ment failed; and amidst these conflicts it is not surprising that some doubted and others disbelieved: or, that men who have not patience nor leisure to examine into the historical evidences of the primitive opinions, and critically to analyze the evangelical and apostolic writings, should remain bewildered or incredulous. This apostacy was clearly foreseen and pointed out by Paul: and Jesus himself emphatically foretold the divisions of religious sentiment which should arise even in one family a most remarkable and striking prophecy! But it is equally foretold that the truth will ultimately make itself manifest, and that doubt will be at an end.

AWRITER in the last number of the Christian Observer, [p. 712,] animadverting upon the defection of the pastors and professors of Geneva from the doctrines of their patriarch Calvin, has thought proper to ascribe the change to the influence of Rousseau and his irreligious writings. I am not surprised that Calvinists should be desirous thus to confound a renunciation of Calvinism with the rejection of Christianity, because the fact that a body of men, eminent for their talents and exemplary in their lives, pursuing scriptural truth by the investigation of the Bible, remote from the influence of the passions which controversy awakens, and if biassed at all, naturally disposed to lean to the doctrines handed down to them from their ancestors, should with one consent have renounced orthodoxy, is a testimony to the scriptural evidence of Anti-Calvinistic opinions not easy to be got over. Had the writer in the Christian Observer known any thing of the history of the church of Geneva, desirous as he is to represent infidelity as the root of its heresy, he would at least have made his charge more plausibly than by connecting it with the name of Rousseau, who has had no more to do with it than Thomas Paine with the Arianism of Mr. Peirce and his fellow-sufferers from the Western Inquisition. Both the principles and the manners of the people of Geneva shew how unfounded is the charge of having embraced

the licentious doctrines of their fellow citizen: notwithstanding an incorporation of several years with revolutionary France, they are still distinguished by the simplicity and purity of their mauners a distinction which it is to be hoped they will retain in spite of the crowds of idle Englishmen who have taken up their abode amongst them, and the efforts of orthodox missionaries to alienate the minds of the people from their moral and religious instructors. But what decidedly proves that the heresy of the Genevans has no connexion with French infidelity, is, that the same charge of abandoning Calvinism was made and to the same extent, in the middle of the last century, and before French infidelity had disclosed itself. Perhaps many of your readers may not be aware of the circumstances to

whicle in the the insertion of pe article in the celebrated Encyclopédie, charging the ministers of Geneva with Socinianism, and the steps which they took to vindicate themselves. I have therefore subjoined a translation of that part of the article Genève which relates to the faith of the clergy, and also their solemn protest against the imputation cast on them: the former is to be found in the 7th Volume of the folio edition of the Encyclopedic, the latter in the Mélanges de d'Alembert, Vol. III. p. 465.

The present state of Geneva in respect to religious opinion is certainly very singular, and the Unitarians of this country cannot but be deeply interested in what is now going forward there. For upwards of a century, probably, the great body of the clergy have gradually been renounciug the peculiarities of Calvinism, and confining their preaching and catechetical instruction to the Being and Perfections of God, the duty and expectations of men as made known in Revelation and confirmed by the promise of a future state. Yet it does not appear that they have ever gone beyond a negative Anti-Trinitarianism and Anti-Calvinism, and the result of the present attempts of our evangelical countrymen to bring the people back to the doctrine of the Institutions, is peculiarly interesting, as it may afford a test of the efficacy of that mode of opposing error, which many excellent persons think more safe and effectual

than a direct attack upon popular opinions. They would insist upon the Unity of God, without shewing its absolute inconsistency with every modification of Trinitarianism; they would set forth the benignity, the long-suffering, the graciousness of our heavenly Father, without urging that no equivalent or atonement can be necessary to make such a Being ready to receive the penitent transgressor; they would insist upon the necessity of good works to salvation, without drawing the inference, which they might, respecting the Calvinistic doctrines of absolute decrees and the efficacy of faith alone. To others it seems that though this indirect method of insinuating truth into the mind may be well suited to men of leisure and reflection, it is not adapted to the generality, who do not and cannot pursue principles to consequences not pointed out, and to whom the whole benefit of a process of reasoning may be lost, if the last step be wanting which should connect it with the conclusion. They think that to teach truth but never to shew its inconsistency with popular error, is to dig the mine without laying the gun powder. The result of the efforts which are now making to re-convert the people of Geneva, may help to decide which of these two methods of propagating truth is most deserving of our imitation. If they succeed in making Calvinism once more popular, in spite of the notorious renunciation of it by the clergy, and even force them, as the only means of preserving their influence, to resume it, we can hardly avoid the inference, that for truth to gain a firm footing, it must be taught controversially. Should they fail, it must be allowed that where circumstances permit the system of indirect attack to be pursued so long and uninterruptedly as it has been at Geneva, it accomplishes its object effectually at last.

There is one case indeed in which the ill success of Mr. Drummond and his associates will prove nothing, and that is, if the clergy use their influence with the magistracy to prevent Calvinism from being taught within the territories of the republic, and proceed to censure and depose any of their own body who persist in preaching

it. The former is scarcely 'conceivable; I wish I could say that no symptom of the latter had appeared. Should they adopt this method of stifling discussion, however we may regret that such an instance of disregard to the right of private judgment should proceed from such a quarter, we may learn this useful lesson, that the spirit of all establishments is too nearly the same, and that the best principles in other respects, are not proof against the corrupting influence of the possession of power.

P.T. L.

Having described the situation, political constitution, &c., of Geneva, M. d'Alembert proceeds, "It now only remains that we should speak of the state of religion, and this is perhaps that part of our present article, in which the philosopher will take the strongest interest. Before we enter into this detail, we must request our readers to remember that we are historians and not polemics, that our articles of theology are designed as an antidote to the errors of which we are going to speak, and that no approbation is implied in giving an account of them. We refer the reader to the articles Eucharist, Hell, Faith, Christianity, to fortify them before-hand against what we are going to say." [The reader will be amused or disgusted with this flimsy affectation of a zeal for the Catholic doctrine, which was necessary to make the Encyclopédie pass in a country where Popery was still the established religion, though notoriously designed to bring Christianity itself into contempt.] "The ecclesiastical constitution of Geneva is purely Presbyterian; they have no bishops and still less canons; not that they disapprove of episcopacy; but they see no proof of its divine authority, and they think a poorer and humbler ministry better suited to a small republic. The ministers are either pastors, answering to our parish clergy, or postulants, like our unbeneficed priests. Their salary does not exceed 1200 livres (£50. sterling) without any perquisites, and it is paid by the state, for the church possesses nothing. No minister is admitted without a rigid examination both of his morals and his literary attainments; nor till he is 24 years of age.The

clergy of Geneva are men of exemplary morals; they live in great mutual harmony, not disputing fiercely like those of other countries upon unintelligible dogmas, persecuting one another and calling in the aid of the civil magistrate; yet they are far from being unanimous respecting those articles which are elsewhere deemed most essential in religion. Many of them no longer believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, of which Calvin, their leader, was so zealous a defender, and for denying which he brought Servetus to the stake. When this punishment, so little to the honour of their patriarch's charity and moderation, is mentioned to them, they do not undertake to justify it; they acknowledge that Calvin was in the wrong, and, if they are conversing with a Catholic, they oppose to it the abominable massacre of St. Bartholomew, which every good Frenchman would wish to efface from our annals with his blood; and the execution of John Huss, in which humanity and good faith were equally outraged, and by which the memory of the emperor Sigismund must be covered with everlasting infamy.

"Hell, which is one of the principal articles of our creed, has ceased to be so in that of many of the ministers of Geneva. According to them, it would be unjust to the Deity, so full of goodness and mercy, to suppose that he is capable of punishing our sins by an eternity of torment. They explain, with as little awkwardness as they may, the positive declarations of Scripture which are opposed to their doctrine, alleging that nothing should be taken literally which is at variance with humanity and reason. They believe in the existence of future punishments, but of limited duration. So that purgatory, one of the principal causes of the separation of the Protestants from the Romish Church, is now the only state of suffering after death, which many of them admit-a curious fact to be added to the history of the contradictions of mankind.

“In short, many of the Pastors of Geneva have no other religion than complete Socinianism, rejecting every thing which is called a mystery, and believing that the fundamental principle of true religion is to propose

nothing for our belief which is repugnant to reason. When they are pressed on the subject of the necessity of revelation, an essential doctrine of Christianity, many of them substitute the milder term of utility, in which they shew their consistency at least, if not their orthodoxy.

"A body of clergy entertaining such sentiments as these, may be expected to be tolerant, and, in fact, those of Geneva are so to such a degree, as to be regarded with an evil eye by the ministers of other Reformed Churches. It may further be said, without intending to approve in other points the religion of Geneva, that there are few countries in which the theologians and ecclesiastics are more hostile to superstition. On the other hand, as intolerance and superstition serve only to multiply unbelievers, fewer complaints are heard at Geneva than elsewhere of the increase of infidelity. This is not surprising : religion is reduced among them to little more than the worship of one God, except among the vulgar; respect for Jesus Christ and for the Scriptures are almost the only things which distinguish the Christianity of Geneva from pure Deism."

The rest of the article relates to the worship and discipline of the Church of Geneva, and has no immediate connexion with our subject. To the passage which I have translated, the following note is added in the 8vo. edition of the Encyclopédie, Lausanne and Berne, 1782.

"The imputation which M. d'Alembert has thrown out against Geneva is not new. As early as 1690, some English ministers had complained on this subject to a synod convoked at Amsterdam. That religious toleration, which is a natural cousequence of the principles of the Reformation, may have occasioned Socinianism to spring up in its bosom: but on the 10th of February 1758, the Church of Geneva, by a solemn act, protested against the doctrine which is imputed to it in this article; and by thus putting upon record its abhorrence of all Socinian doctrines, we must suppose, that it will repel for the future all suspicion of the soundness of its faith."

If any reader of the Repository can point out any account of the transac

tion in 1692, which is here alluded to, the writer of this article will be obliged to him to do so: the "solemn protest against the imputation of Socinianism," is the document which follows. “Extract from the Registers of the Venerable Company of Pastors and Professors of the Church and Academy of Geneva, February 10,

1758.

"The Company being informed that the seventh volume of the Encyclopédie, lately printed at Paris, contains, under the head Geneva, some things which essentially concern our church, has caused this article to be read before it, and having nominated commissioners to examine it more particularly, upon hearing their report, and after mature deliberation, has thought it a duty to itself and to public edification to make and publish the following declaration :—

"The Company has been equally surprised and grieved to see in the article in question, that not only the system of our public worship is represented in a very defective manner, but a very false idea is given of our doctrine and our faith; on several subjects opinions are attributed to many of us which we do not hold, and others are misrepresented. In direct contradiction to the truth, it is alleged 'that several of us no longer believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and have no other religion than pure Socinianism, rejecting all mysteries,' &c.; and, as if to compliment us upon being completely philosophical, the author endeavours to explain away our Christianity, by expressions which tend to nothing less than to make us suspected of having none at all; as when he says, that religion is very nearly reduced to the worship of one God, expect among the vulgar,' &c. Impatations such as these are the more dangerous and the more likely to diffuse a false opinion of us throughout Christendom, as they are found in a work of very general circulation, and which speaks favourably of our city, of its morals, its government, and, with this exception, of its clergy and ecclesiastical constitution. We deeply regret that the most important point of all, is that on which the author is the worst informed.

necessary for him but to have adverted to the public and authentic proofs of it, which the church has given, and still continues to give. Nothing is more notorious than that our leading principle and invariable profession is to receive the doctrine of the holy prophets and apostles, contained in the books of the Old and New Testament, as divinely inspired, and as the sole, infallible and perfect rule of faith and practice. This profession is expressly recognized by every one who is admitted to the exercise of the sacred ministry, and, indeed, by every member of our flocks, when, as catechumens, they give an account of their belief in the presence of the church. We constantly make use of the Apostles' Creed, as an abridgment of the historical and doctrinal part of Christianity, adopted alike by all Christians. Our ecclesiastical institutions have all the same principles for their basis; our preaching, our religious ceremonies, our liturgy, our administration of the sacraments, have all a reference to the redemption of men by Jesus Christ. The same doctrine is taught in the lectures and theses of our academical instruction, in our manuals of devotion, and in the other works which our theologians publish, especially as preservatives from infi. delity, from whose fatal poison we incessantly labour to preserve our flocks. On these points we are not afraid to appeal to the testimony of all ranks, and even of the strangers, who attend upon, and are edified by, our public and private instructions.

"On what then can that different idea of our doctrine, which has been held up, be founded? Or, if the suspicion attaches to our sincerity, as though we did not really believe what we teach and publicly profess, what is there which warrants so odious a suspicion? Was the author not conscious of his own inconsistency, when, after having praised us for our exemplary morals, he taxed us with a degree of hyprocrisy to which none are capable of descending, but those unprincipled persons to whom all religion is a jest? It is true that we esteem and cultivate philosophy, not, however, that licentious and sophistical philosophy, of whose extravagancies the present age exhibits so many examples, but that grave and solid