Those who are unacquainted with the nature of the British funds, may read this chapter with profit. The author agrees with our minifter in the propriety of attempting, and in the practicability of extinguifhing, the national debt: but he totally differs from him in regard to the means that ought to have been adopted for that purpose. For the arguments here adduced, in fupport of this opinion, which would not admit of being compreffed, we must neceffarily refer the curious reader to the book itself. If any part of this performance might have been fpared, we think it is the concluding part of this chapter, which confifts of a statement of the revenues and refources of France, as contrafted with that of England. The parallel, in the prefent cafe, turns out much in favour of Great Britain; and this will occafion matter of no fmall exultation to honeft John Bull. It amounts, however, on the whole, to no more than this-we have hitherto acted foolishly-in France they have acted more foolishly:-we are still poffeffed of great refources, if we know how to avail ourselves of them ;-and who can deny that France poffeffes alfo great, very great refources, if ever she shall learn the art of employing them to her beft advantage? We may add, that neither of thefe nations can be in a train of benefiting themselves to the utmost, while they continue to think that the mifery of their neighbours will add to their own profperity. They must be far from knowing their own intereft, while this notion prevails.

The fixth and laft chapter, which treats of the revenue of Scotland,' contains many curious details and interesting obfervations. In this part of his work, Sir John Sinclair difcovers a laudable defire to vindicate his native country* from fome injurious reflections that have fometimes been inadvertently thrown out against it, even by members of the House of Commons, who ought to have been better informed of its real ftate. While he admits that the Union has been highly beneficial to every part of our island, he contends, nevertheless, that it has proved much more beneficial, on the whole, to England than to Scotland. The total revenue drawn from Scotland, for the year 1788, is here fhewn to be 1,099,1481. 16s. 4 d. though this, he obferves, is not a fair ftate of the account; as, befide the above, the whole of the duties paid for Eaft India goods confumed in Scotland, of many articles from Africa, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Hudson's Bay, West Indies, &c. which being first landed in England, there pay the duties, add to the amount of the nominal duties of England, though they are, in effect, paid by thofe who confume them in Scotland.

Thus is

Sir John, we understand, is a native of Scotland.

the apparent amount of duties in England augmented, while thofe of Scotland are diminifhed beyond what either ought to be *.

Sir John Sinclair warmly contends for feveral commercial and manufacturing indulgences being extended to Scotland, that are at prefent confined to England; by which the profperity of that part of the country would be greatly augmented:nor can we fee any reafon why thefe juft claims fhould be oppofed. The ultimate profperity of every nation, doubtless, depends on the vigour and profperity of all its parts: --whatever regulations, therefore, tend to augment the prosperity of any one part, without diminishing that of others, ought, in found policy, to be inftantly adopted.

This volume concludes with an appendix, containing feveral curious papers respecting various particulars connected with the preceding work.-Among thefe, is a very particular account of the different articles that furnish a revenue to the ftate in the United Belgic Provinces, and the means that are adopted there for enforcing the payment of the revenue. The author obferves, that much use of this account has been made by our minifter, of late. We cannot help faying, that we wish a fimilar condu& may not be obferved in future ;-as there are many articles, in the prefent inftance, which are highly exceptionable in themfelves; and many others, which, though they may not be hurtful in Holland, would prove highly prejudicial in England.

The public are much obliged to Sir John Sinclair for the information contained in this very claborate and interefting performance; and we cannot help beftowing our tribute of applaufe on the man, who, as a member of the legislative - council of the nation, has employed fo much of his attention and time on difquifitions fo deferving of the confideration of every wife legiflature. Were only a fmall part of the auguft body of reprefentatives of the people of this nation to apply their thoughts, with half the intensity that the worthy author of this performance has done, to fubjects equally important, we might foon expect to fee a thorough reformation of defec

*Yet in fpite of these drawbacks, he observes, that of the whole revenue of the kingdom, at the prefent time, Scotland pays at least one feventeenth part; though, at the Union, it was found that Scotland yielded little more than one thirty-fixth part of the whole. It would thus appear, that the revenue drawn from Scotland has augmented in a much more rapid progreffion fince the Union, than that of England: the revenue of England having increased in the ratio of 3 to 1, and that of Scotland nearly in the ratio of 51⁄2 10 1.

tive laws, and a fyftem of legiflation adopted, that would be founded on equity; and which would, of courfe, tend to augment the profperity of every induftrious citizen, instead of retarding it; as, in too many cafes, our commercial and finan cial regulations are found, at prefent, effectually to do.

ART. II. An Apology for the Liturgy and Clergy of the Church of England: in anfwer to a Pamphet, entitled "Hints, Sc. by a Layman." In a Letter to the Author, by a Clergyman. 8vo. pp. 95. 2s. Rivingtons. 1790.

TH

HIS clergyman has been fuppofed, by Mr. Wakefield*, among others, to be Bifhop Horfley: but we have feen the fuppofition contradicted, from authority, as it appeared, in the public papers. Whatever connection the Apology may have with the Right Reverend bench-and an attentive and critical reader, perhaps, will still find, or fancy, fome features of an alliance -we confefs that we never thought it came from St. David's. Come whence it will, it is a well-written pamphlet. The author discovers an intimate knowlege of his fubject, and difplays great ability and ingenuity, but it is one thing to be able and ingenious, and another to be folid and convincing. The latter often depends as much on the nature of the question, as on the talents of the writer. In the prefent inftance, the cause appears to us to be defperate. It is no lefs, to borrow the words of a writer on the other fide, than to fhew that "every thing is fo right and ought to be kept fo tight in the worship and doctrine of holy church, that nothing can be amended, or ought to be attempted +."

The author of the "Hints" produced feveral extracts from the writings of the best and wifeft of the established clergy, men eminent for their morals, for their learning, and for their rank in the church, who have expreffed themfelves in favour of a reform. In oppofition, the apologift has brought forward the fentiments of many, and the names of many more, divines of great reputation, who have spoken in terms of the highest applaufe, of the wifdom of our ecclefiaftical conftitution. The perfons referred to on both fides are equally refpectable; in fome inftances, they are the very fame: but yet their teftimonies are of different weight in deciding the controverfy. Who-ever difapproves any part of our liturgy, may very fairly and

See the Theological clafs in this month's Cataloge,

+ See the "Confiderations on the Expediency of revifing the Litur gy and Articles of the Church of England;" Review for last month, P. 401.

proper

properly be confidered as an advocate for its alteration and amendment but it is by no means to be inferred, that every one who thinks well of it on the whole, is therefore against all change or improvement whatfoever.

Of the authorities produced by the apologift, many deal entirely in generals. Thefe are nothing to the purpofe; because no favourer of a revifal ever thought of denying that the liturgy, in a general view, is a most excellent compofition. Others, though they defcend more into particulars, feem to refer chiefly to our feparation from the church of Rome; and amount to no more than a declaration, that there is no part of our liturgy, which recedes fo far from the doctrine and worship of that church, as not to be juftified by the authority of Chrift and his apoftles. In this light, we are to confider the offer made by Cranmer, to defend the "order of the church of England set out by Edward VI." against all the world; and in this light, we are to confider what was faid and done by Grindal and Ridley. The time in which thefe events happened, (during the reign of Q. Mary,) fhew how they are to be conftrued. In the fame way, also, we must understand what Chillingworth fays in his letter to Sheldon; which was written when he seems to have been defirous of vindicating his late renunciation of popery. A third clafs of teftimonies produced by the apologist, go only to prove in his own words (p. 76) that the church of England, in its prefent form, is, beyond all comparison, the foundest and pureft of any in the Chriftian world' but an affertion of this kind is nowife inconfiftent with a perfuafion that there are many things in it, which stand in great need of amend

ment.

In the lift of those who are enumerated as friends and admirers of our public worship, we were the most furprized to find the name of Dr. Samuel Clarke; for the apologift muft mean, if he means any thing to the prefent purpose, that the doctor was fo partial to our worship, as to difapprove all change and reformation of it. One would fuppofe, if fuch a thing were poffible, that this writer had never heard of Dr. Clarke's manufeript corrections of the common payer, preferved in the British Museum, and repeatedly communicated to the world fince his death, through the channel of various publications; corrections fo numerous and important, that they would, if adopted by the church, go a great way toward fatisfying the fcruples of very many objectors. That Dr. Clarke continued to officiate in the church of England as long as health and ftrength were lent him,' is certain: but it is as certain, that he did not embrace the Athanafian doctrine of the perfect co-equality and co-eter

nity of the three perfons in the Trinity; and fo far he has been properly claffed with Unitarians.

In reply to the arguments for a reform, drawn from the vaft improvements made in knowlege of every kind fince the laft revifal; arguments which, if found and good, the apologist feems to apprehend, and in our idea, juftly apprehend, would overturn all that he has advanced; he urges the abfurdity of what he calls a progreffive religion;' attempts to fhew that there is a difference, in this refpect,between facred and profane learning; and contends that human fcience and literature, though they may be highly useful, in confirming the evidence and defending the doctrines of revelation, have no concern with the doctrines themselves, as they are delivered in fcripture. These, he says, are objects of faith, not of knowlege; and were as intelligible to our ancestors at the Reformation, as they are, or ever will be, to their pofterity.

To apply this argument to the matter in debate, the author muft maintain, that human learning is ufelefs and mifemployed, when it endeavours to afcertain what are the genuine dictates of revelation, and what have been corruptly taught for fuch; and when it strives to difcriminate the commandments of God, from the doctrines of men. If his pofitions are intended to maintain any thing fhort of this, they will never come up to the point in difpute: but who does not fee, that if our first reformers had proceeded on fuch principles, we might all have been Papifts at this day? It was a proper application of learning to doctrinal texts, (Matt. xxvi. 26, and parallel places,) that brought all Proteftants to agree that the doctrine of tranfubftantiation is erroneous and unfcriptural; and who shall say, that a like application of found learning to other texts, (1 John v. 7, 8, and fimilar paffages,) may not hereafter bring us all to fee, that other doctrines are unfcriptural alfo? The fuppofition, furely, contains nothing impoffible. The examination, therefore, of these texts, contains nothing abfurd, or improper. If there be any doctrinal parts of the facred volume, which it would be either prefumptuous, or fruitless, to fubmit to a learned investigation, it would fave much time and labour, to have them pointed out: but, indeed, if doctrinal texts are to be untouched by the hand of learning, the whole bible may remain unexplored; commentators and expofitors may lay down their pens, and burn their books: for it would, perhaps, be difficult to mention a verfe, from Genefis to Revelations, which, by fome perfons, in fome ages, or in fome countries, of Chriftendom, has not been made the foundation or support of fome doctrine or other.

When the apologist represents the doubts that have been felt and stated, respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, and the au

thenticity