ftriking and obvious inftance of this lazy difpofition in the author, or the want of plan and connection in his writings, than this before us. He confefies it: and though he indolently aims at an excufe, pleads guilty to the fact. Tafte, judgment, and correcion, fays he, are not to be expected in this work. I have fallen into every digreffion that came in my way, without confidering, that, while I confulted my own eafe, little did I mind how tirefore I fhould grow to the reader.' To a reader, indeed, who fhould perufe this work, with a view folely to the object mentioned in the title; expecting to meet with fatisfactory arguments on the effects of theatrical entertainments in general; (a fubject which has occafionally employed many able pens, to very little purpofe) to fuch a reader, his digrefiions may probably appear tirefome; but to others, who have no tafte for argument, or read with too little attention to purfue any continued chain of reasoning, we are perfuaded they will prove the moft agreeable part of the book. As they will afford us alfo an opportunity to confider the fentiments of fo ingenious and spirited a writer, on feveral interefting and popular topicks, we will follow his excentrick genius, as far as the nature of our work will admit, for the entertainment of our readers.

We are informed, that a paffage, printed in the Encyclopedia *, under the article of Geneva, gave occafion to this letter to Mr. d'Alembert. This paffage, recommending the institution of theatrical entertainments in that republick, is quoted at length in the preface; and the profeffed bufinefs of the letter itself, is to fhew how impolitic and dangerous it would be, for the citizens of Geneva to liften to the advice therein given them. No lefs, he feems to think, than the entire depravation of their manners, and total fubversion of their liberty, would be the confequence of it. Under this perfuafion, he fays, Were I even miftaken, ought not I to act and fpeak according to my conscience, and to the beft of my knowledge? Ought I to hold my tongue? Or can I do it without betraying my duty and my country?

To have an excufe for being filent on this occafion, I should not have written on lefs neceflary fubjects. That sweet obfcurity, in which I enjoyed myfelf full thirty years, ought ever to have been my delight: it fhould not be known that I had any connection with the editors of the Encyclopedia; that I furnished fome articles to that work; that my name is mentioned among the reft of the authors: in fhort, my love for my country fhould be lefs public than it is, to fuppofe that the article of Geneva could escape me, or not to have a right to infer

* L'Encyclopédie, &c. in folio, now printing at Paris; in the publication of which work Mr. d'Alembert is principally concerned. Seven volumes of this work are published:

from

from my filence that I approve of the contents. As nothing of all this is true, I must therefore fpeak; I must disown what I do not approve, left I should be charged with opinions I do not hold. My countrymen do not want my advice, I know it well; but for my own part, I aim at honour, in fhewing that I agree with them in principles.

I am not ignorant how far fhort this effay is of what it ought to be, fhort even of what I could have made it in my happier days. Such a number of circumftances have concurred to reduce it even below the mediocrity I could formerly attain. to, that I am furprized it is not a great deal worse. I was writing in defence of my country: could zeal fupply the place of abilities, I should have written better than ever; but I faw what was to be done, and found myfelf unequal to the task. I have told the plain truth: but who troubles his head about that? Sad way of recommending a book! In order to be useful, it fhould be agreeable; and this is an art I have loft. Some perhaps will be fo malicious as to difpute this lofs with me: be it fo: yet I feel myself finking; and no man can fink lower than nothing.'

It must be confeffed, we fhould ourfelves be of the number, though we might not do it maliciously, that fhould difpute our Author's lofs (in fome measure) of the art of writing agreeably: and, indeed, we are not a little forry to find him, on this occafion, fo much out of humour with himself.

But to come to the letter, the main fubject of which the writer defers, till he has taken notice of another exceptionable paffage in the above mentioned article ; wherein Mr. d'Alembert is faid to have declared, in the face of all Europe, that the clergy of Geneva are downright Socinians. The church, it muft be owned, is a little wide of the ftage; and, perhaps, there is no other author but would have chosen to reserve his animadverfions on this head to fome other opportunity; or have thrown them into a poftfcript or appendix. Not fo, Mr. Rousseau. He fets out with the priests; and we must hear what he has to fay of them, before we are to know any thing further of the players. Cedunt cothurni toga. Out of the fame refpect to the clergy, alfo, we shall not entirely pafs over his remonftrance on this fubject.

He does not, ftrenuously, either endeavour to invalidate the charge, or to defend Socinianifm. I know not, fays he, what Socinianifm is, fo that I can neither fay good nor ill of it; though, from fome confused notions I have of that fect and its founder, I feel a greater averfion than liking to it: but, upon the whole, I am a friend to every peaceable religion, in which

I 3

the

the Supreme is ferved according to that portion of reafon which he has given to his creatures. When a man cannot believe what he finds abfurd, it is not his fault, but that of his reafon or understanding; and how can I conceive that God fhould punish him for not having framed an understanding * for himfelf, contrary to that which he received from the divine hands? Should a doctor come and command me in God's name to believe that the part is greater than the whole, what could I think within myself, but that this man wanted to make a fool of me? No doubt but the orthodox Chriftian, who fees no abfurdity in the myfteries of religion, is obliged to believe them: but if the Socinian finds them to be nonfenfe, what can we fay to him? Shall we attempt to convince him that they are not nonsense? He then will begin to demonftrate to you, that it is nonfenfe to reason on what we cannot understand. What then is to be done? Let him alone.

< Neither am I more offended, that they who ferve a merciful God, fhould reject the eternity of hell torments, if they find it inconfiftent with his juftice. In that cafe, let them interpret the paffages contrary to their opinion, as well as they can, rather than give it up: for what else can they do? No man has a greater love and refpect for the fublimeft of all books than myfelf; it affords me daily comfort and inftruction, when I have a diflike to other reading. Yet I maintain, that even if the

The intellectual world, not even excepting geometry, is full of incomprehenfible, and yet undeniable truths; becaufe though reafon demonftrates their exiftence, yet it cannot penetrate beyond its boundaries, (if fo I may fpeak) to reach them, but can only perceive them at a diftance. Such is the doctrine of the exiflence of a Deity; fuch are the myfteries admitted in Proteftant communions. Thote myfteries which offend reafon, (to exprefs myfelf in M. D'Alembert's terms) are quite a different thing. Even their contradiction brings them within reafon's reach; we have all the foundation in the world to conclude they do not exift; for though we cannot fee an abfurd thing, yet nothing is eafier than to fee an abfurdity. This is the cate whenever two contradictory propofitions are maintained. If you tell me that an inch is as long as a foot, you do not tell an obfcure incomprehenfible mystery; but a palpable abfurdity, a propofition evidently falfe. Let the proofs in its favour be what they will, they cannot be ftronger than the demonftration brought against it, because this flows immediately from the original notions on which all human certainty is founded. Otherwife realon, depofing against itfelf, would oblige me to reject its authority, and far from making us believe this or that, it would prevent our believing any thing at all, becaufe all principle of faith would be fubverted. Every man therefore, of what religion foever, who fays he believes in fuch myfteries, either imposes upon his hearers, or knows not what he fays.' P. 5.

Scriptures

Scriptures themfelves were to give you an idea unworthy of the Divine Majefty, you ought to reject it in this particular, as in geometry you would reject demonftrations that conclude an abfurdity: for whatever may be the authenticity of the facred text, ftill it is more credible that the Bible fhould be corrupted, than that the Deity fhould be unjuft or malevolent.'

We might, however, afk our Author here, by what criterion he would have us judge, whether our ideas are worthy or unworthy of the divine majefty? In the fcriptures, furely, we find the moft perfect ftandard, and acquire the only true knowlege of the attributes of the Deity. This expreflion, therefore, concerning the corruption of the Bible, appears to us very exceptionable; for to fay we muft conclude the Scriptures corrupted, when they give us ideas unworthy of the divine Majefty, is to imply that we have fome other more obvious and definite criterion to judge by. But perhaps our Author only meant to fay, that fuch particular paffages of holy writ may juftly be fuppofed to have been corrupted, that tend to contradict the general tenour of God's word, in the more clear and indifputable doctrines of chriftianity. In this we perfectly agree with him.

Our ingenious Author fums up what he has faid on this head, with an eulogy on the clergy of Geneva, on account of that spirit of philofophy and toleration, for which, he tells us, they are diftinguished; and expreffes himself, with a juft feverity, against that barbarous fpirit of perfecution, which delights in torturing, even in this life, those whom it devotes to eternal torments in the next. With regard to the article of toleration, however, our Author appears to be a little inconfiftent; for, notwithstanding the pacific difpofition here manifefted to hereticks, he declaims, on a fubfequent occafion, against fanaticks, in terms more becoming a popifh inquifitor, than a philofophical and confiftent proteftant.

Fanaticifm, fays he, is not an error; but a blind, a senselefs fury, which reafon can never keep within bounds. The only way to hinder it from spreading, is to reftrain those who broach it. In vain is it to demonftrate to madmen, that they are deceived by their leaders; still they will be as eager as ever to follow them. Wherever fanaticism has been introduced, I fee but one way to ftop its progrefs; and that is, to combat it with its own weapons. Little does itavail, either to reafon or to convince; you must lay afide philofophy, shut your books, take up the fword, and punish the knaves *.' Surely,

May we not gather, from this paffage, that the fpirit of Calvin fill hovers, in difguife, about the lake of Geneva. Calvin was acunted an advocate for Toleration, by the church of Rome; but did he appear fo to the unhappy Servetus? It would, doubtless, be a

1 4

very

Surely, our Author has forgotten here, that he had afferted, about twenty pages before, moderation and humanity to be chriftian virtues! This it is to write without method, and philofophize without a fyftem! Let our Author's diftinction between fanaticifm and herefy be ever fo juft, yet why is the blind, fenfelefs fury, in the one, to be punished more than the stupidity, or want of comprehenfion, in the other? Would it not be as cruel, in any cafe, to torture the lunatick as the idiot? Surely, our humane Author will not deny this! No: the madman and the fool claim equally the forgivenefs and compaffion of the wife.

But to come to our Author's obfervations on ftage plays and players. The first point he labours to prove, is the futility of ftage-morality, fo much boafted of by fome writers. With this defign he takes a critical view of the best pieces on the French theatre, both in tragedy and comedy. On most of these he makes very juft and pertinent reflections; and, in our opinion, plainly fhews that the ftage, in its prefent ftate, is far from being the beft fchool of morals. We think, indeed, he has proved the generality of plays, on the French ftage, to have, in themfelves, an immoral tendency. We cannot, however, agree with him, that dullness and infipidity would be the neceffary confequence of reforming the drama in this point; or that comic writers would fail to please, in proportion as they levelled their strokes of ridicule at the proper objects of it. But, fays Mr. Rouffeau, even were it true that plays are not bad in themfelves, ftill we are to inquire whether they do not become fuch in regard to the people for whom they are defigned. In particular places they may be of use to draw ftrangers; to increase the circulation of fpecie; to encourage artifts; to vary fashions; to amufe the overgrown rich, or those who are afpiring to be fuch; to render them lefs mifchievous; to divert the people from thinking of their mifery; to make them forget their leaders, by looking at dancers; to maintain and improve fome fort of tafte, when virtue is fled; to cover the deformity of vice with the varnish of formality; in a word, to hinder corrupt manners from degenerating into open licentioufnefs. In other places they would ferve only to deftroy the love of labour; to difcourage industry;

very great inftance of moderation in a proteftant diffenter, should he be willing to tolerate the established church, but deny the fame privilege to his own brethren. Our Author's fcheme for extirpating Fanaticifm, differs alfo much from the humane and good humoured project of the polite lord Shaftesbury; which, of the two, in cafe of neceffity, we fhould be for recommending to our fuperiors. See his lordship's letter on Enthufiafm, § 3.