Between Calvinist And Philosophe: Jacob Vernet’s Theological Dilemma

by Martin I. Klaubera

Martin I. Klauber is Visiting Professor of Church History at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Barat College, Lake Forest, Illinois.

The eighteenth century marked a period of transition within the Academy of Geneva, one of the founding institutions of Reformed thought. In the seventeenth century. it was the bastion of Reformed scholasticism, led by the dominating personality of its professor of theology, Francis Turretin (1623–1687). Turretin used his iron will to impose the conservative theological statement, the Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675),[1] upon all candidates for ordination. However, the next generation of Reformed theologians at the Academy began to change the nature of Reformed theology there. Turretin’s son and also a professor of theology at the Academy, Jean-Alphonse Turretin (1671–1737), led the way during this era and reversed many aspects of his father’s theology with the abrogation of the Formula in 1706. The younger Turretin also helped to dismantle the speculative aspects of a scholastic theology by removing such traditional Reformed doctrines as election from theological discussion. Jean-Alphonse Turretin’s protégé and successor as professor of theology at the Academy, Jacob Vernet (1698–1789),[2] continued this trend toward a more rational approach to theological discourse that French historian Frangois LaPlanche has labeled “enlightened orthodoxy.”[3] Vernet was well-acquainted with many of the philosophes, most notably Voltaire. The Genevan theologian tried to build a theological system that would not be objectionable to the philosophes, while maintaining the core of Christian belief. If his system were too close to that of the philosophes, it would be open to the criticism that it was no longer truly a Christian system. If he maintained ties that were too closely wedded to traditional Genevan Reformed theology, he could be accused of divisiveness and the philosophes would reject his arguments. The result was a form of enlightened orthodoxy that failed on both counts. It is my purpose here to discover the nature of Vernet’s enlightened orthodoxy and to show how this for of belief had developed since the era of Vernet’s predecessor, J. A. Turretin.

Vernet’s family emigrated from Provence to Geneva in the seventeenth century and his grandfather, Jacob, achieved the rights of bourgeois status in 1659. His father, Isaac, was a merchant who died in 1706, leaving a large family of thirteen children. Since the younger Jacob was only eight years old at the time of his father’s death, the most important male figures in his early education were Daniel Le Clerc, famed author of the Histoire de la médecine, and Marc-Conrad Trembley, one of the city’s magistrates.[4] At the Academy of Geneva, Vernet decided to pursue theological studies in Geneva under the tutelage of Benedict Pictet, Samuel Turretin, and J. A. Turretin.[5]

Upon graduation, Vernet moved to France as a tutor for a wealthy Parisian family. This position provided the opportunity for him to gain important contacts among the intellectual elite in Paris. He also traveled extensively and met Montesquieu in Rome in 1729 and then Voltaire in Paris in 1733. He returned to his native Geneva as a pastor of a rural church in 1732 and was admitted into the Company of Pastors in 1734. By 1739, he began his career at the Academy of Geneva as professor of Belles-Lettres and later in 1756 he was appointed professor of theology.[6]

Laboring in the shadow of the Enlightenment, Vernet hoped to present a cogent case for the reasonableness of the Christian faith. In fact, Vernet is best known for his series of personal and literary conflicts with prominent philosophes, most notably Voltaire.[7] In such an environment, it was simply no longer prudent to employ the traditional Reformed arguments for the veracity of the Christian faith. Calvin had argued that the Holy Spirit confirms scriptural revelation upon the heart of the believer. This approach to apologetics continued until the early eighteenth century when J. A. Turretin finally abandoned it. Calvin’s more fideistic approach could not be taken seriously by the era of Vernet. Also gone were historic doctrines such as predestination that the tolerant-minded philosophes found offensive.[8]

Another important challenge to traditional Reformed theology was the growing wealth of the people of Geneva. During the first generations following the Reformation, the influx of French refugees changed the character of the city. These French transplants left behind their possessions and in many cases their livelihoods. After the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, a fresh wave of French immigrants came, serving as scholars, merchants, and artisans. They helped to improve the level of Genevan commerce and new building projects beautified the city. According to Linda Kirk, by the eighteenth century Genevans were open to some of the charges that Montesquieu raised concerning the decline of Rome: “luxury, avarice, hedonism, the waning of public-spiritedness, faction, and the falling away from the simple and austere religious practices of earlier days.”[9]

Vernet pointed out that there was so much wealth in Geneva that many of its inhabitants were more concerned about their secular endeavors than about personal piety and devotion to God. Attendance at church was declining and the length of sermons had to be shortened considerably to no more than forty-five minutes. In 1769, Vernet penned the Reflexions sur les moeurs, sur la Religion et sur le culte, designed to counter the growing secularization of Genevan society. Adherence to the Christian faith, he argued, would benefit society as a whole and ensure proper morality. If Genevans continued to turn away from the church, public decency and order would inevitably suffer.[10]

What is particularly interesting about the context of the Reflexions was that Geneva had passed laws prohibiting excessive displays of luxury including the use of coaches and coachmen, as well as the purchase of certain types of expensive furniture and jewelry. Fines were supposed to be assessed against offenders. However, these laws were not typically applied to the patrician class who possessed great amounts of wealth. They were imposed on the middle and lower classes and helped to maintain class divisions within the city.[11]

Helena Rosenblatt observes that Vernet was very active in his support of patrician control of the Genevan council. The Genevan bourgeois resented the aristocratic control of the government with full control over taxes and the budget. Vernet wished to preserve social order and argued that a strong government was necessary to restrain the passions of the city’s inhabitants. Proper government would preserve social order and would promote a higher quality of life. Religion served an important purpose in helping people become law-abiding citizens. Rosenblatt asserts that Vernet and the Genevan pastors argued that their function was to provide for the spiritual needs of the people, but they also supported the established regime and encouraged their parishioners to accept their rule passively.[12]

The pastors of Geneva were also quite protective of their social status. In this time of prosperity, many of them found that their own salaries grew much slower than the rate of inflation. Their place in Genevan society had waned significantly during the Enlightenment era and they were left in the difficult position of attempting to placate the philosophes while defending the Christian faith.[13]

Vernet occupied an important position during this critical period of transition. As professor of theology at the Academy of Geneva, he labored in the midst of a host of theological, social, and moral debates among members of the Republic of Letters. He prided himself on his host of international contacts and hoped to make his mark as one of Reformed theology’s major representatives in defending a reasonable faith.

Vernet’s conflicts with the philosophes paved the way for his movement toward a more rational or enlightened approach to theology, Foundational to his theological development was his apprenticeship under Jean-Alphonse Turretin, who taught him this enlightened form of orthodoxy that would help protect the foundational doctrines of the faith while ignoring or discarding those beliefs that did not square with reason. Vernet, therefore, saw himself as a defender of the faith rather than one who would dismantle its cardinal doctrines. Times had changed since both the Reformation and the era of Reformed orthodoxy and Vernet realized that Christianity needed to be articulated in a fresh way during the age of reason.

What remained was a form of orthodoxy that emphasized those doctrines essential for salvation and clearly revealed in Scripture. Vernet’s biographer, Eugne de Budé argued that Vernet’s aim was to simplify theology according to reason in order to better understand God’s design. Vernet removed theological mysteries such as predestination, the Trinity, and the existence of a literal hell. As a result, he made the Christian faith more palatable to the rational inquirer. In one of his earliest treatises, Vernet denied popular accounts of miraculous healings among enthusiasts in France, saying that many such miracles are simply rare physical responses to natural phenomen or a result of the vivid imagination of women.[14] Given his later interaction with many of the philosophes, Vernet was attempting to show, as Locke tried to do a generation earlier, that Christianity was, indeed, a reasonable faith.[15]

Vernet’s most important theological works were his Instruction Chrétienne, originally published in 1751, and the Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne.[16] The latter was a lifelong project and initially was a translation of J. A. Turretin’s original Latin work. Vernet’s intent was to bring his mentor’s work to a wider audience than the Latin version would permit. Vernet translated Turretin’s Traité in several editions beginning in 1730 and, by the time the last edition was published in 1788, it was more Vernet’s work than Turretin’s. The translation was also an attempt to honor Turretin. At Vernet’s accession to the theology chair at the Academy in 1756, almost twenty years after Turretin had died, he paid homage to his former teacher and praised him for preparing him for the task at hand.[17]

Vernet intended the Instruction Chrétienne to be a basic primer for young theological students to show the practical nature of the Christian faith. It is clear, however, that this work was not a traditional Reformed catechism. In it, Vernet disassociated himself from the old, traditional scholastic approach to theology that he considered to be too divisive and, like J. A. Turretin, he attempted to prove as much as possible about the Christian faith through general revelation. He thereby was able to establish the common ground of reason with his Enlightenment protagonists. Graham Gargett observes that Vernet consciously moved away from the Reformed theology of the Westminster Confession when he wrote that the chief end of man is not to glorify God but to achieve happiness in this life. Gone were the traditional doctrines of depravity and the need for a savior.[18]

Vernet argued that one could come to an understanding of the attributes of God through natural revelation. Scripture does provide more specific information, but it never contradicts reason. We can know through reason that God is eternalm self-existent, spiritual, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, holy, just, and the author of all good.[19] Reason can lead us to an understanding of monotheism. After all, there cannot be more than one first and efficient cause. This first cause must be all-powerful because nothing could be greater. If it were greater, then that cause would be God.[20]

With ethics assuming a more prominent place in Vernet’s theological system than dogma, he posited that man has the ability to live morally within a properly governed society. Man’s nature is, therefore, essentially good, a premise that Vernet shared with the philosophes. True religion, he wrote, consists of honoring God and obeying his commands.[21] Natural theology was useful because it provided a common revelation available to all. It also established common ground with deists and unbelievers. In fact, the main purpose of the Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne was to convert deists back to Christianity. Natural theology was one area of discussion that both deists and Christians had in common. If one were to eliminate the doctrines that were added to the Christian faith during and after the Constantinian era, such as the Trinity, Christianity would accord quite well with both reason and natural religion. It is interesting to note that in 1755, Vernet sent a copy of the Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne to Voltaire, who praised it because he felt that Vernet’s liberal form of Christianity was only a step away from deism.[22]

In Vernet’s system of natural theology, reason and conscience formed the basic building blocks that direct one to knowledge about God.[23] Natural religion can lead us to believe that God exists, that he created and sustains the world through his providence, that he has established the rules of morality, and that there is life after death.[24] Vernet employed traditional proofs for God’s existence including the universal belief in God, the universal consent to basic moral teachings, and the common hope for life after death.[25] He also argued that our life on earth is a preparation for our life in heaven as we learn virtuous behavior.[26]

Natural religion was sufficient for man in the state of innocence, but after the fall natural religion did not provide specific information about God’s forgiveness of our sins. According to Vernet, philosophy is eminently helpful for the Christian and when one combines it with the superior light of Scripture, we can come to a knowledge of the truth.[27] Reason and biblical revelation are like two torches to lead us through the night. The Bible provides more light than the wise pagan has available. Likewise, one should employ reason alongside of Scripture. Both are necessary to come to a knowledge of the truth.[28]

Vernet argued that special revelation is necessary in order to avoid superstition and to provide a universal system of morality. The problem with deism is that it destroys all true religion and leads to speculation or indifference. Special revelation is useful to society and conforms to reason. It is important to note that Vernet followed John Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity closely in his arguments for the importance of special revelation.[29]

Vernet contended that special revelation has five characteristics. First, revelation must never contradict reason. He did allow some room for biblical mysteries that go beyond the scope of reason, but such mysteries cannot contradict natural revelation. Second, revelation should not contradict itself and shows the reasonableness of the Christian faith. Third, revelation perfects natural theology because of the fallen nature of the human race. It points us to true worship and morality. It also teaches us about our origins, the end of human life, and the hope for life after death. Fourth, special revelation provides a specific knowledge of Christ. Fifth, true revelation is authenticated by signs such as biblical miracles and fulfilled prophecy. Biblical revelation is, therefore, superior to philosophy because it provides more specific information about the origin of the world and the life to come.[30] It is clear from this listing of the marks of special revelation that natural theology played a substantial role in Vernet’s theological system.

Vernet defended the need to have a written form of special revelation because the early, oral revelations were too easily forgotten and could only serve the generation who received it. Written revelation, by contrast, could be passed down to posterity. He defined Scripture as the “treasure” of divine revelation and the rule of faith and practice.[31]

Special revelation, for Vernet, was a continuation of and a complement to natural theology. Revelation, he believed, always agrees with reason. However, as natural theology assumed a more prominent role in his theological system, Vernet argued that special revelation was not absolutely necessary. In the third book of the Instruction chrétienne, he posited that biblical revelation is merely helpful rather than necessary and is merely a complement to natural theology. Vernet made the same point in the second edition of the Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne when he changed the tide of one of the chapters from “The Necessity of Revelation” to “The Usefulness of Revelation.” This change implied that the so-called “heathen in Africa” who had never heard the gospel could potentially be saved without a specific knowledge of Christ if they responded favorably to the revelation that God had given them in nature and in conscience. It also showed that many who had never heard the gospel might well be spared eternal damnation.[32]

Vernet admitted the perplexity of the problem of the “heathen in Africa” who had never heard the gospel. He acknowledged that Scripture does contain ideas not found in natural theology. Scriptural revelation is useful to prevent believers from being tossed around by every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:14). Natural theology can lead one toward truth as long as one uses reason properly. However, it was typical for pagans to misuse the God-given gift of reason and thereby fall into idolatry. Special revelation would be extremely useful in such cases to combat idolatry.[33]

The key question concerning the heathen was whether or not they could be saved without access to special revelation. It would seem patently unfair for God to condemn them to hell for rejecting Christ when they had never heard of him. It is not surprising, therefore, that Vernet makes no mention of the controversial doctrine of predestination. Furthermore, he questioned the existence of a literal hell. The vexing problem of the existence of a literal hell plagued Vernet throughout his career. He argued that a literal hell does not exist but posited that a refining place somewhat akin to purgatory does exist to purify those who are not eligible to enter immediately into heaven. Like Origen, Vernet argued that once such individuals are purified, they then can then enter into eternal bliss.[34]

Vernet asserted that God is just and evaluates all individuals according to their deeds. Some are punished in this life by simple shame or by corporal punishment. Others are disinherited, exiled from their native land, stripped of riches or of rank.[35] In the afterlife, the wicked will suffer shame and humiliation. They will be full of regret for their bad actions. Vernet said that it was sufficient to limit one’s statements about hell to those of the Apostle Paul who described it as a place of anguish and affliction. Scripture also uses several analogies to make us afraid of hell by describing it as a place of fire, suffering, and gnashing of teeth. Vernet refused to speculate on the exact nature of hell, saying that it is a terrifying place but the punishment will justly fit the deeds for each person.[36]

Although Scripture describes the length of eternal punishment as being without end, Vernet asserted that this does not necessarily mean that hell will last forever. The Greek word for “eternal” could mean a long or indefinite period of time. He also noted that it is not for us to limit God’s mercy. God could very well provide another opportunity to those who are not fortunate enough to get into heaven on the first try and could ultimately bring all people back to himself. He did admit that Scripture is silent regarding such second chances, but that it is not inconceivable. Ultimately, we do not know the exact nature of eternal punishment, but we can trust that God is just and wise and will reward or punish each individual fairly.[37]

In spite of the enlarged role of natural theology in Vernet’s system, he maintained a high view of Scripture. Vernet was quick to uphold both the human and divine authorship of the Bible whereby the biblical authors were guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit. He also stated that the New Testament is the faithful account of all that God taught through Christ. The New Testament authors spoke as eye witnesses and historians. Vernet used the traditional, historical apologetic to promote the historical accuracy of the New Testament. Its authors recorded what they saw. The promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit was verified by biblical miracles among the apostles and their immediate disciples. For the New Testament to be false, the disciples would have had to deceive their readers deliberately, an action which does not correspond to their own characters and to the fact that almost all of them died as martyrs for what they believed.[38]

In his analysis of the book of Genesis, Vernet followed Augustine in asserting that the question of the ex nihilo creation supports the existence of God. If one can establish that God did, indeed, create the world, then it would not be a great leap to show that he is also its supreme governor. In support of a divine creation, Vernet drew upon such arguments as the common agreement among ancient peoples, the ancient nature of the Mosaic writings, and their resemblance to ancient pagan cosmologies. At the same time, Vernet argued that Moses did not intend his creation account to be a testimony of the exact scientific nature of the origins of the world. Moses participated in the ignorance of the people of his generation in areas of science and philosophy. God did not create the world in seven literal days, but over a long period of time. The reference in Genesis to seven days was a literary device to support the notion of the Sabbath.[39]

In his discussion of the fall of man, Vernet denied the traditional Reformed view of depravity and original sin, arguing that we are resonsible for our own misdeeds. We are free to sin or not to sin just as Adam was.[40]

Vernet defined a miracle as a rare and singular event that is outside the ordinary course of nature. It is beyond human ability to perform such as the action of calming a sea or raising someone from the dead.[41] Miracles are truly not to be believed if one attributes their cause to human agency alone.[42]But, God, who is the creator of all things and who established the natural order, has the ability to transcend that order and to make exceptions to it as he pleases.[43]

Miracles are necessary to verify the truth of special revelation. In order to recognize a true miracle, one must have eyewitness testimony as to the key facts of the event. Vernet cautioned here that there are two extremes in evaluating miracles and both are to be avoided. On one hand, those who are superstitious attribute virtually every event in life to the divine hand. On the other hand, the impious eliminate God’s work altogether from human events.[44]

Vernet protected what he considered to be the fundamental or essential teachings of Scripture in a similar fashion to Jean-Alphonse Turretin, who argued for a limited amount of such doctrines in an effort to bring closer accord with the Lutheran and Anglican traditions.[45] Vernet argued that the prophets and apostles were ordinary men who used various styles and techniques under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He denied that the very words and phrases of Scripture were without error, arguing that the major biblical doctrines were true and faithfully represented, and the Bible contains all that God intends for us to know.

Scripture clearly reveals the essential articles of the faith, contrary to the Counter-Reformation argument that it is unclear and that it needs to rely upon ecclesiastical authority to come to a proper interpretation. Vernet makes a similar argument on the essential or fundamental articles of the faith that J. A. Turretin had made in his Nubes testium. This work served as the basis for negotiations with the Lutherans and Anglicans for a form of pan-Protestant unity. The fundamental articles for Vernet were those that were clearly and repeatedly stated throughout Scripture. No objective reader of the Bible could deny their presence. The fundamental articles are so often repeated and in such a diversity of fashions that they are totally clear.[46]

On the other hand, if a particular doctrine is not well developed, then it must not be an essential article of the faith. Many controversial teachings such as predestination or the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not consistently and clearly taught in Scripture. There is, therefore, significant room for differences of opinion. Thus we must not separate over disagreements on such minor points of biblical teaching.[47] Furthermore, there may be some doctrines that are clearly revealed in Scripture but are of little importance in themselves. In such instances we must employ prudence in applying these beliefs in supporting piety and good morals.[48]

One obvious question that Vernet considered was whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity was an essential article of faith. He pointed out that the words “Trinity” and “three persons” are not biblical words. They were not even used by the primitive church. Vernet pointed to Plotinus who employed the phrase “the three primordial substances.” The ecumenical councils used Plotinus and developed his ideas further to come up with a more precise definition of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity, in its mature definition, was completely foreign to the early church.[49] Furthermore, from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries, the church consecrated such a concept without recourse to reason and thereby fell captive to the false ideas of the Roman emperors and ecclesiastical councils. The doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, was an innovation and not a fundamental article.

If the early, conciliar definition of the term “Trinity” was not biblical, what was the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and God, the Father? Was Jesus human and divine? How could these two natures coexist in the same person? Vernet declined to speculate on the relationship between the three persons of the godhead, preferring to adhere strictly to biblical language. He also refused to call the doctrine of the Trinity a mystery, preferring to argue that the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is in accord with reason. Vernet argued that God the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world and the Son is divine yet not equal to the Father.

Vernet argued that the Son and the Spirit are not equal to the Father. In the Trinitarian formula for baptism, for example, he calls the Holy Spirit the “third principal of the Christian faith.”[50] He also asserted that Christ was superior to man and to the angels but inferior to God the Father. Jesus was sent to reconcile the world to God, but Vernet reduced the status of the Savior to a divine messenger. Jesus is, therefore, divine and is the Savior; he died on the cross for the sins of the world, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. He is the firstborn of all creation and is a created being, yet he is inferior to the Father. Vernet refused to use the terms “God the Father” or “God the Son,” saying that these phrases led to ditheism or patripassionism. This stance left Vernet open to charges of Socinianism, a broad term used to denote any form of heterodoxy regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. What is difficult about Vernet’s stance on the doctrine of the Trinity is that he rarely made use of the term at all. In his Lettres critiques d’un voyageur anglais, written as a response to D’Alembert’s article on Geneva in the Encyclopédie, Vernet argued that it would be wrong to insist on using the term “Trinity” which is essentially a scholastic word that causes more difficulty from unbelievers than the clear and more simple teaching of Scripture.[51]

Vernet reflected his aversion to scholastic arguments in his discussion of the deity of Christ. He refused to speculate as to how the divine and human natures were joined in the person of Jesus. He called it a mystery that we cannot comprehend and that it is not necessary to understand. It is sufficient for us to know that there is nothing that is self-contradictory about the deity of Christ. Scripture merely teaches it without providing the specifics, as the ecumenical councils attempted to do.[52]

Vernet argued for the perspicuity of Scripture in so far as it pertains to the fundamental articles of the faith. He stated that Scripture is one of the clearest of all ancient books, but some aspects of ancient history and grammar are difficult to decipher. At times, the biblical authors do not tell the complete story, so the reader is left to ponder the omissions. Furthermore, some points of Hebrew and Greek grammar are obscure. However, these difficulties do not affect any major aspect of doctrine.

Biblical doctrine is reasonable and the Christian should have no fear of examining the text by the rules of logic and good sense. In addition, the Christian faith is not a blind faith, but is based on clear facts and can stand the test of honest inquiry that are used in any other discipline.[53]

For Vernet, as for his predecessor, J. A. Turretin, Calvin’s use of the interior witness of the Holy Spirit to prove the veracity of the Christian faith was virtually useless in face of the challenges of the Enlightenment. A more evidential approach to defending the faith would make Christianity reasonable. Vernet made extensive use of the historical evidence for biblical miracles, most importantly the resurrection of Christ. The historical evidence for the resurrection had long been an integral component for Remonstrant apologetics. Hugo Grotins made extensive use of it in his De Veritate Religionis Christianae (1627). Jean LeClerc, the Genevan-trained theologian and literary critic who converted to the Romonstrant cause, edited several versions of Grotius’s De Veritate Religionis Christianae and employed the same defense. Even Calvin made mention of this argument in the Institutio but argued that such external proofs merely bolstered the faith of those who already believed.[54]

Vernet pointed out that the disciples’ eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus were a powerful testimony. The disciples did not simply hear someone else speak of such events, but they witnessed numerous appearances of the risen Lord over a long period of time. Even the doubting Thomas was convinced when he touched Christ’s wounds. Furthermore, Jesus’ followers were so intimately acquainted with Jesus during his life and ministry that they could not doubt the reality of his death. They saw the dead body and wrapped it in linen cloths and spices. Then, after the resurrection, they ate meals with him and spoke with him. They were also witnesses of the ascension into heaven.[55]

The ability of Jesus to perform miracles was an essential component of his claim to divinity. Miracles, however, were not sufficient on their own. Jesus displayed the personal character, holiness, and wisdom to distinguish himself from other fanatics who might have made similar claims. Jesus suffered voluntarily on the cross and showed that he upheld the glory of God over any personal ambitions.[56]

Furthermore, the teachings of Jesus show a judicious and simple manner of expression, quite appropriate for his time. He combatted the prejudice and abuses of his era and accommodated his teaching to his audience by using parables to illustrate divine truth. He displayed authority and dignity in his teaching in combatting the abusive aspects of the rabbinnic teaching of the time. Jesus also understood the human heart.

Jesus validated his divine mission through powerful and public miracles such as the raising of Lazarus from the dead and the healing of the paralytic. Most importantly, he pronounced those healed to be forgiven of their sins, a pardon that only one sent by God hismself could pronounce.[57]

Biblical miracles, therefore, were an essential aspect of Vernet’s defense of the Christian faith. However, it is important to note that he did not believe in contemporary miracles. Miracles were important during the apostolic era to confirm the divine origin of the gospel, but God’s direct intervention in the natural order was no longer necessary since the highest form of religious belief had already been achieved in the New Testament.[58] After the completion of the canon, God used ordinary means to teach and guide believers. This rejection of contemporary miracles reflects the Genevan bias against “enthusiasm” among some Reformed congregations in France. It also reflects his adherence to a rational world system. Maria-Cristina Pitassi comments that this reflects the Genevan attitude toward the pietists during the eighteenth century. Even though traditional Calvinism was in decline, the Genevan theologians were still suspicious of the enthusiasts and affirmed the primacy of Scripture and reason.[59]

Fulfilled prophecy also served as an invaluable proof for the veracity of divine revelation. One can judge the integrity of the prophets by their personal character. Their wisdom and solemnity served as a marked contrast to those fanatics who proposed unreasonable teachings. One can judge the nature of a prophet’s teachings by its reasonableness, utility, importance and propensity to advance the glory of God. Vernet asserted that a prophet’s predictions are sufficiently clear and fulfilled by incontrovertible circumstances.[60]

Moses, for example, possessed personal qualities that made his prophetic work credible. He was pious, just, wise, generous, and modest. He advanced the glory of God and the welfare of the Hebrew people. Furthermore, not only did the Hebrew people always hold him in high regard, but neighboring pagans did as well. Furthermore, Moses’ work was confirmed by God giving him the ability to perform miracles. These miracles, such as the parting of the Red Sea, occurred in front of thousands of eye witnesses. These eye witnesses transmitted their testimony to succeeding generations. These miracles were necessary in order to encourage such an obstinate people to submit to a rigid ceremonial law.

Vernet resorted to the use of traditional external proofs to establish the divine nature of biblical revelation. He stated that the Old Testament possesses the marks of revelation. The Hebrew people, for example, distinguished themselves from their neighbors by their monotheism and their excellent and judicious legal system in contrast to the more typical superstition and idolatry. Vernet argued that one can come to an understanding of the attributes of God through natural revelation. Scripture does provide more specific information, but it never contradicts reason. We can know through reason that God is eternal, self-existent, spiritual, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, holy, just and the author of all good.[61]

Reason can lead us to an understanding of monotheism. After all, there cannot be more than one first and efficient cause. This first cause must be all-powerful because nothing could be greater. If it were greater than that cause would be God.

It naturally follows that if there is only one God, we should not worship false ones. Scripture supports this through its condemnation of idolatry.[62] Our natural tendency, however, is to look for a physical manifestation of God that we can feel and touch. The pagans fail to understand that God is pure spirit. The Lord accommodated himself to our weakness by providing anthropomorphism in the Old Testament. God spoke to Moses though a burning bush. The pagans typically portray their gods as having human foibles and human passions.[63]

Vernet admired how Scripture leads us to a more correct knowledge of the nature of God than the pagans could possibly know. The Bible leads us to a more just and reasonable understanding of the divine. Scripture is clear and simple rather than speculative and sterile. It warms our hearts and promotes personal piety. It leads us to love, fear, honor, obey, and worship God. This is how revealed religion surpasses philosophy.

Vernet advocated the use of the concept of biblical accommodation to explain the progress of revelation between the Old Testament and the New Testament. God gave the law to the Israelites because they needed a physical demonstration of a spiritual religion. The law prevented them from imitating the idolatrous customs of their pagan neighbors. The Israelites were incapable of elevating their religion to the more spiritual level of the New Testament, so God accommodated his revelation to their level of understanding and gradually weaned them off the more physical aspects of the law to the law written on the heart.[64]

Vernet argued that the Old Testament ceremonial law was not an imperfection, especially when one considers the unique times and needs of the Hebrew people. At the foundation of the sacrificial system was not the means for ultimate reconciliation with God. Sacrifices did not reveal the true sublimity of the divine essence. The people, rather, needed the physical symbols to help them to trust in God.65

God accommodates his revelation to avoid a greater evil. No matter how rude the level of understanding, God came down to the level of man in order to provide divine revelation. One of the purposes of the ceremonial law was to help the people gradually get rid of a cold heart toward God and to prevent them from falling into idolatry. These rituals could not be transferred to all nations. The original goal was to unite the twelve tribes into one body and to separate them from their neighbors. The sacrifices had to be made at the temple, for example, and the fine points of the law were made specifically for the Hebrews.[66]

The Hebrew people did not understand that God’s ultimate plan was to provide the opportunity for salvation to all peoples. The Hebrews believed that the promise was reserved just for them and so their neighbors were, therefore, excluded. It is very interesting that at this point, Vernet refers to Rom 9, where Paul outlines the clearest statement of the doctrine of predestination. Vernet concludes that Paul was condemning this exclusivity rather than promoting it. Predestination, therefore, was sufficient for the limited level of understanding of the Israelites. A more advanced religion would encompass all people and would be simple and reasonable with the hope of eternal life extended to all nations. The movement from law to grace represents the progress of greater revelation to a higher degree of religious perfection.[67]

Furthermore, the law was a yoke for the Hebrew people that prevented them from understanding that God’s plan was to provide his message of salvation to all people. The Jewish people were so focused on the law that many of them could not see the larger picture.[68]

Vernet asserted that original sin was primarily an act of disobedience that proves a principal of human pride and an attempt to achieve independence from God. Adam did not want to submit himself to God’s will. This act of revolt, Vernet argued, was the radical principle of all impiety and lawlessness. Vernet did not advocate an inherited sin nature derived from original sin, but rather that we all find ourselves in a similar situation as Adam who was merely the model for all sinners. We all share in the punishment for sin which is submission to the universal law.

In his discussion of the benefits of Christ’s death, Vernet argued that the primary benefit was to deter us from vice rather than to save us from the flames of hell. The primary purpose of Christianity was, therefore, to promote a more civilized society.

Vernet’s “enlightened” theological system left him open to charges of heterodoxy. It was ironic that these accusations would come from the philosophes from whom he had curried favor for so long. The issue came to a head with the publication of d’Alembert’s article Genve in Diderot’s Encyclopédie. D’Alembert had collaborated with Voltaire in the composition of this essay and in it he pointed out that the Genevan pastors taught a perfect Socinianism. D’Alembert also wrote that the Genevan pastors were perfect rationalists who argued that Christianity teaches nothing that is contrary to reason. He argued that they therefore denied the existence of a literal hell. D’Alembert thought that this was a compliment because it showed that the Genevan pastors were becoming more enlightened. The Company of Pastors thought otherwise. The response on the part of the Genevan council and the Company of Pastors greatly angered Voltaire, who responded by publicly criticizing Vernet in a number of pamphlets.[69]

Vernet was fighting a losing battle in his efforts to befriend and win the respect of Voltaire. Graham Gargett has masterfully documented the long and often tortuous relationship between the Genevan theologian and the famed philosophe. John Woodbridge has shown that an “unnatural alliance” existed between the French speaking Calvinist and the philosophes in their mutual desire for the French crown to practice religious toleration. However, Voltaire despised the Calvinists as fanatics and expressed the same disdain for them as he did for the papists. Ultimately, Vernet’s attempt to win Voltaire’s favor was an exercise in futility.[70]

Notes

1. See Donald D. Grohman, “The Genevan Reaction to the Saumur Doctrine of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635–1685” (Ph.D. diss., Knox College, Toronto, 1971); Martin I. Klauber, “The Helvetic Formula Consensus: An Introduction and Translation,” TJ (Spring 1990): 103-23.
2. On Vernet, see Michel-Jean-Louis Saladin, Memoire historique sur la vie les ouvrages de Jacob Vernet, ministre de l’Eglise, accompagné de l’Invocation aux Muses’ de Montisquieu, et de plusieurs lettres J.-J. Rousseau et Voltaire, qui n’ont pas encore iti publées (Paris, 1790); Jean Gaberel, Voltaire et les Genevois (1857); Gaberel “Jacob Vernet et ses relations contemporaines” Etrennes religieuses xxxiv (1883): 120-41; Eugene de Budé, Vie de Jacob Vernet, théologien genevois (1698–1789) (Lausanne, 1893); Graham Gargett, Jacob Vernet, Geneva and philosophes (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1994).
3. The “enlightened orthodox” employed a method of biblical exegesis unencumbered by the controversial language of Reformed scholasticism. Their primary goal was to develop a more practical form of theology more understandable to the average layman. Debates over the nature and order of the divine decrees of election or even of predestination were typically ignored in favor of a more ethically based theology. See François LaPlanche, La Bible chez les Réformés in Le Sicle des Lumires et la Bible (ed. Yvon Belval and Dominique Bourel; Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1986), 459.
4. Budé, Vie de Vernet, 5.
5. Budé, Vie de Pictet, 7.
6. Graham Gargett, “Jacob Vernet: Theologian and Anti-philosophe,” The British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 6 (Spring 1993): 49.
7. The conflict between Vernet and Voltaire centered on the latter’s desire to bring the theater into Geneva. Interestingly enough, Vernet opposed the move primarily from practical, rather than from theological, grounds. In addition, their theological clashes became bitterly personal and were openly debated in print. Voltaire had moved to Délices, near Geneva, in 1755 and wrote the Essai sur l’histoire universelle which included a section on Geneva and Calvin. D’Alembert later met with Voltaire and the next year published his own scathing attack on Geneva and Calvin in the Encyclopédie.
8. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T McNeill; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1.7.4.
9. Linda Kirk, “Going Soft: Genevan Decadence in the Eighteenth Century,” in The Identity of Geneva: The Christian Commonwealth, 1564–1864 (ed. J.B. Roney and M. I. Klauber; Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1998). See also Linda Kirk, “Eighteenth-Century Geneva and a Changing Calvinism” in Religion and National Identity (ed. S. Mews; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982); and Helena Rosenblatt, Rousseau and Geneva: From the First Discourse to the Social Contract, 1749–1762 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
10. Jacob Vernet, Reflexions sur les moenrs, sur la religion et sur le culte (Genve: Claude Philibert, 1769).
11. Rosenblatt, Rousseau, 202.
12. Ibid., 154-57.
13. Linda Kirk, “Godliness in a Golden Age: The Church and Wealth in Eighteenth-Century Geneva” in The Church and Wealth (ed. W J. Shields and Diana Wood; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 334.
14. Vernet, Deux Lettres à Monsieur L’Abée *** Sur le Mandement de Monsezgneur le Cardinal de Noailles du 10. Aout, au sujet de la guérison de Ia Dame La Fosse, femme d’un Ebeniste du Faux-bourg St. Antoine (Genve, 1726), 7–9.
15. Budé, Vie de Vernet, 7.
16. Jacob Vernet, Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne. Tiré du latin de Mr. J. Alphonse Turretin (Genve: M. M. Bousquet, 1730–47).
17. N. Charles Falletti, Jacob Vernet: Théologien genevois, 1698–1789 (Genve: Charles Schuchardt, 1885), 31–32.
18. Gargett, Vernet, 94. See also Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 1.1.4–5.
19. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 1.1.8.
20. Ibid., 4.2.12.
21. Ibid., 1.1.8.
22. R. E. Florida, Voltaire and the Socinians (Oxfordshire: Voltaire Foundation, 1974), 147.
23. Falletti, Jacob Vernet, 58–59.
24. Vernet, Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne, xvi; Gargett, Vernet, 56.
25. Vernet, Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne, 89–91. Florida, Voltaire and the Socinians, 148.
26. Vernet, Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne, 137–46; Bud, Vie de Jacob Vernet, 74.
27. Vernet, Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne, xvi.
28. Instruction chrétienne, 4.8.172.
29. Vernet, Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne, 89–91; Florida, Voltaire and the Socinians, 148.
30. Vernet, Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne, 137–46; Budé, Vie de Vernet, 74
31. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 3.5.87
32. Gargett, Vernet, 350. D’Alembert noted this change in his article on Geneva in the Encylopédie in which the author also accused the Genevan clergy of advocating a Socinian Christology.
33. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 9.1.146.
34. Ibid., 8.12.136-38.
35. Ibid., 8.12.136-37.
36. Ibid., 8.12.138.
37. Ibid., 8.13.138-39.
38. Ibid., 9.2.159.
39. Falletti, Jacob Vernet, 64.
40. Ibid., 65-68.
41. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 3.2.71.
42. Ibid., 9.2.181.
43. Ibid., 3.2.71.
44. Ibid., 8.7.72-73.
45. According to Turretin the “fundamental articles” are “those principles of religion which so relate to the essence and foundation of it, and are of so great importance, that without them religion cannot stand, or at least will be destitute of a chief and necessary part.” Turretin attempted to reduce the number of fundamental articles in order to forge some kind of doctrinal agreement with the Lutherans. Jean-Alphonse Turretin, Nubes testium pro moderato et pacifico de rebus theologicis judicio, et instituenda inter protestantes concordia. Praemissa est brevis & pacfica de articulis fundamentalibus disquisitio (Genve: Fabri & Burrillo, 1719), 30–31.
46. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 3.5.90–92.
47. Ibid., 3.5.90-99.
48. Ibid., 3.5.93.
49. Budé, Vie de Vernet, 100.
50. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 9.12.274; Gargett, Vernet, 96
51. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 9.12.245; Gargett, Vernet, 96; see also Falletti, Jacob Vernet, 74.
52. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 9.12.240.
53. Jacob Vernet, Lettres Critiques d’un Voyageur Anglois sur l’Article Genve du Dictionaire Encyclopedique; & sur La Lettre de Mr. d’Alembert à Mr. Rousseau (Utrecht: J. C. Ten Bosch, 1759), i, 230.
54. See Martin I. Klauber, “Between Reformed Scholasticism and Rationalism: Fundamental Articles in the Early Career of Jean LeClerc,” JHI (November 1993).
55. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 6.3.212–13.
56. Ibid., 9.1.148-49.
57. Ibid., 9.2.153.
58. Gargett, Vernet, 97–98.
59. Genevan attitudes toward the pietists see Maria-Cristina Pitassi, De L’Orthodoxie aux lumires: Genve 1670-1737 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1992), 67–76.
60. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 3.2.70.
61. Ibid., 3.2.74-75.
62. Ibid., 3.2.74.
63. Ibid., 4.1.114-19.
64. Ibid., 7.4.278-79.
65. Ibid., 7.5.287.
66. Ibid., 7.5.288-89.
67. Ibid., 7.5.290-93.
68. Ibid., 8.1.8.
69. Gargett, Vernet, 277–80.
70. John D. Woodbridge, “An ‘Unnatural Alliance’ for Religious Toleration: The Philosophes and the Outlawed Pastors of the ‘Church of the Desert,’” CH 47 (December 1973): 4.