Page images

countable that no hint of such a reference should be given in the writings of Moses, that the Jews should always be ignorant of it, and that the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews Thould be the only writer in the New Testament who has given any intima-, tion of it. It is much more probable, that one or two expresfions of that writer ought to be understood in a qualified sense.

The fecond of these traits, as the author informs us, was occafioned by the republication of Mr. Balguy's Elay on Redemption. The design of it is to prove that the idea of Christ's sufferings being judicial and penal, is not irreconcilable with divine rectitude. His two great arguments are, that in a variety of ine ftances, the innocent suffer, in consequence of the evil actions of others; and that there were such peculiar circumstances attending the consent of Jesus, as are sufficient to evince that whatever the sufferings and the purposes of undergoing them were, no injury was done or received, nor rectitude infringed.' In bis illustration of the first argument, Dr. Holmes, like other writers on the same side of the question, confounds ideas which are totally distinct, suffering and punishment. That the innocent are free quently involved in the consequences 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 state. But guilt is personal, appropriate, and intransferable: and nothing can, in our opinion, be more inconsistent with truth and justice, 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 consent of Jesus, among other things, Dr. H. says, 'He concerted in heaven that plan of iedemption, which he afterwards conducted on earth. The method and order to be pursued in the accomplishment of it, all the introductory means, all the intermediate and final parts of the scheme, were adjusted by his own counsel 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 Aeth, or to endure, and for what purposes and to what effect, having been arranged and sanctioned by the Spirit of the Father and his own, it was the same wisdom, it was the same will, by which he acted in the form of God, and consented in the likeness of man.' What is this but to make Christ at once the Sender and the Sent, the Sovereign whose laws were broken, and the Sacrifice by which atonement was made for the breach of them, and the Being who in Arcted, and who received punishment? And what muft ibat doctrine be, which involves in it such a confusion of ideas and characters ?

The third tract contains an explanation of the titles given to our Saviour, in the angelical message to the Virgin Mary, reNA 2



corded Luke, i. 31, &c. and a reference to those passages in the Jewish prophecies in which the Melliah is supposed to be pointed out under the same or similar exprefsions. 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, consequently, partakes of its strength and its weak. ness. But we cannot help remarking that Dr. H. must have been at a great loss for a prophecy respecting the birth of the Meffiah, when he pressed into the service the expresion 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, asserts a filial relation to God by a real and natural generation.'—What ideas can Dr. H. have under the expreffon, real and natural generation, when applied to the Deity? In the lame page he says, • To the question, Art thou then the Son of God?' he replied by an affertion that God was his Father, matica pdov. This is not true. The words hatéça ilioy occur only John, v. 18. and are the words, not of Jesus, but of the evangelift. The question is recorded Luke, xxii. 70. and the answer is, Ye say that I am.

In the fourth tract, the author profefles to prove the resurreclion of the body, from the resurrection of Christ, and to exemplify it by scriprural cases. The whole of his inference and reasoning from the resurrection of Chrilt, is contained in the following paragraph:

• The foregoing circumstances, and any other that are commonly offered in fupport of the Apoftolical testimony that God raised up Christ from the dead, will also have some effe&t in confirming the great inference from his refurrection, that he is the first fruits of them that sleep.' For it is a violence to break the relation between them; “it Chrift be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you, that there is no resurrection of the dead?

The lyriptural cafes alleged to exemplify the refurre&tion of the body, are those of Christ himself, of Lazarus, and of the saints who arose, and came out of their graves after Christ's refurrection. Of these the first only is, in any degree appofite. Lazarus, and the faints, were merely restored to a temporary ex. istence in the present state, in which the bodily organs are equally neceffary with the intellectual powers.

The greater part of this tract confifts of a few common argaments in support of the credibility of the witnefits of our Saviour's resurrection, a superficial reply to the objection against the resurrection of the body, respecting identity, an argument, rather plausible than folid, in its favour, from the mutual recog. nition which, there is realon to think, will take place in the tucure state; and a few other particulars.


The discourse on humility is a good practical sermon on Gal. v. 26; but in which is nothing new or striking to recommend it to public notice.

At the end of the volume, are notes on the four tracts, confisting of remarks and quotations, designed to illustra'e and to corroborate the sentiments and reasoning contained in them. Both the tracts and the discourse abound with abstract terms and affected expressions. Of the latter, take the following instances. P. 4. an allignable operation upon the human mind,' for a certain effect, or influence. P. 16. * Aggravation of the divine hostility.' P. 17. Love would decline to affociate with turbulence and distrust.' P. 'The clear and forward light which fear of judgment will asfume.' P. 79. ' To animate human weariness.' P. 189: • Natal egreffion.' P. 214. And the invisible Divinity did appear, veiled in the sensibleness of humanity.' P. 256. ' He disuades a spirit of insult.'

To conclude: Though we are disposed to allow Dr. Holmes a considerable degree of merit, with respect to ingenuity and candour, we cannot lay much in commendation of his judgment or his reasoning.


. 53:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


Art. XIII. A View of the Importance of the Trade between Great

Britain and Rufia. By Anthony Brough. 8vo. 51 Pages. Is.
Robinsons. 1789.

R. Brough expatiates, with great fluency, on the advan

tages of the trade with Russia to Great Britain. The
following articles of import from Rufia, which he gives as the
average quantities annually brought into this country, are con-
sidered by him as a text, and the importance of each article is
separately stated.
• ift. 82,420,000 pounds of iron-avoirdupoise.
2d. 3,168,000 pieces of deal-12 feet in length, and 1 inches

3d. 65,300,000 pounds of hemp.
4th. 28,400,000 pounds of flax.
5th. 41,624,000 pounds of tallow.

6th. To these we may add many other commodities, which con-
tribute to the comforts of private life, and furnish the most abundant
materials, without which some of our manufactories could with great
difficulty sublift.

• The 82,420,000 pounds of iron are employed in building houses, in the conitruction of every kind of wheel carriage, in the greatest part of our domestic utensils, in anchors for our large ships, and in many tons of iron work that are necessarily employed to the several parts of them.'

He thus proceeds, through the different articles. Under that of hemp, he observes, that one year's importation from Rulli a is sufficient to rig out three hundred and fifty men of war of the


[ocr errors]

Nn 3

[ocr errors]

first rate, or, of consequence, many numerous fleets of merchant vessels,'

He next considers the articles exported hence to Ruffia; a list of which, in 1777, he iranscribes from Coxe's Travels; but he relates the following as a specimen of particulars :

The dry salters import into their several harbours upwards of 100,000l. value of sundry commodities annually; hardwaremen and jewellers 70,cool. Add to this about 12,000l. value in watches and clocks; 28,0col.value in furs; upwards of 80,000l. in more obscure m. 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 Russians buy of us annually upwards of 500,000 arshines [the arshine is 28 inches) of baize, calimancoes, camblets, and white cotions; 170,000 arhines of ordinary and fine cloths, 200.000 ar. fines of-cotton, velvets, velverets, druggets, Aannels, phlug, and shag, and 500,000 arshines of shalloons and tabaurets.'

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

ist, We import from Ruffia annually, a great quantity of iron, deal's, hentp: masts, flax, wrought and unwrought, [quere, what is wrought flax? Is it linen? If so, will this be reckoned beneficial for our manufactures?'] tallow, pitch, tar, and other articles, to the value of opwards of 3,000,000l. Iterling.' Are none of these articles to be found elsewhere?

• zdly, We export to Rufia annually, a great variety of manufactures, to the value of at least 1,000,000l. sterling.

* 3dly, We import and export these commodities in British bottoms, the freightage of which amounts to 450,00cl.' Query, Is not this article included already under the two foregoing heads?

• 4tbly, The chief of these articles imported to us, are the necessary materials for ship-building.

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

Query, How many months muft these men be idle and the ships unemployed each winter, if they do not engage in fome other trade? Are not twenty men for each vessel above the aver: age number? Are not the 1100 vessels above enumerated the whole number which are cleared out once in a year from Rudia? And do not our vessels usually make iwo trips, and sometimes three, to Russia in one reason? How much tould be deducted from the ftatement on account of these items?

• 6thly, Most of our manufactories derive either some of their materials or their instruments from this trade.' Doubtless iron and wood are employed as instruments in every manufacture, and if all the wood and iron which we employ are Rudian, the position is jutt; otherwise it is not so.

• 7thly,

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

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

Will Mr. Brough be so obliging as to ttate how much of these duties are merely drawbacks, all of which, though nominally money given, are, at the best, nothing; and for the mott part, in consequence of the frauds to which iney give rise, less than nothing to government? And after deducting these, specify the neat amount of the duties arising from one Rullian commerce ?

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

• WHY DOES NOT THIS WATION RENEW THE SAID TREATY WITH RUSSIA! -We have renewed our treaties of commerce with Por. tugal; we have renewed our treaties of commerce with Spain; we have ftipulated something 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 said about the trade to Rusia.'

We have always understood that, where two parties are concerned, should one of them prove cross, 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 also, it seems that this question ought first to be put 10 Rusia, for he says, how great foever they (the advantages of commerce) may have been to this (country), they have been still greater to Ruffia.'

• The Russians will ever own, that in their commerce with Great Britain they have been treated with more justice, with more generosity, 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 immense sums at the beginning of every year; to enable them to travel into the interior parts of their country during winter, and to pur

every species of commodity, which they afterwards bring down to their harbours in the spring or summer.

• It is owing to this custom of advancing money to the Russian merchants, many months before they deliver goods, that the trade to Russia has been greatly encreafed, and has circulated riches throughout her valt dominions.'.

And is it necessary that England should crouch and bend, and express an over-lolicitude for the continuance of such a trade ? Or is it not rather incumbent on Ruflia fo to do? A wite minister will be ready to treat every commercial propofition with deference and attention. But it does not seem to be necessary that he hould humbly folicit permission to pour his mony into the lag of any potentate who chooses to affume naughty airs of vain lupeNn4


« PreviousContinue »