of any considerable portion of a continent so steeped in barbarity as Africa.'

We wish to extend our notice of the other Addenda to this Re port: but want of room, on this as on numerous occasions, obliges us to reluctant brevity.

Among the recommendations of this Institution, it may be said to be one that it is patronized by the intelligent and humane Society of Quakers. In the list of subscribers, we find this item: A member of the Society. of Friends, called Quakers, 5251. While this Friend manifests a liberality far surpassing any other instance in the list, he modestly withholds his name.

Art. 25 Observations on the late Treaty of Peace with France; so far as it relates to the Slave Trade: in a Letter to a Friend. Is. Butterworth and Son.

8vo.

Excepting Ministers, probably no persons in this country were aware that the treaty, which was hailed with universal extacy as giving security and peace to Europe, was to sanction the revival of the inhuman Slave-Trade on the coast of Africa, for at least five years to come. The nation, in general, in a manner which does honour to the character of Britons, expresses its concern at having the glorious event of peace debased by a condition so repugnant to the principles of men and of Christians; and it feels astonished that our negotiators, after the pointed reprobation of this trade by the Legislature, could consent to allow the French (who were in a vanquished condition, and therefore not in a capacity to dictate terms,) to resumé a traffic which we had pronounced to be "contrary to the principles of justice, humanity, and sound policy." Some reason which does not float on the surface must have led to this revolting measure; and it is worthy of notice that, in our treaty with Sweden, in which we agree to cede to her the rich island of Guadaloupe, we restrain her from engaging in the Slave Trade.

The author of this letter is laudably indignant at the idea of our abandoning a great moral principle, and a great moral duty, to which the country was solemnly pledged: but he has not marked with sufficient reprobation the hypocritical wording of the article in question, which commences with talking about humanity, and then inflicts the most savage cruelty on millions! It is, indeed, contended by the letter-writer that the article was perfectly inadmissible'; and that no nation is warranted in making itself a party to an engagement which has for its object transactions or trade which cannot be carried on without injustice and inhumanity to others. The grounds on which this concession to the French is opposed are solid:

Had the question been, whether the French should carry on the Slave-Trade, from points on the coast of Africa in their possession, to colonies over which they had the dominion, it would have been very different from that which is now before us. It might have involved the consideration, how far we, as a great maritime nation, should have been called upon to become the champions and protectors of the defenceless nations of Africa, against the oppressions of those

who

who should attempt to carry their inhabitants into slavery and misery. Although there may be less difficulty, even in that question, than may at first sight be admitted; yet we are not now under the neces sity of coming to a determination on that part of the subject. In our present case, the points and settlements on the coast of Africa to be given up, as well as the colonies in the Indies, are our own; they are under our protection; and the question is, whether we have any right to give them up, with the avowed intention of permitting all the horrors of that trade, which, in those very places, we consider eo infamous as to render it proper to visit its agents with the penalties of felony. At present those places and islands do not belong to the French, they have no natural right or claim to them; and if we think it expedient, or convenient, to cede them to France, it is our moral duty, and therefore with respect to us, as a nation, a political obligation, to take care that their inhabitants are not, by any agreement or admission on our part, given up to certain pillage, slavery, and murder.

The difficulty which will attend the abolition, at the end of five years, furnishes another reason why the article should not have been agreed to.'

Let us look at it in another point of view:

The effect, which this revival of the trade will have upon the coast of Africa, will be horrible. Now, the African slave-dealers turn their attention to other pursuits; and the cruelty and murder connected with their wicked occupation, have greatly abated, or entirely ceased. A friendly intercourse with Europeans is increasing; and the inhabitants are beginning to feel the benefits of civilization.Of what advantage can our forts and settlements be in civilizing the natives on one side of a river, (as Sierra Leone is situated,) when a French factory (as the island of Gambia will be) is situated on the other? And when its command of the river will encourage all those disgraceful practices considered necessary for procuring slaves, which at once degrade the natives and destroy their happiness."

In what an aukward situation must we be, on the coast of Africa! How irritating it will be to see the French in possession of this traffic, to the exclusion of ourselves! They will be allowed to prosecute, without a competitor, a trade in which a British merchant cannot engage without being guilty of felony !

The writer replies with much ability to the arguments which have been urged in favour of this heart-rending measure; and he encou rages a hope that, in consequence of the numerous petitions to Parliament against the renewal of the Slave-Trade, bis Majesty's Ministers will use all their address with the French government to pre vent its horrid commencement. By the Sixth Report of the African Institution, (the subject of the preceding article,) it will be found that our exertions for the abolition of the Slave-Trade have been far from effectual; and if the French are allowed to visit the coasts of Africa for the purpose of procuring negroes to be transported across the Atlantic, our splendid visions of the civilization of Africa will be visions indeed, and the miseries of the negro-rage be indefinitely protracted!

Art. 26. Some Inquiry into the Constitutional Character of the QueenConsort of England. 8vo. pp. 51. 2s. 6d. Ridgway. 1814. A pamphlet that might boast of more finished style and more artful reasoning, than this Inquiry exhibits, has often fallen into our hands: but we have rarely met with one which contained a more clear, full, and honest statement of a very important question. The author contrives to stand on the best terms with his readers; no man will suspect him of playing the courtier; while, on the other hand, he steers equally clear of faction, and we are satisfied that it is the public interest which he has in view. Although the question which he pursues is raised by certain notorious disputes of the day, he conducts it in a candid and dispassionate manner: clearly shewing that, in the case of a demise of the sovereign, the constitution and the public weal indispensibly require that the new King and Queen should be crowned at the usual time, and in the usual manner. He contends that the precedent of deferring the Queen's coronation, in the reign of Henry VII. was a flagrant violation of the constitution, while the ultimate adop tion of the ceremony proves its obligatory nature; and he successfully controverts the doctrine that the monarch has no adviser in his domestic concerns. Equally forcible are the observations by which he shews that a Queen-consort is legally and constitutionally, except in criminal transactions, a single woman; and he explains several usages of the constitution, which would otherwise be anomalous, by shewing that they refer to this doctrine.

It is also maintained that the coronation of a Queen-consort is a recognition, by the people, of the right of her children to succeed to the crown. Without going the length of laying this down as a legal proposition, we admit the usual effect of the ceremony to be, in this respect, as great as it is represented by the author; and we fully agree with him in thinking that a departure from the usual mode of observing it should not, on any account, be allowed.

Art. 27. Recueil de Décrets, Ordonnances, &c.; i. e. A Collection of Decrees, Orders, Treaties of Peace, Manifestoes, Proclamations, Speeches, &c. &c. of Napoleon Bonaparte, and of the Members of the French Government, from November 1799 to the Year 1812 inclusive, Extracted from the Moniteur, by Lewis Goldsmith, Notary, 8vo. 4 Vols. London. 1813.

No person, we believe, will rejoice more than Mr. Goldsmith that the reign of Napoleon has ceased, since the publication of these papers respecting his government; and though an equal interest in them will not now prevail, they will remain curious and valuable documents for consultation. Mr. G. before furnished us with a similar repository; which he has continued to the year 1812, and promises to resume, to the end, as it will now be, of the imperial sway. No comments are added by the editor to the papers themselves: which, as he observes, exhibit to the reader the system of French government with respect to legislation, interior administration, exterior policy, and the internal and external police which it exercises in France and in foreign states. A copious Index is very properly subjoined.

RELIGIOUS

RELIGIOUS.

Art. 28. Letters to the Rev. John Pye Smith, D.D. on the Sacrifice of Christ; occasioned by his Sermon, preached March 11. 1813, before the Patrons and Students of the Protestant Dissenting Academy at Homerton. By W. J. Fox. 8vo. 28. 6d.

Johnson and Co.

Though calm inquiry and amicable discussion were virtues little cultivated by our old theologians, we are pleased to observe them coming into fashion with our modern religious disputants; who argue with more civility, and restrain if they do not quite suppress all feelings of irritation. On the strange doctrine of Satisfaction, we wished to hear two sensible friends fairly dispute; because such an amica collatio would soon shew how far it was or was not tenable. If Dr. Smith has not voluntarily undertaken to enter the lists of controversy with Mr. Fox, the latter, while he comments on the sermon of the former, treats him with great respect, and addresses him in these letters as one who is high in his esteem. So far, Mr. Fox cannot be suspected of any design of which Dr. Smith can disapprove; and the mode which he adopts, in replying to certain passages in the sermon, is calculated to do justice to the subject, by bringing into full view the insuperable difficulties which press on the commonly received doctrines of the transfer of guilt, and of satisfaction made to Divine Justice, by this process.

Mr. Fox, having been educated by Dr. Smith in the principles of Calvinism, enjoyed ample opportunities for thoroughly understanding it; and many prejudices must have been encountered, and much must he have examined and reflected, before he could have brought himself to reject it. We consider these letters, therefore, as of no little value in the controversy to which they relate. They prove the writer to have a good mind as well as a good understanding; and it appears to us that his arguments cannot be easily overturned. As the figurative language of Scripture, respecting sacrifices and atonements, is liable to be mistaken, it would be of great service to consider this matter, in the first instance, purely by the light of reason; because, if the doctrine asserted be impossible in the nature of things, or involves an absurdity, those portions of Scripture which are adduced in its favour must be misunderstood. Several passages in Mr. Fox's letters tend to this point. After having followed the preacher through the texts by which he would prove the satisfaction of Divine Justice by the death and sacrifice of Christ, Mr. F. states the inconsistencies connected with the doctrine of Satisfaction;' and, in his fourth letter, he observes to Dr. Smith that

The first contradiction which offers itself to notice is that, on your system, God pardons and punishes the very same offence. Christ has borne the guilt and punishment of believers, and yet they are said to be forgiven. A debt is only once payable: a crime only once punishable. Let the principle of substitution be admitted; still the sinner cannot be required to suffer both in his surety and his own person. If another for him has discharged the debt, sustained the curse, he need not implore his deliverance of the mercy of God, but

may

may demand it from his justice. When a man tells me that God has forgiven his sins, and in the same breath that Christ endured, in his stead, the punishment of those sins, he makes two assertions, either of which may perhaps be correct, but which cannot both be true.'

We recommend the whole of this pamphlet to the consideration of the theological reader. We have not leisure regularly to follow the writer through each of his seven letters, but, as a farther specimen of the clearness of his conceptions, we shall quote his remarks on the transferable nature of vice and virtue.

Your system also supposes the transferable nature of guilt and innocence." Jesus Christ voluntarily sustained the guilt and punishment of sin." (P. 28.) "The active obedience of the Lord Christ is freely and graciously imputed to the pardoned sinner.” (P. 56.) These assertions are alike opposed to reason and Scripture. In no place is Christ called guilty, nor are his sufferings ever termed a punishment. Nowhere is it said that the righteousness of Christ becomes the righteousness of those who believe in him. How can it possibly be indifferent to a lawgiver whether the transgressor suffer in his own person, or by a substitute? The desire of an innocent person to stand in the place of a guilty one does not make him deserving of punishment, nor can his suffering answer the object of punishment, whether we suppose that object to be the reformation of the individual, or the well-being of society."

In the miscellaneous remarks, Mr. Fox calls Dr. Smith to task for an unguarded expression or two: but, in conclusion, he speaks in the handsomest terms of his late tutor, and bears the fullest testimony to his amiable and candid spirit.

Art. 29. Two Discourses designed for the Use of Servants, wherein their Duties are explained and enforced by Precepts and Examples drawn from the Holy Bible. 8vo. IS. Spence.

Why is not the author's name prefixed to this useful and muchwanted publication? No class of the community stands in more need of a serious lecture than servants; and we were pleased to see two discourses addressed to their attention, which are very plain, and constructed on a judicious plan: the preacher having brought toge ther, in one view, all the parts of Scripture which describe the situation and enforce the duties of servants. The doctrines here incul cated are compressed into the following passages:

That the different ranks and employments of men are ap pointed by God: that He, with infinite wisdom,' goodness, and power, places each of us in that situation, which is most calculated to promote our eternal salvation: that it is consequently our duty to be therewith content: that the true happiness of man consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth, but in the favour of God: that this favour is to be obtained equally by high and low, rich and poor, if we fear God and keep his

commandments.

That the peculiar duties of servants are honesty, sobriety, fidelity, watchfulness, patience, diligence, and a constant desire to please their masters, and to promote their interest and happiness by