flatter them with the persuasion that they are so. I once entered a Calvinistic meeting at Heckmondwicke, in Yorkshire, when the preacher was labouring to convince the congregation that, though they thought themselves the Lord's people, and talked much about religion, they had not more real righteousness than their neighbours: You have much of religion upon your lips, much religion in your heads, but of what use is it to you? It never sinks lower. I may truly say of many of you who now hear me, that if your heads were cut off, you would have no religion left at all; it has never sunk so low as the heart." This was coarse but cutting eloquence, and its meaning was very intelligible. Perhaps Dr. Smith may say it proves nothing, as the preacher was well assured that the experiment would not be made, for though the heads of his hearers were stuffed with a very indifferent sort of religion, in other respects they served them well enough for the common purposes of life, and, therefore, they had no disposition to try the truth of the assertion. It would be extremely painful and invidious to draw the comparison in detail between the English Calvinists and the members of the Genevese Church, particularly were we, like Dr. Smith, to look only on the dark side of the scene. Nothing would be more easy, but, at the same time, more disgraceful, than to select instances of depravity from a large community, and then to charge the whole body with the crimes of the few. Now, unless Dr. Smith have done this with the Genevese, I am at a loss to understand what he means by the terms and epithets he applies, in the serious charges of profaneness, blasphemy, gross immorality, impiety, irreligion, open flagitiousness and dissolute manners. To support these charges, he must, with the aid of his friends, rake long and deeply in the mire of Geneva; but let him not rake up the crimes of the Trinitarian part of the population, (now very large,) and throw them at the Genevese Church. Even with all his raking, I defy him to make good his charge, for Geneva "is unquestionably the most moral city in Europe." Instances of individual depravity will not serve his purpose, unless he can prove that Geneva generally is

more morally corrupt than those large cities where Calvinism is the prevailing religion-Edinburgh, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, &c. Dr. Smith, when pressed for his proofs, will perhaps say, that by blasphemy, impiety and irreligion, he meant only Arianism and Socinianism; and by open flagitiousness and dissolute manners, he meant only to say that the Genevese passed their Sundays like other Protestants and Catholics on the Continent.

But unless he can make a better defence than this, he must retire from the field with the word calumny emblazoned on his banner. He may be armed with much scholastic learning and logical subtlety, and he will doubtless despise the opposition of a layman, but learning and subtlety will not avail against plain facts. Goliath of Gath came forth to taunt and defy the worshipers of the one God, and "his armour was brass," but he fell before a simple shepherd boy.

We have examined "the sins of commission;""the sins of omission," which he charges against the Genevese, remain to be noticed: the principal one shews Dr. Smith's ignorance of the subject, or the obliquity of his moral vision, when those he deems heretics are concerned. After acousing the Genevese pastors and people of remaining in a state of deadly indifference and infidelity for three generations, he proceeds tauntingly to ask, "What have these children of improvement ever done for the religious benefit of the dark and miserable districts which lie at their gates; for Savoy, Piedmont and le Vallois, the last of which, though an independent Republic, is scarcely above the level of Spain and Portugal?”

Now, every one acquainted with the government of Savoy, of Piedmont, and of the Vallois, must know that the Genevese could not interfere with the religion of either of these countries, without endangering their own safety as a state. Though the Vallois is an independent Republic, its religion is so exclusively Catholic, that I believe no Protestant would be suffered to reside in the country, at least he dare not have public worship in his own house. The Catholic religion is guaranteed to the people by the Helvetic league, and any attempt to interfere with it would nearly

amount to a declaration of war. In no part of Europe have the Jesuits and priests more influence, and the Genevese have neither the power nor the right to oppose them. The same may be said of Savoy individuals not connected with the government may, at their own risque, secretly distribute books, but they would be imprisoned, or sent away under a guard if discovered, as happened to M. Cæsar Malan.

Now, during the lapse of the three generations, * when the Genevese are accused of neglecting to convert the Savoyards and Vallasiens, which it was impossible for them to do,-what were the sons of orthodoxy, the regular Scotch and English Calvinists, doing to improve the Irish Catholics, subjects of the same government as themselves, but incalculably more ignorant and degraded than the Cathofics of Savoy or the Vallois? What were these sons of orthodoxy doing for the conversion of the many thousand gypsies in their own land, a race below the Hottentots in religious knowledge? What were they doing for the conversion of the half savages in the more unfrequented parts of England and Wales? I believe the answer will be-absolutely nothing. For until the Methodists, whom the regular sons of Calvin at first affected to despise, I say until the Methodists had, much to their credit, begun to preach to the greatly-neglected part of our population in Cornwall and elsewhere, it does not appear that the Kirk of Scotland, or the regular Calvinistic Dissenters in England, ever bestowed a thought upon the subject. The latter, at least, were content with dreaming over their own righteousness or with talking of the Lord, whilst they were dosing over their pipes: their congregations, in the mean time, were diminishing in almost every part of England; of which the number

From 1700 to the French Revolution. † 1 speak of what I observed in the country when I was young. And here I may state, that I have no prejudices against the Calvinists: it is Dr. S. who has called forth the comparison between them and the Genevese, which I had no desire to make. My own ancestors were for many generations zealous and consistent Calvinists.

of empty, or nearly empty, Calvinistic Meeting-houses that were to be seen in various country places, thirty or forty years since, is a proof. Now, if this be true, and I think Dr. Smith will not deny it, he surely would have done well to have directed his accusations of deadly indifference, &c., to persons nearer home.

It is a remark more to be commended for its truth than its novelty, as it has been made by every moralist since the days of Esop, "Men have a magnifying vision when looking at the faults of others, but are very shortsighted when looking at their own or those of their own party." Now, however common or obvious this remark may be, it seems entirely_to have escaped the perspicacity of Dr. Smith, if he will allow me to use his own expression; nor does the Doctor appear to be acquainted with the wellknown passage, "First cast the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see more clearly to take out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." This ignorance is easily accounted for; the passage occurs in a sermon of Christ's, which is entirely moral, and as Dr. Smith has expressed his utter contempt for moral sermons, he could scarcely think the simple practical advice here given, was deserving the attention of a divine so deeply read in all the mysteries of the Calvinistic faith.

If Dr. J. Pye Smith be really desirous of knowing what the Genevese have done for the Savoyards and Vallasiens, if he will lay aside his anger and prejudice for a while, and let us have a little sweet communing together, I will tell him, and I will tell him truly.

They have not, it is true, gone forth to preach in the towns or villages of Savoy; neither did their ancestors, the orthodox Genevese, do so, or if they did, it was always with the sword in one hand, and the Bible in the nese, they sometimes entered Savoy other. In conjunction with the Berto plunder and despoil the inhabitants, to deface their churches, and afterwards to preach to them the gospel of peace; but the religion of Calvin, though watered with blood, did not flourish either in Savoy or the Vallois. Fifty-eight years after the conquest and conversion of Chablais (a province

of Savoy) by the Bernese, it was reconquered by the Duke Charles Emanuel, and all the Protestants who would not renounce their faith, were permitted to dispose of their property and retire. This was in the year 1594. Ever since that time the exercise of the Protestant religion has been prohibited, and all attempts to introduce it were regarded as acts of hostility, which the Genevese were desirous of avoiding, as they were in no condition to resist. I have stated in my Travels the secrecy which it was thought necessary to observe, even in burying a Protestant without any religious ceremony, who died at Duing, on the Lake of Auncey, when I was there in 1821. The Genevese cannot be blamed for omitting what they had no power to do; but though they could neither preach Calvinism nor Unitarianism, something better remained to be done, and this they have meritoriously performed. They have shewn by their example how real Christians ought to act, even to those who regard them as heretics and enemies. Many of the Genevese have country-houses in Sa. voy, and are, I well know, actively engaged in relieving the great distress of the poor Savoyards, for which they are looked upon with much suspicion and enmity by some of the Catholic priests: the latter have been known to refuse the consolations of religion to those poor Catholics who receive aid from heretics.

On many occasions the Genevese have assisted the Savoyards very extensively in times of scarcity, and have saved numbers of families from starving; particularly in the year 1816; their charitable and well-timed aid gave great offence to the Sardinian Government. I believe that no opportunity of doing good to the Savoyards, has been neglected by the Genevese, though it has ever been the policy of the Sardinian Government to excite an hostile feeling towards them, among the Savoyards of all classes.

I have decribed elsewhere, at some length, the warın interest which the Genevese took in the sufferings of the inhabitants of Monetier, a mountain village in Savoy, destroyed by fire, when I was at Geneva; it was truly interesting to observe the unostentatious but judicious exertions made for their relief. I may add, the Sa

voyard domestics in Geneva must derive much moral benefit from the good examples generally shewn them by the Genevese, and from the kindness and care which they see is taken of their health and morals.

The Savoyards may truly say to the Genevese, "We were naked and ye clothed us, we were hungry and ye fed us, we were sick and ye visited us." And what is the language of Christ, "Inasmuch as ye did it to the least of these, ye did it unto me"? a praise far outweighing the merit of preaching the doctrines of Predestination and Final Perseverance to an honest, simple - hearted people, who are more in want of food and raiment than of unintelligible mysteries.

When a small part of Savoy, comprising, with the town of Carrouge, nearly the worst part of the Savoyard population, was annexed to the territory of Geneva, the Genevese Government and Pastors lost little time in providing means for the instruction and religious improvement of the Savoyards. A large Protestant church was nearly finished in Carrouge before I left Geneva. I shall now leave the present state of morals in Geneva, but propose on a future occasion to advert to other parts of Dr. Smith's letters relating to that city. I have no prejudices in favour of the Genevese which can indispose me to see their defects, for I have stated them fairly and with some severity. Almost every nation has defects from peculiar cir

cumstances.

SIR,

October 11, 1824. SHOULD be sorry that the questions of your correspondent E§εTags (p. 539) should remain unanswered, as they seem to originate in a candid spirit of inquiry, equally creditable to himself and interesting to others; and I therefore offer a few remarks which appear to myself to obviate the difficulties he states; though I am so conscious of my own unfitness to enter into deep arguments of this nature, that I make it my particular request that if any communication should reach you on this subject in which the questions are more ably discussed, you will not suffer this letter to appear.

I will just observe by the way, that though Unitarians believe that the reason stated by Eerans for their rejection of the doctrine of Atonement is quite sufficient to justify that rejection, yet many other objections remain: there is much besides in this doctrine both irreconcileable to their reason and revolting to their feelings. It is not necessary to point out these objections, as we have now only to do with the questions proposed by your correspondent.

1st. Your correspondent asks, "Is it not as inconsistent with the justice and equity of God to permit that an innocent person should suffer for the benefit of a criminal, as that he should suffer in his stead? Or, if the injustice in the former case be not as great (in degree) as in the latter, is it not equally an injustice?"

That suffering should exist at all, under the government of a perfectly benevolent Being, is certainly a difficulty: but we see that he has ordained it to be thus from the fall to the present time, and there is every reason to believe that the partial dominion of evil will not soon have an end. But we have experience enough of the overflowing kindness of our Heavenly Father to be assured that the infliction of evil is intended to fulfil some benevolent purpose: and this assurance is much strengthened by the conviction daily impressed upon us, of the good arising out of suffering, both to the sufferers themselves and to others. The consequences of suffering are never confined to its object alone; and that others should derive benefit from it, is in the usual course of God's providence. Punishment sustained by the guilty, serves as a warning to others. The sorrows of the righteous exalt the hopes, confirm the faith, awaken the conscience, or alarm the fears, of those around him. In many ways besides do the sufferings of one secure benefits to others; but in no single instance do we find that an innocent being has borne the whole punishment of a guilty one. In the usual infliction of evil, we can see, in some measure, how good may arise from it; but in this case we cannot even discern how any purpose is to be answered by an appointment apparently so unjust. What connexion is there between the suffering of an innocent

person, and the absolution of a criininal? How is the latter a consequence of the former? There is difficulty in both suppositions: of two difficulties, let us choose the least. If we chose the greatest, the other would remain : let us then reject it altogether. The case seems to me to stand thus: The world was (for what reasons, it concerns not us to inquire) in a state of sin and misery at the time of our Saviour's appearance upon earth: it was to be redeemed from this state by his mission and death. Now which appears the most consistent with what we know of the usual course of the Divine government-that a perfectly innocent person should die to appease the wrath of the very Being who made us to sin, and him to suffer; should take upon himself the punishment due to the sins of all the criminals of that and of all succeeding times, provided that they should have faith in him (the connexion between such a sacrifice and such absolution not being discernible by us);—or that this inno cent person should die (being made perfect by his sufferings) to set the strongest seal and give the most perfect ratification to the new covenant by which God declared his intention of redeeming his people? This ratification of the new covenant is to establish and confirm such faith in men as shall enable them" to work out their own salvation," instead of having it wrought out for them by the suffering of an innocent person, at the easy price of faith in him.

2d. "Does not the moral government of the world present similar instances of seeming injustice,-nay, even of vicarious sufferings ?" No, I cannot allow that it does: not even the high authority which your correspondent quotes can make me think so. When some persons help others out of the consequences of their vices and follies, they do not bear the punishment instead of the vicious and foolish, though they may participate in their difficulties. We may by "the law of nature" "afford them assistance" "with very great pains and labour and sufferings to ourselves;" we may by personal suffering" "contribute to the relief of others;" but we do not sustain their sorrows for them; they do not lay the burden