it is objected, by what our bleffed 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 deny ing himself to be good, which is the proper title that belongs to God. Our bleffed Saviour did not deny himfelf to be God, or tell the young man that he is not God; but he asks him the reason 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 seems to intimate that our Saviour difclaimed the title of God.'

3.

As another objection he produces the following text, where our Saviour fays, This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jefus Christ whom thou haft fent. John xvii. "Our bleffed Saviour here calls God his Father the only true God, in opposition 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 afferts that the Father is the only true God, in oppofition to the false deities of the heathen; he doth not fay that the Father only is the true God, which expreffions would seem 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 speak 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 fpeak 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.

APPENDIX, Vol. XX.

૦.૧

A De

A Defcriptio of the common Laws of Englah wring to the raks of art, compendi wat te gevanaf ve Ly. T the fut force and fell of the Standa

wagi altered, from t e commercement of Magna Crete, a H. 3. its day. By Henry Fach of Grab-in, 4 prentice of the Lora. Criginaly writta i Frez, si first trated its Exgije, with variety of refereant to beth the ancient and motra repati, end acccfund reneris mient the law has been altered by ister rejsation, or cats of pare ment, with mary uf.ful si crvations a, i en varias pant: of law. With a compleat table of the principal ma 810.

6 s. Millar.

IN

N the preface to this work, the tranflator, with great propriety, expatiates on the utility of ftudying the oldest lawbooks, fuch as Glanvil, Bracton, Britton, Fiets, the Mirror, and the Year Books. But whether, favs he, it be out of an opinion that these and other old law tracts are grown obolete and welefs, or whether it be, that many are discouraged from undertaking them, being intimidated at the dilagreeable prof pect 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 treaties, 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 bufinefs to become acquainted with the first principles and grounds of the art, fo in the study of the laws of England it is neceffary in a moit efpecial manner; for without that he can give no opinion, be can argue no cafe, he can, in fhort, make no figure as a lawyer. And should 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 anfwer, 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 bead.

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

We do not think the tranflator 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 Addifon : and there is fome difference between a language being obfolete, and being dead.

not

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, fhewn the emolument that would arife to the ftudents of the law, as well as redound upon the laws themselves, by all our law books being rendered into our own langage, it will be unneceflary 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.',

Here, unfortunately for his purpofe, the tranflator feems to have proved too much. Inftead of fhewing the emolument that would arise from rendering all our law books into our own language, he has, in fact, demonftrated that fuch 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 themfelves with the language of thofe antient authors, may, perhaps, fucceed there,' but yet must 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 thofe who are defirous of being radically acquainted with the common law: and fuch generally poffefs, or at least may quickly acquire, a competent knowledge of the French tongue, to read any of our books in that language. Perhaps too its not being (o familiar to them as their own tongue, may, by commanding extraordinary attention, ferve to imprint the matter more frongly in their memory.

In the fucceeding pages, the tranflator tells us, There is another trea.ife written by our author in Englith, 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 prejent, and wrote upon a differen, plan; though, for the most part, the first book thereof, and here and there fome few paffages in the others (as mult neceffarily happen when they both flow from the fame pen) correspond 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 tradation of that work, publifhed 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 deserved, good acceptation; the author and the work mutually adding to each other's esteem. And

herein