great purpose. Thus does it become Christian men to live in this world; and thus doing, thus declaring their great aim, thus letting their light shine, may they hope to bear the greatest number of their fellow-beings with them to the heavenly land.

ART. VI. Exposé Historique des Discussions élevées entre la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève, et M. Gaussen, l'un de ses Membres; &c.

Historical Account of the Discussions between the Company of the Pastors of Geneva, and M. Gaussen, one of its Members, on occasion of a Point of Ecclesiastical Discipline: Addressed by the Company to the Church of Geneva, and accompanied by Documents. Geneva. 1831. 8vo. pp. 160.

SUCH is the interest attached to the affairs of the church of Geneva, that nothing can take place there without attracting the attention of the Christian world. That little Protestant community, early celebrated for its zeal in the Reformation, and more recently for its faithful adherence to the great principles of that illustrious era, is watched by its Protestant sisters with a jealousy, which allows nothing that occurs within its borders to pass uncriticized. The world is made to ring with lamentations over her defection from the faith, and a busy zeal is engaged in aggravating the story of her heresies and casting odium on her name. So far is this ungenerous spirit carried, that even the misdeeds of other Swiss churches are attributed to her; and so little do men care to discriminate, where they can blacken a body they dislike and add an emphasis to the hue and cry against Unitarianism, that they make her responsible for the imprisonments and banishments which have been perpetrated by the Orthodox cantons of Vaud and Berne. We are sorry to say, that this crying injustice is done, and unatoned for, by men from whom we should as little expect ignorance as wrong on such a subject; though, at the same time, we must add, that it corresponds but too well to the reckless party spirit, with which the religious controversy of the times has been carried on. Geneva has been

guilty of no such flagrant wrong. She may have erred; most unfortunately she is an established, national church, and wields power, she may possibly have used it injudiciously. But to banish and imprison belongs to her Orthodox neighbours, not to her; and we do not understand how good men justify it to themselves to wantonly attribute to her what was done by others, or to aggravate with hasty zeal the errors of which she has been really guilty. We do not admire her government; we are not apologists for her wrong. But where there is so much eagerness to defame her, we confess we feel disposed to step in and cry, Audi alteram partem. We are not willing that all the religious journals should circulate stories to her disadvantage, without one word uttered in her defence. The defendant always has a right to be heard before he is condemned, and we humbly submit, that the favored children of America ought to extend this common justice to one of the oldest and favorite daughters of the Reformation.

We have done something on former occasions to make known to our readers the character and history of this church.* Since our last article, indeed within the last twelve months, circumstances have arisen, which were originally of little moment, except on the spot where they occurred, but which, from the use which has been made of them, have swollen into importance. The attention of the public was first attracted to them by an article in the Christian Observer,' for November, 1830, headed Religious Intolerance in Geneva,' which, copied into other journals, circulated through the Christian world, and within a few months was followed by two other articles. This is the language used in the first article, after a few preliminary remarks.

6

We grieve to say, that the spirit of intolerance has again broken forth; not in some remote rural district, but in Geneva itself; not on the part of a few obscure bigots, but on the part of the venerable Company of Pastors; and not directed against some rash and ignorant individual, whose conduct could be urged as a pretext for hostility, but against one of the most faithful, pious, humble, regular, and useful ministers which the modern church of Geneva can boast,

* See The Christian Disciple, New Series, Vol. 1. p. 214, and The Chrisian-Examiner, Vol. iv. p. 37.

M. Gaussen, the well known and beloved pastor of Satigny. The dominant ecclesiastical party in Geneva have never forgiven M. Gaussen the offence of republishing, with Mr. Cellerier, the Helvetic confession, which they wish to be forgotten, as the monument of their heterodoxy and secession from the true principles of their church. But his exemplary conduct and his ecclesiastical regularity have hitherto prevented their finding occasion against him. * * *

'The circumstances to which we allude are the following. M. Gaussen lately received from the Company of Pastors an order to renew the use of its catechism in his schools; which he declined doing, as well he might, from the heterodox complexion of that document. The refusal was made a pretext for hostility; and it has even been seriously proposed to deprive him of his benefice. All moderate and well judging persons in Geneva have declaimed against such intolerance and persecution.'

This was written while the proceedings at Geneva were pending, and it is observable how readily we do not say how charitably the writer attributes them wholly to a revengeful spirit on the part of the majority of the clergy. Indeed the coloring of the whole, written while the inquiry was yet going on, shows too eager a desire to criminate. Nothing but this can account for the member of an established church so openly countenancing insubordination in such a case as this. What would he say to the doctrine as applied to an English clergyman, that he did well' to refuse teaching the church catechism, because he esteemed it heterodox? In another paper on the same subject, he bitterly censures the Genevan pastors for allowing M. Chenevière, 'one of the most celebrated of the pastors and professors,' to retain his benefice after publishing an essay on the trinity and calling it a most deplorable error; and asks, How many months, or weeks, or days would a clergyman of the Church of England, or a professor in our universities, be permitted to retain his office after such a declaration?' We really do not understand the consistency of this.

In his succeeding articles this writer gives a brief ex parte view of the affair, calling it a 'persecution,' likening M. Gaussen to the martyrs,' and, apparently on his authority, accusing the other, pastors of what is disingenuous,' 'dishonorable,' and 'insidious,' and speaking of the church as 30

VOL. XI. N. S. VOL. VI. NO. II.

'corrupted.' Such is the impression which America as yet has received on this subject. We have been led to look at it a little more particularly, and propose to offer to our readers the result of our examination. And though they possibly may think that we are giving to it a greater space than a matter of this intrinsic magnitude deserves, we trust they will excuse us when they consider that it is simply an attempt to clear away an aspersion from the fair fame of one of the few liberal communities upon earth, whose slanderers are opening their mouths every where, and she is herself not present to refute them.

We happen to have access to all the official papers relating to this case, and it is from them that we make up our present account. They are contained in the pamphlet, whose title is at the head of this article, and which was published by the authority of the Company of Pastors at Geneva. They consist of the letters which passed between the Company and M. Gaussen, the letter of M. Gaussen to his parishioners and their reply, the votes of the Company, and a narrative of the case drawn up by a committee. So that we fortunately possess the statements and reasonings of both parties. A more fair publication in this, as well as other respects, it is not often our lot to meet with.

To come then to the history of the case. It is the rule of the Company of Pastors, to whom pertains the superintendence of the Genevan Church, to institute an inquiry every one or two years, into the pastoral conduct of the ministers of the church. In the regular course of this inquiry in September, 1830, it appeared that M. Gaussen, pastor of the parish of Satigny, had ceased, for the two preceding years, to teach the appointed catechism. On being called upon to explain this irregularity, he gave as his reason, that he esteemed the catechism faulty in point of doctrine, and faulty in method; that he considered it better to teach the Bible only, and accordingly had substituted a series of Scripture questions in place of the public catechism; and that he had done this without consulting the Company, because he had understood that it had been allowed to other ministers before him.

It was at once shown him that in regard to this last point he labored under a complete mistake; and a resolution passed, without a dissenting voice, though several of the members voting were Orthodox, that he must be required to re

sume the catechetical instruction as existing in all the other parishes. At the same time he was invited to state his objections to the catechism to the committee entrusted with its revision, who would be glad of any suggestions which might aid them in rendering it more perfect.

Such were the proceedings of September 10th. Five weeks passed away, without its being known whether M. Gaussen intended to comply with the requisition of the Company. This interval was employed by him in preparing an elaborate statement and defence of his case, apparently for publication, though ostensibly a private letter to the Company. It was communicated by him in two parts, at the stated weekly sessions of that body on the 16th and 22d of October, and occupies forty-three pages of the volume before us. It is written with great plausibility and skill, in the tone of one who thinks himself wronged, and with an evident aim at popular effect. After stating, more particularly than he had done in presence of the Company, his actual method of religious instruction for the young, he repeats his objections to the catechism; that, in the first place, it omits the four doctrines of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the moral fall of man, the justification of sinners by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost; and that, secondly, it is abstract, dry, and above the comprehension of young people in the country. He then proceeds to observe, that the Company have required two things; first, that this catechism shall be used in the schools of his parish. To this he strongly objects, says it is virtually taking the Bible out of the hands of the pupils, and begs that the vote may be reconsidered. Further than this he does not feel himself bound to go. But in regard to the second point, that he shall himself use the catechism in his own private instruction to the children, his conscience does not allow him to consent, and he thinks that the pastors have gone beyond their jurisdiction in requiring it.

Having thus dismissed the subject in hand, and with very earnest professions of his love of peace and dislike of contention, he seizes the opportunity, not very consistently with these professions, of making an assault on the venerable Company; accusing it not only of maintaining false doctrines, but of having set at defiance the fundamental constitution of the state, usurped powers which did not belong to it, and by dishonest artifice, in an underhand way, made changes in the for