inhabitants, an apt example of arrogance and persecution?

The charge which this writer levels against the Genevese clergy, of hiding their religious sentiments, is the stale one which has so long been made against Unitarians in general, but with no more justice or fairness than it can be urged upon Trinitarians and Calvinists. Because we do not press what we do not believe, or rather, because we press only what we believe, we are charged with concealment and evasion. On this principle, every orthodox sermon, which waves the subject of the real presence and other Catholic absurdities, is dishonest and evasive. If, in order to satisfy our revilers, we adopt the very expressions of Scripture, and other phrases, which they insist upon putting into our mouths, then the complaint is, that we affix to the words a different sense from theirs. As if our sense is not as rational, authentic and conscientious as theirs, and as if all men can be expected to agree in the precise meaning of difficult ancient Jewish phraseology. What Mr. Smith stigmatizes as hiding religious sentiments, might, with more candour and freedom from sectarian influence, be truly denominated, an attempt at union and charitable comprehension. The very instance which he gives, (though mistakenly by way of reproach,) on the other side of the leaf, is a laudable instance of it. He has there shewn that Arians, and Socinians, and English Unitarians, and Antisupernaturalists, when they have no longer a hope of convincing each other, and see nothing but danger and discord from protracting to an interminable extent their metaphysical disputes, can, for the sake of broad practical, wholesome results, and the enjoyment of moral and religious harmony, unite in one general phrase, and confess, though without interpreting, or pretending to interpret, the proposition in one uniform light, that “Jesus was a Divine Being." Mr. Smith complains that this sentence is "capable of a variety of interpretations." And what sentence is not? What creed has not been variously interpreted? Take his own favourite dogma, which he calls the leading doctrine of the Reformation and of Scripture--" Salvation and holiness by grace through

faith in a Divine Redeemer." Does not Mr. Sinith know that Unitarian Christians believe every word and letter of it as much as he does? Never was a more slippery, fluctuating, unsettled, proposition uttered than this which the writer sets up as a standard. Does Mr. S. himself suppose that be and his contemporary brethren understand and maintain it in exactly the same point of view, with the same emphasis, and in the same relations, that Luther and his contemporaries did? One would think that our Replier had put forth all his skill and strength to select a sentence which should adroitly cover over the numerous varieties of opinions among the orthodox. Who can tell what the old Genevese really believed from such a vague representation?

Let me attempt to convince Mr. Smith of a piece of unfairness, which, in common with modern Calvinists, he suffers himself to commit, in consequence of not making a due discrimination with respect to certain facts and terms. The most glorious period in human history is perhaps the Reformation. Whatever formed an efficient portion of it, ought undoubtedly to share in its glory. Calvinists, by perseveringly denominating certain articles of their belief doctrines of the Reformation, have succeeded in investing such articles with a factitious splendour, borrowed from that event, but which certainly belongs not to them. The peculiar notions entertained by many of the Reformers respecting the Trinity, Justification, Faith, and other abstract religious subjects, did not move forward the Reformation one step. Probably the actors in that event believed, to a man, in witches, and most of them in astrology and the Ptolemaic system. Would it be correct, therefore, to call these last, the doctrines of the Reformation? The mere circumstance that they held a set of private opinions apart from their character as Reformers, is of no sort of consequence. The point is, Was the Reformation set on foot, or carried on, or completed, for the sake of particularly establishing what Calvinists would now call its doctrines? Was not the establishment of those doctrines rather an accidental and subordinate result? And was not the main object of that great struggle to

convince the world of such principles as these that the Pope is not infallible, that the sale of indulgencies was an abomination in the eye of God, that the Scriptures are a sufficient rule of faith, and the like? I must not pursue this track of speculation any further at present, though I am persuaded of its legitimacy and truth, and I am willing to entrust its continued prosecution to the calmly-exercised candour and sagacity of Mr. Smith.

In regard to the particular proposition before quoted, respecting Salvation by Grace, &c., I will allow that, in one sense, it was a doctrine of the Reformation. It overthrew the Popish doctrines of superegatory merits, and what the Romish Church technically and corruptly denominated "good works." But it would have achieved the same conquest, had Luther's private interpretation of it been purely Arminian or Unitarian. It was the scriptural authority of his proposition, coupled with its being a verbal denial of Popish opinions, and not its peculiar metaphysical bearing in Luther's mind, which won his victories. An inattention to these essential distinctions has made Calvinists so very proud of what is not their own, and caused even liberal Christians to refrain from asserting their superior share in the general principles, maxims, and true glory of the Reformation.

Mr. Smith is a better Calvinist than philosopher. He pretends to trace up to a defection froin orthodoxy all the vice and irreligion which may exist in individual instances at Geneva. Was it not a currier, who, in his great simplicity, proposed to fortify a bombarded town with leather? There will be no more wicked cakes and ale if Calvinism can be any where a statereligion. Cannot Mr. S. account for the spread of immorality in Geneva, by the peculiarly unsettled state of manners and things throughout the whole continent during the last century, and the very exposed local situa

* "It is indeed certain," says Hume, "that the Reformers were fortunate in their doctrine of justification, and might venture to foretell its success, in opposition to all the ceremonics, shows, and superstitions of Popery." Hist. Eng. chap. xxxiv.

tion in which that city was placed? Has not the place been, as it were, the hotel, the caravansary of Europe? Who knows, too, how inuch of this modern degeneracy may be fairly ascribable, not to the decay of Calvinism, but to the former existence and necessary re-action, or, at least, to the remaining dregs of its spirit in the body of the people? And, farther, Mr. Smith's power of ratiocination scems entirely to have failed him on this subject, and he argues in as complete a circle as did ever a Roman Catholic. In paragraph numbered 2, (p. 322,) he accounts for the decay of Calvinism in Geneva, by gratuitously supposing a growing spirit of levity and irreligion; and, then, when he would give a plausible reason for the existence of this very levity and irreli gion, he assigns (paragraph, No. 7) the departure from the old theology, which is nothing but the decay of Calvinism back again! In this dizzy kind of reasoning, it is impossible to tell which is cause and which is effect, though it is very certain the writer means that the reputation of his doctrines shall not suffer in any alternative. How very candid, liberal and convincing, too, is the argument, that one cause of the decay of Calvinism was a strong and subtle prejudice against truth and holiness," and an absence as yet of "genuine piety, or right affections towards the holy and blessed God"! How could Mr. Smith expect that such sorry cant should have any influence with the Unitarian readers of the Repository?

66

Mrs. Hughes, in Defence of PeaceSocieties, presents some staggering facts for him who doubts the practicability of their plans. The latter part of her Essay is rather desultory. I have been long wishing to see executed, by some friend to those societies, a picture of the world under the desired reign of universal peace. What outlet shall be provided for the more turbulent and restless elements of society? Cannot the vast science and strict discipline, which ages have brought to so much perfection in military affairs, be transferred to immense masses of men employed in some great civil good? Why cannot we hear of one hundred thousand heroes led on by skilful and able generals to the achievement of some specific

Review, and the accidental unpopu larity of his Unitarian sentiments, Dr. John Jones will be studied and admired more and more through every succeeding year of the present century, at the very least. His Illustrations of the Four Gospels, in its peculiar species of merit, is rivalled only by Paley's Hore Paulina. Dr. Graves on the Pentateuch has attempted a similar view with considerable ability and success, but with few of those unexpected and surprising flashes of penetrating Ingenuity which distinguish the other two writers. If Dr. Jones is occasionally too refined and imaginative, if some of his conclusions possess not the convincing weight which characterizes nearly all of Paley's, it is to be ascribed to the more airy nature of his track of speculation, while the defect is more than sufficiently balanced and redeemed by the almost inspired light which he throws upon so many passages of Scripture. How happy is he in his comment on Luke xvi. 18, in the communication before us! Nothing prevents us from yielding the assent of full conviction to his sagacious conjectures, here, as well as in many other parts of his writings, but the doubt which will force itself into our minds, whether the evangelists reported the speeches and actions of our Saviour in the exact order in which they were delivered and performed, and whether the original materials for the composition of the Gospels into their present state were not more fragmentary and disjointed than our critic is disposed to represent them; a doubt, however, which his own lucid and ingenious illustrations tend very powerfully to remove.

Lines addressed to the Pope. Mr. Rutt cannot give us too many morceaux from his extensive and multifarious reading. Ought not this epigram to have been translated in a more compact manner? And will not the following attempt, though inferior in all other qualifications, preserve in this particular the spirit of the original somewhat more than either the French or English versions of Dr. Macauley?

How now, oh Herod, impious foe!
At Christ's approach, why tremble ́ so?
The giver of bright realms divine,
Will scarcely stoop to crowns like thine.

Correspondence between an Unitarian and a Calvinist. Considering the particular point on which this correspondence turns, would it not have been fair to entitle it as existing between an Universalist and Calvinist? I cannot see the propriety of demanding or implying that every Unitarian, as such, necessarily believes in the doctrine of universal salvation.

How far would one be right in conjecturing that this correspondence is fictitious-a series of letters between some Cicero, and his friend Mark Tully?

Cornish Controversy. Mr. Le Grice has exhibited some specimens of candour, spirit, and talent, in this little communication, which have my ready admiration. But I think he is mistaken în representing it as a peculiar "feature of the present times" that Dissenters in heart from the Church of England yield to the temptation which she herself guiltily holds out to partake of her ceremonies. Does not Mr. Le Grice remember the marvellous, the astounding facility with which hundreds and hundreds of the clergy quietly shut their mouths in the beginning of William and Mary's reign, rather than resign" the monopoly of good things"? Have not the ecclesiastical maxims of England at all times, and in the successive triumphs of several different parties, driven numbers to "put a bridle on their consciences and lips"? "Look at the Non-Juror," he says, "at the beginning of the last century." To be sure, there were some Non-Jurors at that time; but perhaps too few; certainly not enough to characterize it as a very disinterested age in contrast with the present, in which Mr. Le G. himself finds occasion reverently to apostrophize such men as Lindsey, Disney, and Wakefield, and passes a deserved eulogium on their numerous existing followers. Does this gentleman, in the great simplicity of his heart, suppose that every one who complied with the oaths in the beginning of the last century was a conscientious churchman, who would have made any sacrifice rather than sign the Solemn League and Covenant under a Presbyterian Government?

Bereus on the proposed American Quaker Creed. I hope this writer

means not to be satirical, when he compares reason to the solar light, and revelation to a lamp enlightening reason's path.

The change of “him” into “ himself," in the 5th article of the Quakers' Creed, seems, at first sight, atrocious. But when we remember for a moment their sincere and undoubting belief in the identity of the Father and the Son, it can scarcely be called the literary or even pious fraud it seems to be.

Plan for relieving Chapel Debt. There is one feature in this plan, which appears to be excellent. It is that of making the amount of the whole debt a kind of sinking fund, to be paid off gradually and annually in easy instalments by the subscribers. There are thousands with small salaries, and other moderate, though sure incomes, to whom it would perhaps be less formidable to subscribe in prospect a guinea annually for ten years, than to pay two guineas at the moment. Why could not the most or all of your chapel-debts in England be paid off by these prospective subscriptions? Either the debt might be funded, if the creditor chose, in such a subscription, or, if the whole sum were required to be immediately paid down, would not capitalists be found in your calculating country, who would advance at once a proper amount of purchase-money, and take the subscriptions at their own risk?

Society for the Relief of Protestant Dissenting Ministers' Widows. An institution so essentially Christian, and so entirely unexceptionable in every point of view, that I cannot but confidently trust, that this Appeal of the Society has succeeded to the utmost of its modest claims, and reasonable, though hesitating wishes.

It may

partake too much of patriot-egotism, for me to refer so frequently as I do to institutions and things in my own country, when suggested by corresponding objects in England. But having so frequently observed in the pages of the Repository, an interest taken in American religious affairs, I hope to be somewhat sheltered by that circumstance from the charge of obtrusiveness and presumption when I undertake to communicate any little points of ecclesiastical information which happen to be as "familiar to

my ear as household words." There is a pretty exact counterpart to the above-mentioned Society, in the State of Massachusetts. It is confined, however, to members of the Independent denomination, which has always been very predominant in that commonwealth. The funds of the Society are ample and increasing, and the current resources of each year are augmented by a collection taken on the day after the annual election of Governor in Boston, on the occasion of a sermon being preached before the Convention of Congregational Ministers of the State. With regard to this Convention, its objects are not very definite or prominent. It is rather continued for moral and social, than for political or ecclesiastical purposes. Attempts have been made to give it some authority in the churches, and to convert it into an engine of intolerance. But the liberal spirit of the age frowned them down. The Convention is at present composed of nearly equal portions of Unitarian and Calvinist ministers, and a rule has tacitly been adopted, and adhered to with tolerable consistency for a length of time, to choose for the preachers of each succeeding year, an orthodox and a liberal minister alternately. About two hundred members generally assemble, and a most generous dinner is provided for the Convention by some of the graceless Unitarian churches of Boston.

Captain Gifford on Bishop Burgess's Speech. The Bishop of St. David's enjoys his dignity and revenue; but Capt. Gifford has the satisfaction of nobly defending the right side;

"Victrix causa Diis placuit, sed victa Catoni.'

Capt. G. might have studied a little more lucid method. In one part of his Essay he says, "I now take up his own opinions and arguments as they bear against himself." After prosecuting this task for a while to the discomfiture of the Bishop, he again says, "And how do the Bishop's arguments react upon himself?" This question is somewhat perplexing, and at least unnecessary, while the writer is in the mid career of turning his opponent's arguments upon him,