losophers. The principle of Varro was not unknown to them; they were acquainted with the mythology of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, and many others, of less celebrity, much better than we at the present day. They had been familiar from their youth with these productions of the fancy, they had been brought up amidst them, had themselves once held them in high esteem, and knew all the subtle refinements of interpretation by which their credit was kept up even in their own day. Now, when these men came to read the Bible, might it not have been expected that they would immediately have recognized mythi here too, especially as the ancient oriental mode of narrative was not indeed strictly poetic, but yet lively, sensible, graphic, and tropical, qualities of style which might lead them to suppose that mythical which was not so, because the difference between history and mythi is thus made less obvious. Yet they saw in the Bible only historical truth. The difference then between biblical and mythical narrative must not only be real but pretty striking. "It is very true, these simple-minded ancients knew nothing of the higher criticism,' and, it may be said, did not examine things very carefully or very acutely; and being accustomed to what was mythical in heathenism, were not astonished at it in the Bible, and did not recognize it for what it really was. Yet surely it might have been expected, that the more familiar a man is with any thing, the more easily he would recognize it if he met with it again, in different circumstances and with features somewhat altered. Is there then no difference at all between the ancient monuments of Hebrew literature and the mythical narratives of other ancient nations; or is the difference so small as to be discerned with difficulty; or is not rather their similarity and coincidence so slight and forced, that it was only to be found in our days after a lapse of eighteen centuries? "If we return to the principle of Varro which has been applied to the Bible, we are immediately struck with the absence in the Hebrew documents of that dark age, which, according to him, precedes the mythical, but which they neither record nor presume. The old legends of other nations begin with polytheism; they relate not only marriages of gods and goddesses, but also their adulteries and unions with mortals; they tell us of wars and depositions of the gods; they deify the sun, moon, and stars, and acknowledge a variety of demigods and inferior deities, Genii, Dæmons, Fervers, Izeds, Dews; the inventors of arts and the founders of nations are gods or heroes; they have either no chronology or a monstrous one, and their geography expands into a boundless field of fancy; things undergo strange metamorphoses, and the reins are given to the most grotesque imagination. The Bible history begins, on the contrary, with ONE God, the Creator, whose power is irresistible, who commands, wills, and every thing is done. We have neither a chaos, nor rebellious and intractable matter, nor an Ahriman, the author of all evil. The sun, moon, and stars are here so far from being gods, that they are subservient to the uses of man, giving him light, and measuring and dividing his time. The authors of inventions are simply human beings. Chronology proceeds in a regular series, and geography does not go beyond the bounds of this earth on which we live. Here are no metamorphoses of men into trees and wild beasts; nothing, in short, which in the early memorials of other nations so evidently betrays the operations of fancy. "This knowledge of the Creator, without any mixture of superstition, is *These names are borrowed from the mythology of the Zend-Avesta. Tr. very remarkable in documents of such high antiquity. Who can doubt that it owed its origin to Revelation? What we read in so many modern works, that the knowledge of the one God developes itself naturally from polytheism, is obviously contrary not only to sacred but even to profane history. In no one instance has the knowledge of the Creator issued from polytheism. Even the philosophers did so little to advance the belief in one God, that when polytheism was attacked by the followers of Jesus they took it under their protection. But whatever may have been the source of this primæval knowledge of God in the Bible, there at least it is, and so pure and correct, that the opinions of some few of the ancient Greek philosophers, who taught the existence of a Plastic Nature, a soul of the world, must be admitted to have been far inferior to it. It is true, this knowledge of God, though correct, is not perfect, and from this very circumstance it was the better adapted to the conceptions of mankind in so remote an age. Its very imperfection, and the sensible, simple, and figurative language of these fragments in which it is preserved, are a proof that neither Moses, nor any one else in later times, has forged them, and then attributed to them an earlier date than really belongs to them. This remarkable knowledge of God must have been preserved in its purity from the most venerable antiquity, or from the very beginning of things in a few families, and the collector of the fragments which are found in the first book of the Bible designed by placing them together, to oppose something certain and solid to the fictions and distortions of other nations in more recent times. In what other nation of antiquity is even a ray preserved of that great truth which the first chapter of Genesis proclaims? "In every country mythology has been allowed the freest scope in the earliest ages, where imagination could be indulged without fear of its dreams being contradicted by fact, and has dwindled away by degrees, till at length it ceased altogether, and history began. The ancient documents of the Hebrews, on the contrary, are most meagre in the remotest times, and gradually become more copious. Had it been the purpose of the collector of these fragments to give us uncertain legends, fictions, and mythi, he would either have been most copious on the remotest times, or he would have exposed himself to detection, by referring his fables to an age of which we possessed historical accounts by which to expose their fabulousness. The scantiness of his earliest history, as it now appears, can only have arisen from his scrupulous rejection of every thing which was extravagant, exaggerated, and embellished, as unworthy of being handed down to posterity. He has related no more, because this was all that he could relate with certainty. "This scantiness in early, and copiousness in later, times is nowhere more remarkable than in the accounts of miracles, supernatural appearances, and prophetic anticipations. Among other nations they are most abundant in antiquity, and cease as we come downward; in the Scripture this order is reversed, for there is scarcely any thing miraculous in the oldest fragments, while in later times such events become more common; and long periods elapse without a recorded miracle, succeeded by others in which they abound. "Now, the periods in which the miraculous abounds, the age of Abraham, of Moses, of the idolatrous kings, of Jesus, and the apostles, are precisely those in which such a display of supernatural agency was necessary to establish or confirm the knowledge of God and of religion. The miracles of Scripture have, therefore, every where a grand and worthy object, the well-being of the human race; they are not derogatory to the majesty of God. Compare with this the marvellous in the legends and mythi of other nations; how mean, how devoid of propriety, and even of decorum, how destitute of every worthy and adequate object do they appear! Surely no impartial inquirer can class together things so essentially different! "A question still remains, 'Is it possible that these fragments of primæval history should have been preserved pure and without addition, till the time when they were collected in their present form? Granting that the power of memory is great among a people ignorant of the art of writing, yet was it possible that imagination should not interfere with tradition, and that the ancient narratives, which the patriarchs handed down, should have been preserved free from additions and embellishments by which they would at length assume a mythical character? May not the monuments which were erected to perpetuate the knowledge of events, have been made at length to say more than was originally committed to their keeping? May not poets have adorned the narratives which they made the groundwork of their songs, and may not those who first committed the oral tradition to writing have interpolated something of their own? These things are admitted to have happened to the legends of other nations; how is it likely that the most ancient narratives of the Bible should form an exception?' And why should they not form an exception in this respect, since they form so striking an exception in regard to their contents; since their very scantiness would make the task of remembering them more easy; since they were committed to writing at an earlier period than the traditions of any other ancient people; since they have preserved the knowledge of God in such purity; and since, even in their written form, their simple language, abounding in sensible images, is so characteristic, that the collector, had he attempted to interpolate them, would have betrayed himself by his more modern ideas, and even by his more formed and copious language? 66 "I must, however, break off, and satisfy myself with what I have already said, which may suffice to warn those readers, for whom my book is designed, not to be led away by mere love of novelty, to adopt that mode of interpreting the Bible against which I have been arguing."-Biblische Archäologie, Pref. pp. xxvii—xxxvi. SONNET COMPOSED IN BURBAGE WOOD. And this is life to me! How sweeter far The harmony of nature, than of man! The sweet hymns of the wood-bird, than the jar But onward, sons of men! and I will turn To the green shades-to pleasures which, when gone, Still sooth and elevate; for here I learn The love of themes above the vulgar mind; The deathless and the beautiful-designed By all it looks upon-flowers, field, woods, earth, and sky! K. JOSEPH DARE. THE GENEVA CLERGY. To the Editor. SIR, Liverpool, July 3, 1827. SEVERAL of my friends having been much interested by the account which I have given them of my intercourse with the clergy of Geneva, I have been led to think that a paper on the subject will not be unacceptable to the readers of the Repository. In the autumn of last year, I spent ten weeks at Geneva, and during that time became acquainted with many of the clergy of that city and canton. One of them, M. Bouvier, I had seen, a year or two before, at my own chapel at Kenilworth. When I called upon him at Geneva, he received me in the most kind and hospitable manner, and soon introduced me to many of his brethren. I found them to be clever and well-informed men,* animated and eloquent in their preaching, and extremely desirous of gaining information on all theological topics. In their opinions they are not altogether what we are, but they are not many degrees removed from us. I asked one of them, what, in general, were the sentiments of his church respecting the person of Christ. He replied, "You will find among us a few Trinitarians and many Arians.” He professed himself to be much inclined to the sentiments of the latter; and declared, that although, for the sake of conformity, he read the Apostles' Creed in the public service, he should prefer to profess his belief simply in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The candidates for holy orders, he told me, are only required to profess their belief in the Bible-not in any particular creed; and, indeed, there is among the Protestants of Geneva, (and, I may add, of some others of the principal towns in Switzerland,) an increasing disposition, to refer simply to the words of Scripture for the terms of belief-to avoid all sectarian names-and to adopt only the very general and comprehensive appellation of Evangéliques Réformés.† Your readers will recollect the controversy in the Repository between Dr. J. P. Smith and Mr. Bakewell, respecting M. Malan and his church of orthodox Seceders. I am happy to say that the Genevese have too much good sense to give him much encouragement. I attended his service one Sunday morning, and there certainly were not two hundred persons present, exclusive of the catechumens. His cause does not flourish at all; nor do I believe that it ever will, in such a soil, though it were under the auspices of * In proof both of the learning and the eloquence of one at least of the Geneva clergy, I need only refer to the following work :-De l'Origine Authentique et Divine, de l'Ancien Testament. Discours, accompagné de Développemens et de Notes. Par J. E. Cellerier fils, Ancien Pasteur, Professeur de' Hébreu, de Critique et d'Antiquités Sacrées, à l'Académie de Genève. Genève, Cherbuliez, Libraire ; Paris, Servier, rue de l'Oratoire. 1826. It is to be hoped that some one will take the trouble to make this work known to the English reader. It is well worth translating. The edition of the Geneva Bible, published in 1805, 3 Vols. 8vo., is out of print; but a committee of the pastors is employed on a new one. They are also preparing a corrected edition of their Liturgy. + The term Protestant is one which they do not like. They consider it as belonging only to those who protested against the errors of Popery, in the time of Luther. They prefer the term Réformé; and they complain that we English have spoiled the term evangelical, its simple and proper meaning being, "those who profess to found their belief on the gospel." It is in this sense that they adopt it for themselves. a less vain and ridiculous man than M. Malan. Let me, however, do justice to all. There was one part of the service at this chapel, which was an agreeable improvement upon what I had lately been in the habit of hearing; that was the singing, which, in the Established Churches, stands in great need of a thorough reformation. As a proof of the free and liberal spirit with which a professedly Unitarian minister is received at Geneva, I may mention, that I was invited to be present at one of the Monthly Meetings of the Ministers of that town and canton. We sat down nineteen to tea, and afterwards adjourned to another room, where, after we had taken our places all round, the Moderator offered up a short prayer, and then asked all present, each in his turn, whether he had any information to communicate to the company. This elicited much interesting matter. There was one minister, who had been residing at Hamburgh, and who gave us an account of the religious sects in that town; there was another who expressed his wish that some change should be made in the Geneva Catechism, as he thought that one part of the catechumens were too young for it, and the other too old; and there was a third, the pastor of the Reformed Church at Bourdeaux, who explained to us the method which he adopted in catechising the children in his flock. When it came to my turn, I informed the company of the change which was soon to be made in the conduct of the Monthly Repository. I was then asked, what were the leading doctrines of the Unitarians; what their numbers, their form of worship, &c.-all which I explained in the best way I could, not forgetting to state, among other things, that we had a College at York, which was in a very flourishing condition, with respect both to its funds, to the qualifications of the tutors, and the attainments of the young men whom it educated. I was heard with great attention; and although some seemed surprised at one or two things which I stated as part of our belief, there was no manifestation of bigotry or intolerance. The Moderator then asked us all in turn whether we had any thing to propose, and the business was concluded by a short prayer and benediction; after which we conversed freely with one another. The whole evening passed off most agreeably, and I look back to it with feelings of no ordinary interest. The preaching of the Genevese clergy, though it may be a little too bold for our subdued taste, is yet very effective. It is always animated and impressive, addressed to the eyes as well as to the ears of the audience, and well calculated to interest and to fix the attention. But then these preachers have much more time to prepare their sermons than we have; for there is among them a system of perpetual exchanges, a pastor being attached rather to a parish than to a pulpit; and, as there are two pastors for each of the four city parishes, besides one for each of the churches in the suburbs, and a number of young ministers who are not yet placed, no one has occasion to write more than about a dozen sermons in the course of the year. Consequently these are all pains-taken productions, committed to memory, and delivered entirely without notes; and as a list is published every Friday of the preachers for the next Sunday, specifying the church and the hour at which each will officiate, no one can complain that he knows not whom he is going to hear. The discourses which I heard were all on practical subjects. Nor let me omit to mention, that these excellent men manifested the greatest anxiety to know which were our most esteemed works in theology, and on education particularly, which were our best books for children and the poor. “You are absolutely rich in these works," said one of them to me, and you would be rendering us an important service if you would tell us what |