countable that no hint of fuch a reference should be given in the writings of Mofes, that the Jews fhould always be ignorant of it, and that the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews fhould be the only writer in the New Teftament who has given any intimation of it. It is much more probable, that one or two expreffions of that writer ought to be understood in a qualified fenfe.

The fecond of thefe tracts, as the author informs us, was occafioned by the republication of Mr. Balguy's Effay on Redemption. The defign of it is to prove that the idea of Chrift's fufferings being judicial and penal, is not irreconcilable with divine rectitude. His two great arguments are, that in a variety of inftances, the innocent fuffer, in confequence of the evil actions of others; and that there were fuch peculiar circumftances attending the confent of Jefus, as are fufficient to evince that whatever the fufferings and the purposes of undergoing them were, no injury was done or received, nor rectitude infringed.' In his illuftration of the firft argument, Dr. Holmes, like other writers on the fame fide of the queftion, confounds ideas which are totally diftinct, fuffering and punishment. That the innocent are frequently involved in the confequences of the bad actions of others, is notorious; and has been juftly alleged as a strong natural argument in favour of the doctrine of a future ftate. But guilt is perfonal, appropriate, and intransferable: and nothing can, in our opinion, be more inconfiftent with truth and juftice, than to impute the guilt of one being to another, or to inflict punishment on the innocent. With regard to the peculiar circumftances attending the confent of Jefus, among other things, Dr. H. fays, 'He concerted in heaven that plan of redemption, which he afterwards conducted on earth. The method and order to be purfued in the accomplishment of it, all the introductory means, all the intermediate and final parts of the fcheme, were adjufted by his own counfel concurring with that of the Father, with whom, by unity of will and of love to mankind, he was a principal to his own appointment as Redeemer,' p. 150. And again, p. 162. Whatever he was to do when made flesh, or to endure, and for what purposes and to what effect, having been arranged and fanctioned by the Spirit of the Father and his own, it was the fame wisdom, it was the fame will, by which he acted in the form of God, and confented in the likeness of man.' What is this but to make Chrift at once the Sender and the Sent, the Sovereign whofe laws were broken, and the Sacrifice by which atonement was made for the breach of them, and the Being who inflicted, and who received punishment? And what muft that doctrine be, which involves in it fuch a confufion of ideas and characters ?

The third tract contains an explanation of the titles given to our Saviour, in the angelical meffage to the Virgin Mary, re

corded Luke, i. 31, &c. and a reference to those paffages in the Jewish prophecies in which the Meffiah is fuppofed to be pointed out under the fame or fimilar expreffions. Little which is new, or worthy of particular attention, occurs in this tract. This interpretation is agreeable to what is generally called the orthodox fyftem; and, confequently, partakes of its ftrength and its weaknefs. But we cannot help remarking that Dr. H. muft have been at a great lofs for a prophecy refpecting the birth of the Meffiah, when he preffed into the fervice the expreffion of Jeremiah, ch. xxxi. 22. A woman shall compass a man. At p. 201, we are told that the title, only-begotten Son of God, afferts a filial relation to God by a real and natural generation.'-What ideas can Dr. H. have under the expreffion, real and natural generation, when applied to the Deity? In the fame page he fays, To the question, Art thou then the Son of God?' he replied by an affertion that God was his Father, πατέρα ἴδιον.” This is not true. The words mariça do occur only John, v. 18. and are the words, not of Jefus, but of the evangelift. The question is recorded Luke, xxii. 70. and the answer is, Ye fay that I am.

In the fourth tract, the author profeffes to prove the refurrection of the body, from the refurrection of Chrift, and to exemplify it by fcriptural cafes. The whole of his inference and reafoning from the refurrection of Chrift, is contained in the following paragraph:

The foregoing circumftances, and any other that are commonly offered in fupport of the Apoftolical teftimony that God raifed up Chrift from the dead, will alfo have fome effect in confirming the great inference from his refurrection, that he is the first fruits of them that fleep.' For it is a violence to break the relation between them;" if Chrift be preached that he rose from the dead, how fay fome among you, that there is no refurrection of the dead?"

The friptural cafes alleged to exemplify the refurrection of the body, are thofe of Chrift himself, of Lazarus, and of the faints who arofe, and came out of their graves after Chrift's refurrection. Of these the first only is, in any degree appofite. Lazarus, and the faints, were merely reftored to a temporary exiftence in the prefent ftate, in which the bodily organs are equally neceffary with the intellectual powers.

The greater part of this tract confifts of a few common argu. ments in fupport of the credibility of the witneffes of our Saviour's refurrection, a fuperficial reply to the objection against the refurrection of the body, refpecting identity, an argument, rather plaufible than folid, in its favour, from the mutual recognition which, there is reafon to think, will take place in the future ftate; and a few other particulars.

The

The difcourfe on humility is a good practical fermon on Gal. v. 26; but in which is nothing new or ftriking to recommend it to public notice.

At the end of the volume, are notes on the four tracts, confifting of remarks and quotations, defigned to illuftra e and to corroborate the fentiments and reafoning contained in them. Both the tracts and the difcourfe abound with abftract terms and affected expreffions. Of the latter, take the following inftances. P. 4. an affignable operation upon the human mind,' for a certain effect, or influence. P. 16. Aggravation of the divine hoftility.' P. 17. Love would decline to affociate with turbulence and diftruft.' P. 53. The clear and forward light which fear of judgment will af fume.' P. 79. To animate human weariness.' P. 189. Natal egreffion. P. 214. And the invifible Divinity did appear, veiled in the fenfibleness of humanity.' P. 256. He diffuades a spirit of infult.'

6

To conclude: Though we are difpofed to allow Dr. Holmes a confiderable degree of merit, with respect to ingenuity and candour, we cannot fay much in commendation of his judgment or his reafoning. Em..s.

ART. XIII. A View of the Importance of the Trade between Great Britain and Ruffia. By Anthony Brough. 8vo. 51 Pages. Is. Robinsons. 1789.

MR

R. Brough expatiates, with great fluency, on the advantages of the trade with Ruffia to Great Britain. The following articles of import from Ruffia, which he gives as the average quantities annually brought into this country, are confidered by him as a text, and the importance of each article is feparately ftated.

ift. 82,420,000 pounds of iron-avoirdupoife.

2d. 3,168,000 pieces of deal-12 feet in length, and 1 inches thick.

3d. 65,300,000 pounds of hemp. 4th. 28,400,000 pounds of flax.

5th. 41,624,000 pounds of tallow.

6th. To thefe we may add many other commodities, which contribute to the comforts of private life, and furnish the most abundant materials, without which fome of our manufactories could with great difficulty fubfift.

The 82,420,000 pounds of iron are employed in building houses, in the construction of every kind of wheel carriage, in the greatest part of our domeftic utenfils, in anchors for our large fhips, and in many tons of iron work that are neceffarily employed to the feveral parts of them.'

He thus proceeds, through the different articles. Under that of hemp, he obferves, that one year's importation from Ruffia is fufficient to rig out three hundred and fifty men of war of the first

Nn3

first rate, or, of confequence, many numerous fleets of merchant veffels,'

He next confiders the articles exported hence to Ruffia; a lift of which, in 1777, he tranfcribes from Coxe's Travels; but he relates the following as a fpecimen of particulars:

The dry falters import into their feveral harbours upwards of 100,000l. value of fundry commodities annually; hardwaremen and jewellers 70,cool. Add to this about 12,000l. value in watches and clocks; 28,ocol. value in furs; upwards of 80,000l. in more obfcure mɛ. nufactures of Great Britain, and 500,000 pounds of tin, with 2,680,000 pounds of lead from our own mines. But above all the woollen, and linen and cotton manufactures are enriched by this commerce.

The Ruffians buy of us annually upwards of 500,000 arfhines [the arfhine is 28 inches] of baize, calimancoes, camblets, and white cotrons; 170,000 arfhines of ordinary and fine cloths, 200,000 arfhines of cotton, velvets, velverets, druggets, flannels, phlug, and fhag, and 500,000 arfhines of fhalloons and tabaurets.'

After having enumerated the other articles of exports, and commented on them at confiderable length, he concludes with the following recapitulation :

ift, We import from Ruffia annually, a great quantity of iron, deals, hemp; mafts, flax, wrought and unwrought, [quere, what is wrought flax? Is it linen? If fo, will this be reckoned beneficial for our manufactures?] tallow, pitch, tar, and other articles, to the value of upwards of 3,000,000l. fterling.' Are none of these articles to be found elfewhere?

2dly, We export to Ruffia annually, a great variety of manufactures, to the value of at least 1,000,000l. fterling.

3dly, We import and export these commodities in British bottoms, the freightage of which amounts to 450,000l.' Query, Is not this article included already under the two foregoing heads?

6

4tbly, The chief of thefe articles imported to us, are the neceffary materials for fhip-building.

5thly, This trade keeps alive a fleet of 1,100 British ships, and employs no less than 22,000 British feamen; 22,000 feamen not enervated by the warmth of milder climates, but hardened by the cold and froft of the Baltic.'

Query, How many months muft thefe men be idle and the fhips unemployed each winter, if they do not engage in fome other trade? Are not twenty men for each veffel above the aver age number? Are not the 1100 veffels above enumerated the whole number which are cleared out once in a year from Ruffia? And do not our veffels ufually make two trips, and fometimes three, to Ruffia in one feafon? How much fhould be deducted from the statement on account of thefe items?

6

6thly, Moft of our manufactories derive either fome of their materials or their inftruments from this trade.' Doubtless iron and wood are employed as inftruments in every manufacture, and if all the wood and iron which we employ are Ruffian, the position is juft; otherwise

it is not fo.

7thly, Government receives annually between 7 and 800,000l. duties, on the exports and imports of this trade.'

Will Mr. Brough be fo obliging as to ftate how much of these duties are merely drawbacks, all of which, though nominally money given, are, at the beft, nothing; and for the moll part, in confequence of the frauds to which they give rise, less than nothing to government? And after deducting thefe, fpecify the neat amount of the duties arifing from the Ruffian commerce?

The reader will perceive that this is a popular, declamatory work, intended to magnify the importance of the Ruffian trade as much as poffible, and is by no means intended to give a fair view of it. Mr. Brough at length propofes the following query, which we print as he has done :

WHY DOES NOT THIS NATION RENEW THE SAID TREATY WITH RUSSIA?-We have renewed our treaties of commerce with Portugal; we have renewed our treaties of commerce with Spain; we have ftipulated fomething or other of a paltry commerce with America; and what is most wonderful, we have formed a laborious, dubious kind of commercial treaty with France-and nothing is faid about the trade to Ruffia.'

We have always understood that, where two parties are concerned, fhould one of them prove crofs, ignorant, and mulish, it may be very difficult to come to an amicable and equitable adjuftment of commercial affairs. By the author's own acknowlegement alfo, it feems that this question ought first to be put to Ruffia, for he fays, how great foever they (the advantages of commerce) may have been to this (country), they have been ftill greater to Ruffia.'

The Ruffians will ever own, that in their commerce with Great Britain they have been treated with more justice, with more generofity, and with fuller confidence by our merchants, than by the merchants of any other nation of Europe. We are not content barely to give them long credit for the money due to us, and to pay them the moment our money is due to them, but we even lend or advance them immenfe fums at the beginning of every year; to enable them to travel into the interior parts of their country during winter, and to purchafe there every fpecies of commodity, which they afterwards bring down to their harbours in the fpring or summer.

It is owing to this cuftom of advancing money to the Ruffian merchants, many months before they deliver goods, that the trade to Ruffia has been greatly encreafed, and has circulated riches throughout her vaft dominions.'.

And is it neceffary that England fhould crouch and bend, and exprefs an over-folicitude for the continuance of such a trade? Or is it not rather incumbent on Ruffia fo to do? A wife minifter will be ready to treat every commercial propofition with deference and attention. But it does not feem to be neceffary that he should humbly folicit permiffion to pour his money into the lap of any potentate who chooses to affume haughty airs of vain fupe

Nn4

riority.