On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    neva , after asserting that it was un-Q ( JESTIONABL . Y THE MOST MORAL , city in Euiiope , added , ** I do not attribute this so much to their religion , as to their domestic education , and

    the circumstance of every one being known to his fellow-citizens ; " but I deny to that gentleman and to Dr . Smith who has quoted him the right of judging the motives of the members of a different church , if their conduct

    be correct . * ' By their works ye shall know them , " said Christ , and this is the only test that a Christian can allow . Be it well remembered , however , that the question at issue with Dr . Smith 3 s , not whether the morality

    of the Genevese is Christian morality , but whether they are or are not , when compared with other nations or Calvinistic societies , * ' grossly immoral and openly flagitious / ' and it is these

    charges that I have repeatedly called upon Dr . Smith to prove . With respect to another assertion he has made , ** that there is no proportionate increase of true Christians in

    Geneva , " as I do not , like Dr . Smith , assume the right of searching the hearts of others , lean only say that , judging from their works , I believe there to be a much greater number of true Christians in the present Genevese Church , than there were in the

    golden age of its orthodoxy , when , according to Burnet and other writers , religious pretensions , hypocrisy , insincerity , cheating and secret lewdness , were often associated together . Before I take my final leave of Dr . Smith , allow me further to notice his

    couduct to M . Chenevifcre . Dr . S . gravely and coolly declares , " I have done him no injury , / have offered him no insult , unless it be an insult to bring evidence of the numerous and wide departures from truth , which

    appear throughout his Summary . " I deny that Dr . S . has brought evidence of this ; and even had M . Chenevikre been greatly mistaken in many instances , was no allowance to be made foe the different \ iews under which

    men very differently educated may see the same thing ? " I have offered M . Cheneviire no < n * ult , " says Dr . Smith . What ! is it no insult to tell a respectable minister w the gospel , that he is guilty " of oeliberate fraud and falsehood /* that

    Untitled Article

    " his heart is hardened beyond evert £ very high degree of moral callousness ; * that " falsehood is its food , and the most outrageous calumnies gt congenial delight" ? Is it no insult to publish and republish such calumnies against him ?*

    Is calling a Christian minister a liar , a tbief , a callous-hearted devourer ojf falsehood and eatumny , no insult ? Yet Dr . J . P . Smith flatly denies , m the face of his own words , that he has offered M . Cheneviere any insult ; he calls this gross abuse only " bringing evidence against hitn : " it is ,

    indeed , such kind of evidence , as the Reverend writer and his party are too much in the habit of bringing against ? Unitarians . This gross abuse Dr . S . may call " evidence / 9 and I admit that it is evidence , and fearful evidencetoo , of the temper and spirit of the writer who deals it forth .

    I have offered him no insult . " I wonder that the Reverend writer did not blush to his very fingers * ends when he had written this sentence , and immediately dash his pen through it .

    Let me ask Dr . Smith , whether he would think it no insult to be accused * " of deliberate fraud and falsehood ,, of moral callous heartedness , and with feeding greedily on outrageous calumnies and falsehood" ? W-hat would

    he say of the veracity of that man , who , after having loaded him with such gross abuse , should coolly say , " I have offered Dr . J . P . Smith no insult" ? But I leave Dr . Smith to reconcile his fi / t ; denial of having

    offered any insult to M Chenevifere , with his own conscience and the public . Those persons who have not visited Geneva , may hence learn to appreciate the value of his evidence ,, when it is directed against persons of a different faith from his own . The

    spirit and temper of Dr . J . P . Smith may recal to some of your readers the memory of Archdeacon John Philpot , who was himself impr isoned for heresy * in the reign of Queen Mary ; but even

    in pr ison he evinced as much persecuting zeal as the Catholic party ; the axe and the faggol were not in his power to use , he therefore was compelled to confine his attacks to words and personal insult .

    When Archdeacon John Philpot published his defence for ^ p itting on an Arian > he did not pretend that he

    Untitled Article

    Remarks on the Republxcation of Dr . Smith's Letters respecting' Geneva * 333

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1825, page 333, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2537/page/13/