and liberal principles of commerce would be generally adopted. The consequences of this measure have been highly pernicious to his subjects. The country became inundated with British and other foreign manufactures; domestic industry was discouraged, and the most ruinous bankruptcies ensued. The Emperor has acknowledged the impolicy of the measure; and to atone for the mistake, has issued a new tariff, by which all articles are prohibited that can be supplied by the industry of his own subjects. The policy of protecting their own subjects from foreign competition, is pursued by almost every power in Europe; and wherever this policy is relaxed, it has been followed by the loss of national industry, the ruin of manufacturing establishments, and a great depreciation of the value of real and personal estate. In justification of the measure, it is observed, that when principles of commercial freedom were introduced into his code of laws in 1820, what appeared beyond doubt was, that to produce happy effects they must be generally adopted-and the state which adopts while others reject them, must condemn its own industry and commerce, to pay a ruinous tribute to those of other nations.'

་

Notwithstanding the liberal principles adopted by the Emperor of Russia, other nations continued the prohibitory system. England preserved hers. Austria remained faithful to the rule she had laid down to guard against the rivalship of foreign industry. France with the same views adopted the most rigorous measures of precaution. And Prussia published a new tariff in October last, which proves that she found it impossible not to follow the rest of Europe.'

In proportion as the prohibitory system is extended and rendered perfect in other countries, that State which pursues the contrary system, makes from day to day sacrifices more and more extensive and more considerable. It opens its ports to all foreign productions, and all ports are shut against the articles it was in the habit of exporting. It offers a continual encouragement to the manufactures of other countriesand its own manufactures perish in the struggle which they are as yet unable to maintain.

Holland and the Netherlands.-The government of Holland since 1816 has Vol. IV.-No. 12.

84

same

permitted the introduction of foreign manufactures and with diminished duties. The consequences have been the have declined; the home market has as in Russia. Manufactures been diminished to a great extent; and and the Hague have fallen more than the price of houses except at Brussels one third. One ninth part of the nation require assistanace for their support; has been reduced to mendicity so as to manufactures and commerce have declined with giant strides, and the metallic medium of the nation has been lavished to pay tribute to foreign industry.

France.--France will remain a of the redeeming influence of domonument to all future statesmen try is protected against foreign commestic industry, where that induspetition by the wise policy of her rulers. France was engaged in war, till 1814, when she was subjugated with a short intermission, from 1799 at the battle of Waterloo, her Emperor carried into captivity, and a tribute imposed upon her of about ONE HUNindustry of France has triumphed over DRED MILLIONS of dollars. Yet the every obstacle, under the protecting policy pursued by her statesmen. prohibited extensively, and heavy du The introduction of foreign articles is ties almost equal to a prohibition are imposed on all which are not excluded. mortifying contrast to our own treasA view of her finances presents a ury and our own policy. In France, domestic industry is protected, and this protection enables the people to pay the requisite contributions to governinfluence it will have upon the internal ment. Her tariff is dictated by the prosperity of the nation, and not to increase the revenue to its greatest extent. The following is a view of her finan

ces:

$40,000,000 francs. For which annui-
'In 1817, there was a deficit of
30,000,000 francs.
ties were cre ved to the amount of

222,500,000 francs for which annuities
In 1818, there was a deficit of
were created to the amount of 16,000,-
000 francs.

After this year, having shaken off
France began to exhibit a balance on
the burden of the foreign armies,
the favourable side of the account.

the expenditure in 1819, was 4,458,000
The surplus of the receipts above

Answers to Correspondents.

ALEPH; N. L.; Y. J. ; A. Z. ; I. D.; Þ. B.; and T. L. are received.

***It will be recollected that in our August Number, we expressed our willingness to bring Professor Norton's Communication before the public whenever it should be purged of its reproachful and menacing expressions. This offer, as Prof. N. well knows, was made on the condition obviously implied in his original request, that the piece was not to be previously published elsewhere; for he announced his determination to take every other means in his power to give it publicity' only in case we did not insert it.' In our notice to him, after desiring him to divest it of its objectionable language, we added: 'If he rejects this proposal (for whose fairness we appeal to every candid man of his own party) and chooses to adopt some other mode of making public his communication, let him not intimate io doing it that this step became necessary except by his own choice, for the intimation will not be true.' Instead of divesting it of its objectionable language in order that it might be brought before the public through the medium of this work; he has, as we stated last month, inserted the piece entire in the Christian Disciple, and republished it in a pamphlet which has doubtless been extensively circulated. After all this, Prof. N. calls upon us to perform our promise, when the condition has heen violated on his own part, and we are therefore not under the slightest obligation to admit his piece; and when too, the end to have been accomplished by our admitting it,namely,its extensive publicity, is, we have every reason to believe, already effected; for he says, If you do not insert it, I shall take every other means in my power to give it publicity,' and 'it will probably find its way to many of your readers.'

Again; Prof. N. charges us with replying to a communication which we suppress. In this he is certainly mistaken. We will quote our own language:-We shall add a single remark as to the subject in debate. We understand Prof. Norton, in his TRACT, to impute to Calvinists the doctrine (which he states more explicitly in his letter,) that, &c. Now our declaration that he attributes to Calvinists the doctrine there specified, is obviously founded upon his published Tract on True and False Religion, and not upon the letter addressed to us. That letter is barely alluded to, in a parenthesis, as explaining and confirming what he had already advanced in the Tract; no other use is made of the letter. On this point, then, Prof. N. clearly errs.

We shall now, for another purpose, again introduce the passage we have already quoted in part:-We shall add a single remark as to the subject in debate. We understand Professor Norton, in his Tract, to impute to Calvinists the doctrine (which he states more explicitly in his letter,) that "God creates men with a nature which necessarily makes them objects of his vengeance." Or to divide the proposition.

I. That God creates a SINFUL nature in men.

II. "That this nature necessarily (i. e. by a PHYSICAL NECESSITY,) MAKES them the objects of his vengeance." Speaking of the two doctrines into which the general proposition is here subdivided, Prof. N. says, 'With regard to the first doctrine I have not used the words there given.' It is not asserted that he has used them; nor does the manner, in which the doctrine is laid down, in any way imply that he has. We did not profess to use his language exactly, nor at all. Our statement is prefaced with 'We understand Professor Norton to impute,' &c. This is very different from what would have been the case, had the expres sion been, 'Prof. N. says' thus and thus. And besides, the sentence to which he refers, is not even put within inverted commas. But suppose these had been added; this would not necessarily have furnished decisive evidence, for they are often used merely to designate definitely the point to which the writer wishes to direct the particular attention of his readers. For this purpose Professor Norton himself uses them in this very paragraph:-There are but two questions which can arise respecting this proposition; one, whether God be the creator of men ;' and the other' whether their nature be sinful. And for the same purpose, we used them in the general statement of the doctrine which we conceived Prof. N., in his Tract, to impute to Calvinists.

་

After all, we have Prof. N.'s own authority that our interpretation of his meaning, is correct. Speaking of the language in which the first of the two propositions is expressed, he observes, "Though I have not before used these precise words, I now affirm it to be a doctrine of Calvinism, that “God creates men with a sinful nature;” and in introducing his remarks respecting the other, he says, "With regard to the second proposition ascribed to me; I have impli ed it in my letter to be a doctrine of Calvinism, that God creates men with a nature which necessarily makes them objects of his vengeance." It is therefore conceded by Prof. N. that we have not misrepresented him.

We should feel disposed here to resume the subject, and to discuss at length all the different points brought up in the Tract and in the Pamphlet; did not the principles, to which we have uniformly adhered in conducting this Work, forbid. The publication was not designed to be mainly or even to any considerable extent controversial, much less to be an arena for Theological pugilists, or a vehicle of embittered personal recrimination. And as to important and fundamental points at issue between those who call themselves christians, it has always been our aim to canvass them in the way of manly discussion, and never to defile our pages with angry controversy. Leaving barren and unprofitable speculations to those who love them better than ourselves and have less important objects in view, it is our hearts' leading desire to inculcate the great truths and duties of christianity, to expose essential error, and to conciliate into unity of feeling and of action all who sincerely love our Divine Redeemer.

From a desire to forward these great objects, we ventured to sound the alarm, upon the appearance of the Tract on True and False Religion, that the christian community might be apprised of their danger. And with the same object in view, we shall, as soon as our present engagements permit, notice, in a beco...ing manner, Professor Norton's last pamphlet, in our capacity as Reviewers; but never can we consent to descend so far from the elevated stand of Christian Spectators, as to become embroiled in heart-hardening personal altercation. It is our earnest prayer that we may not, when we come to notice this pamphlet, nor on any other occasion, be left to indulge feelings unbecoming that religion upon which rests our only hope of salvation; but that it may ever be our aim to imitate him who, when he was reviled, reviled not again.' Though Prof. N. should continue to load us with degrading epithets and to attribute to us the most unworthy motives of action; we hope we may never be betrayed into the use of similar language, but rather rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame' for our Saviour's name, with such an one as the sainted Edwards; in extracting from whose works Prof. N. says: "Such passages as I have quoted glare upon the reader throughout the Fifteen Sermons of Edwards. The volume is darkened and discolored with the flames and smoke of Hell, represented as curling round far the greater part of the human race." "What must be the effect of such a belief, as is here expressed, in brutalizing the whole character of him by whom it is held. Such are the DOCTRINES OF DEVILS, which have been taught under the insulted name of christianity."— "But I forbear. In quoting BLASPHEMY like this, I can hardly avoid feeling, as if I shared in the guilt of uttering it.”—-It has then come to this, that the immortal Edwards is unhesitatingly charged with BLASPHEMY. He, to whom the nations of Christendom bave with one accord awarded the palm of being the most profound Theologian of the age in which he lived,-he, whose Works have by the divine blessing already been instrumental in the salvation of myriads of souls, and whose heaven-born influence will endure to the most distant generations when the memory of his revilers shall have passed away as a vision of the night,'-he, we repeat, is deliberately held up to public view as a BLASPHEMER of his God. The doctrines which he believed and upon which he rested his hopes in a dying hour, are boldly stigmatized as the DOCTRINES OF DEVILS.' And this is done too by one, who boasts of his kindness and liberality, who professes to be an Embassador of the meek and lowly Jesus, who in this christian land and in a distinguished university occupies the chair of instruction in divine things, and who is therefore bound by the most solemn ties to exert his influence and spend his strength in training up the young for a heaven of pụrity, peace and love.

INDEX TO THE ESSAYS, INTELLIGENCE, &c.

OF THE FOURTH VOLUME OF THE CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR.

Attainments, spiritual, on the danger of Connecticut, report of the General Asso-

Birth places of the members of the Six- Diversities in the christian character, 584