upon earth, for one is your Father who is in heaven, neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ." If my using the expression, "Head of the Unitarian Church," in connexion with Mr. Belshamn, was an infringement upon this precept, I have certainly great cause to apologize both for my incautiousness and inconsistency, but I really cannot discern that it is so in any respect or degree. Out of any number of learned and respectable persons one may stand pre-eminent above the rest, without assuming any thing like dominion or authority over them, and this preeminence may be considered as his due by another, without the slightest idea entertained of his being entitled to authority. Most truly can I aver that such an idea never had place in my mind, nor did I imagine that it was likely to enter the mind of any of my readers. Had I unconditionally, and without any qualification, spoken of a Head of our Church, I should not, even in that case, have connected with it any sentiment of the kind. Previous, however, to this mention of a Head of the Church stand the words, "To whom, if to any, may be justly applied the title." Here is a modest doubt expressed, whether Mr. Belsham was pre-eminent among his bre. thren; and it might fairly be supposed that, in my opinion, it was a question not decided whether, to use a Cambridge expression, some other persons might not deserve to be bracketed with Mr. B., and the compliment "arcades omnes" applied to them. It does not follow that because this gentleman possesses eminent talents, extensive theological knowledge, acuteness in detecting and exposing sophistry, and great ability to defend what he believes to be the truth, even against mitred opponents, that no other writer is upon a par with him, and that all must hide their diminished heads when put into competition with him. But suppose that I had really believed him to be superior to every Unitarian writer of the present day, which I scruple not to say is actually the fact, yet it is but my private opinion, and as I make no pretensions to infallibility, I have no hesitation to say I may be wrong; indeed, for the honour of the brotherhood I wish I

may be wrong, and such is my estimation of Mr. B.'s candour and liberality, that I doubt not he would wish so too. My error, if it is one, is involuntary, and must therefore be looked upon as innocent, and the worst that, I conceive, can be alleged against me is, that I have shewn a want of judg ment in estimating the abilities and attainments of different writers, and wreathed the laurel around the wrong brow, Many of my friends were assembled to hear the Dedication, as well as the additional Letter at the conclusion of the controversy, read to them, before it went to press, and not one objected in the smallest measure to it, or seemed at all aware of even the possibility of the disapprobation with which it has met.

Had the objectors taken into consideration what I have stated above, I humbly think their animadversions would have been spared, and no im pediment to the sale of the work from that source would have been a subject of regret. I cannot refrain, indeed, from freely avowing my concern that the Unitarian public has not taken up the subject with more spirit, and embraced the opportunity thus offered of descanting, with merited severity, upon the conduct of a writer attacking a Christian society in the shameful manner the soi-disant Christian did ours. In addition to the hints occasionally thrown out in the answers to the Christian, the style and manner of his Letters are sufficient to convince any sagacious reader out of what mint the base coin issued, and the Established Church should have had a few more defensive weapons pointed against the bigotry and intolerance which it displayed. Such an attack should not have been left to a single individual, or at most to two, to repel; it should have roused the indignation of the whole body of dissidents, and more especially of reasou-asserting dissidents. It will, however, sometimes happen that a single spark will kindle into a wide-spreading conflagration, whilst a flame shall be suffered to expend its powers and be extinguished in the shades of night, without creating alarm or exciting notice. That this last case has been realized in the present instance, and a favourable opportunity not improved

to the extent and degree it might have been, is the inevitable conviction

of

THEOPHILUS BROWNE.

SIR,

AS

Chichester, April 3, 1819.

SI think it highly desirable that the Monthly Repository should be a register of facts, illustrative of the state of Unitarianism, I am happy in being able to communicate the intelligence, that a Fellowship Fund was, last Sunday, established at Chichester; and that our congregation has also agreed to belong to the Unitarian Association, recently formed in London, for the protection of our religious liberty.

So much has already been said in your publication on the utility of Fellowship Funds, I should not trouble you with any observations, however much I may be convinced that the happiest results will flow from their creation, did I not consider that the Unitarian public is not sufficiently alive to their importance, and to the necessity of their being generally, or universally established.

I know not how many Unitarian congregations there may be in our country, but supposing them at two hundred, had they each a fund, they probably would be able to afford on an average two pounds to every application for assistance, in which case the sum of four hundred pounds would be raised with ease, without enormous deductions for travelling expenses in its collection.

But if these funds should not be come general, or, if the weekly members of our societies only subscribe their weekly penny, without liberal donations, the pecuniary assistance afforded to our cause will probably not be so great as it was before their projection. Our charitable exertions will be so much better directed, and proportioned to the importance of the case requiring assistance, by these funds, than they can be without them, I would willingly abate a little of the actual amount of the sums collected annually rather than not have them established; but this evil effect should not accompany them. We ought to have, in consequence of their formation, both more money at our disposal, and more

wisdom to direct its application. This will be the case, provided those who are in humble life, like the poor widow casting her mite into the treasury, subscribe their weekly penny; while the female members of our congregations emulate Mary with the spikenard, and testify, by the outpouring of their benevolence, their attachment to their Lord; and the sons of commerce, or of independence, contribute, according to the apostolic direction, as the Lord has prospered them.

But whether our fellow-worshipers do good as they have opportunity or not, these funds will probably excite a more general interest for the Unitarian cause, by the greater diffusion of knowledge relative to the concerns of the whole body, which the various applications for support must necessarily produce. And allow me to submit to your consideration, whether the publication of a list of all the religious societies in our connexion, with the names of their ministers, and a notice where these funds have been established, with any other particulars which may, from time to time, arise concerning them, would not be highly useful, tending in a great degree to keep alive this interest? My conviction of the propriety of this measure is strengthened by the same view having been taken of it by our friends at Portsmouth, Poole, &c. The map of England, and its immediate connexions, would impart additional pleasure to the mind could we, 'from such a list, contemplate the associations of our fellow-worshipers, whenever we look at a county, and the traveller would know where to find his kindred spirits, and by a little management in his journey, would be able to spend his sabbath agreeably to his Christian convictions, instead of being obliged to loiter the day away at the inn, or to frequent places of worship where his best feelings are outraged by the absurdity of the doctrine.

I confess I think such a list, rectified from time to time, as years create changes among us, would be a pleasing article both in the Repository and Reformer.

JOHN FULLAGAR.

CAL

Bury St. Edmunds, 4th Mo. ALLING accidentally upon a friend, he put into my hand the Monthly Repository for March, containing an article on the Lawfulness of Defensive War among Christians, [p. 149,] observing, that it proves "that Barclay thought it was lawful," an opinion I was by no means inclined to admit. Let me state what Wm. Christie is pleased to call the candid confession of the venerable Apologist, extracted from his celebrated work on Christian divinity:

"But lastly, as to what relates to this thing, since nothing seems more contrary to man's nature, and seeing of all things the defence of one's self seems most tolerable, as it is most hard to men, so it is the most perfect part of the Christian religion as that wherein the denial of self, and entire confidence in God, doth most appear, and, therefore, Christ and his apostles left us hereof a most perfect example. As to what relates to the present magis trates of the Christian world, albeit we deny them not altogether the name of Christians, because of the public profession they make of Christ's name; yet we may boldly affirm, that they are far from the perfection of the Christian, of Christian perfection or state of grace in the soul, and that though we may be Christians in name, and are relatively so according as we approach our great exemplar and perfect pattern, yet no man who has attained to true holiness of heart can feel himself at liberty, under the Christian dispensation, to engage in war." [I cannot believe that the advocates of defensive war have attained to that state of self-denial and entire confidence in God, which Barelay describes to be the most perfect part of the Christian religion, and of which Christ and his apostles were such eminent examples. It would not be difficult, I think, to shew, that though we have many excellent magistrates, whose discharge of their high judicial offices do them honour, yet they may not be in the perfection of the Christian religion, and may be in that state of mixture which is far from fitting them for this form of Christianity, and therefore the alleged lawfulness of defending themselves in cases of aggression to such as are in the rudiments of the Christian race, who bave not yet a commission in the pacific kingdom of the Messiah: but as our worthy predecessor observes,] "for such as Christ has brought hither it is not lawful to defend themselves by arms, but they ought over all to trust in the Lord. Now it cannot be religion; be ause, in the state in which they are, (as in many places before I have largely observed,) they have not come to the pure

dispensation of the gospel; and, therefore, while they are in that condition, we shall not say that war, undertaken upon a just occasion, is altogether unlawful to them.

For even as circumcision, and the other ceremonies, were, for a season, permitted to the Jews, not because they were either necessary of themselves, or lawful at that time, but because that spirit was not yet raised up in them, whereby they could be delivered from such rudiments; so the present confessors of the Christian name, who are yet in the mixture, and not in the patient suffering spirit, are not yet fitted for this form of Christianity; and, thereuntil they attain that perfection. But for fore, cannot be undefending themselves such, whom Christ has brought hither, it is not lawful to defend themselves by arms, but they ought, over all, to trust to the Lord."

Now I appeal to public candour whether the writer has not either totally misunderstood, or misrepresented the subject? As far as I am capable of understanding Robert Barclay, there is a state supposed the Society of Friends have so totally mistaken the meaning of their great Apologist, and thus they have, both by example and precept, inculcated the unlawfulness of war under the Christian dispensation, whether undertaken from principles of aggression or of defence.

SAMUEL FENNELL.

[We have in vain endeavoured to make sense of the above letter; but we have, perhaps, rendered the quotation, which is the main thing, intelligible. ED.]

SIR,

Namptwich,