of friends, and the most serious personal inconvenience and loss.

But it is asked, why should we not extend the pale of the Society, so as to include all Anti-Trinitarians? The answer is, that the founders of the Society, conceiving the simple humanity of Jesus to be a truth as clear as light, and that misconceptions concerning this fundamental doctrine had paved the way to the grossest corruptions of the Christian religion, and being decidedly of opinion that the best way of promoting the reception of truth was by holding it up clearly and distinctly to public view, unsullied, and undebased with any mixture of error, resolved to act upon this principle in drawing up their declaration. They could not, therefore, accommodate their preamble to Arianism, even in its least offensive form, and much less to those great and enormous errors which find shelter under the ample covert of Anti-Trinitarianism. If others think fit to form societies upon a more comprehensive plan, they are at liberty so to do. No doubt the many will approve and associate; nor do the supporters of the principle of the Unitarian Society presume to condemn. Their sole object is to hold forth and to defend one essential and primary truth, and in the prosecution of this great object, by means which appear to them to be most expedient, it is of little concern to them whether they are joined by the many or the few. They have done what they could; and they are confident that the cause will prosper, whether their efforts be, or be not, honoured as instrumental to its suc

cess.

The preamble has been objected to

Witness the case of Mr. Charles Herbert, late a master of a flourishing school at Elham, near Canterbury, who, for no other reason than because he was discovered to be an Unitarian, though he made no offensive profession of his creed, was turned out of doors, with very little notice, together with his wife and eight or nine children; and who, in his present residence at Dover, where he has opened a school, is so persecuted by the malignity of his enemies, that he would be absolutely unable to earn bread for his family, if it were not for the kind but precarious aid of a few liberal friends.

as imposing a Test. But how any society can exist without a test, or, in other words, without a definite priuciple and object, it is not easy to conceive. The only questions to be decided in this case are, first, whether the object of the Unitarian Society be lawful and desirable, and then whether the means adopted for attaining it are expedient and eligible. And of these the reader will judge. A Test is an obnoxious word. It generally expresses something unreasonable and compulsory. But the Unitarian Society compels no one to enter within its pale, and forbids no one to withdraw. It possesses no honours or emoluments to invite men into its communion, and deals out no ana. themas, much less does it inflict pains and penalties upon any who desert its banners. All its members claim and exercise the right of private judgment to its utmost extent.

Having been a member of the Unitarian Society from its first formation, and being in fact the individual with whom it originated, I have enjoyed the best opportunity of knowing the object and design of the original founders; and I have taken the liberty of stating these facts, to shew that every change in the preamble of the Society, under whatever pretext, which is calculated to lay it open to Anti-Trinitarians in general, is inconsistent with, and subversive of the main object for which the Society was originally planned and established, namely, to promulgate the doctrine of the simple humanity of Jesus Christ.

I

SIR,

T. BELSHAM.

HAVE been lately applied to by many persons in and out of the Church of England, very different from myself in opinion, respecting the meaning of this parable: and I flatter myself that the substance of the answer which I gave, will not be unac ceptable to the readers of the Repository. The difficulty felt on the subject is, that our Lord in commending the conduct of the steward commended prudence at the expense of justice. But the matter stands thus. The unjust steward represents the members of the Jewish hierarchy, the teachers of the law, the priests of

They

the day, who were soon to be stripped of their stewardship by the destruction of the Temple, and dispersion of the Jews. Their conduct furnishes the true key of the difficulty. are elsewhere accused of binding heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and of laying them on men's shoulders. These burdens were human traditions, though they imposed them on the people as coming with the written law from the authority of God. The object of this extra imposition was to gratify their own avarice and ambition; and one instance is recorded where they carried their impositions so far, as fairly to set aside the law of God, on one of the most important subjects of human duty, Mark vii. 8. They were, therefore, in the predicainent of a steward who, appointed to parcel out to tenants the lands of his rich lord, charged, for his own benefit, more than he was warranted to each tenaut. Thus the tenant who became by the extra imposition debtor "for a hundred measures of oil," was authorized by his kind and indulgent lord to receive it for "fifty;" and the debtor for "a hundred measures of wheat," for "fourscore." But these tenants were ignorant of the extra charges, considering the whole as payments imposed by their landlord himself. Now when the steward was impeached or suspected, he was aware that his dishonesty would be detected and punished. He, therefore, goes to the tenants, reduces the extra charges, thus making the only reparation which it was then in his power to do, and which justice required to be done, saying to one of the debtors, write "fifty," and to the other "fourscore." Accordingly his master, though offended with him, and resolved to employ him no longer, is just enough to commend him for his conduct in this respect.

Nevertheless, the steward, with his usual craft, makes a merit of this reduction, and uses it as an expedient for future subsistence. But how is this applicable to the Jewish priests? They were stripped of their office, and the people were exonerated by the abolition of the ritual law and it cannot be doubted but that such of them as survived the ruin of their country, pleaded, in their dispersion, their former services as teachers of

Bridport, October 5, 1819.

received the

the Committee of "the Society established for the Relief of Aged and lnfirm Protestant Dissenting Ministers," adopted by the Subscribers at their General Meeting, held at the King's Head, in the Poultry, May 25, 1819. It is not, I think, possible to speak in too high terms of commendation of the benevolent object of this Institution. With this conviction, in looking over the list of subscribers, I am happy to see some respectable Unitarians contributing to the support of this cause, while with concern I observe there are many of that class, well known to be both opulent and generous, whose names do not appear in aid of this "work of mercy and labour of love." Their minds, probably, are still under the influence of the unfavourable impression made on them by the strenuous opposition which, it is understood, had arisen among some of the highly orthodox, against the admission of any of the misnamed Socinian ministers to the benefits of the Institution. It appears, however, by a communication in your Repository, [XIII. 708,] which would be more satisfactory if sanctioned by the name of the writer, that "the opposing party amongst the Indepenpents have no connexion or influence with the Society, precisely because they would not agree to the compreheusion of Unitarians." It may, therefore, be considered as established on the same broad and comprehensive basis as the Widows' Fund.

It is stated to be "for the Relief of Aged and Infirm Protestant Dissenting Ministers of the Three Denominations, Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist, in necessitous circumstances."

Some exception has been taken to the term Presbyterian, and an appreheusion expressed whether it might hereafter be always interpreted to include Unitarian ministers. If, indeed, such were excluded from the benefits of this Society, and not reckoned Presbyterian because they entertain Unitarian sentiments, what body of Christians is there in England to lay claim to the title? The term, indeed, was originally designed to express a peculiar form of church government, namely, by Presbyteries. In this sense, certainly it is not applicable to the English Dissenters, yet it has been for a long time understood to be descriptive of those of them who are more free and unrestrained in their religious opinions, and less attached to the standard of reputed orthodoxy than some of their Christian brethren. "The English Presbyterians do not materially differ from the Independents with regard to church government and discipline and mode of worship; but they generally allow a greater latitude of religious sentiments and communion in their churches. The appellation, in this restricted use of it, implies no attach ment to the authority of synods, presbyteries, or ecclesiastical assemblies, any more than to episcopacy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and therefore, according to its original use, it is improperly applied to many who are now distinguished by it, and who form a very respectable class of Nonconformists, or Protestant Dissenters, in this kingdom." (Rees' Cyclop. Art. Presbyterians.)

Many words, it is well known, with the lapse of time, are understood in a different sense from that in which they were originally used; and as the title Presbyterian has been long ap. plied to a certain class of Protestant Dissenters, distinguished for that "latitude of religious sentiments and communion in their churches" above described, it is, I think, desirable that it should be continued.* Were this the case, strictly Unitarian societies, to which belong endowments for the support of the Presbyterian cause,

Why may not a person be designated an Unitarian minister of the Presbyterian or Baptist denomination?

need be under no apprehension of being deprived of them on account of their professed Unitarian sentiments. On mature consideration, therefore, I see more propriety in adopting and continuing the title of Presbyterian in the description of the objects to be relieved by the Widows' Fund and the newly-formed Society of which I am treating, than I at first perceived; neither is there ground to suspect that any aged and infirm Protestant Dissenting Minister in necessitous circumstances, will be ever rejected because he is an Unitarian. This, indeed, is guarded against by a fundamental law of the Society, that "the Committee of Management shall consist of eighteen members, viz. two ministers and four laymen of each denomination.”

Some persons, it is said, do not approve of the plan of this Institution, as tending to wound the feelings of aged and infirm ministers to become objects of charity. They would have a fund raised by the voluntary annual subscriptions of ministers themselves and their societies, to which, when necessity required, they might apply as a claim of right, and not as a boon of beneficence. On this principle, however, it seems evident that those ministers who will probably stand in most need of pecuniary aid in the time of affliction, would be least able previously to become entitled to it by their annual contribulions. A few months ago, I received a letter from a very respectable Unitarian minister, stating that, with a wife and seven children, he depended chiefly for support on an endowment in his Society of about seventy pounds per annum, with a parsonage-house; that he had lately laid out forty pounds for the necessary repairs of his chapel, and that he could collect among his people towards defraying the expenses, not more than ten shillings. Thus situated, what could such a minister and his congregation contribute annually, with a view to his receiving an annuity, should he live to be aged and infirm? Little or nothing. Yet surely such a person, in these circumstances, would become a very proper object of charitable assistance, and should he be visited with fiction, or the infirmities of fying him from pursuing

his ministerial labours, it would, no doubt, be granted to him on an application to the Committee of the Society lately established. The relief of human distress should be always administered with all possible delicacy, It is desirable, therefore, that a rule be laid down (which I do not perceive is yet done) respecting the recommendation of proper objects, by those who are acquainted with them, that they may not be under the necessity of applying themselves to the Committee for relief, which will be less injurious to their feelings by coming to them unsolicited on their part.

Impressed, myself, with a deep sense of the peculiar merits of this benevolent Institution, I take the liberty of earnestly recommending it to the attention of the friends of humanity and religion, including both Unitarian congregations and opulent individuals of that class. The Com. mittee have stated in their Report, that "they are already furnished with a long and distressing list of necessitous aged or infirm ministers." "The poor," says our Lord to his disciples, ye have always with you;" and persons of the description just mentioned will, I am apprehensive, be never wanting in the catalogue of objects of distress. "To do them good," who have in the time of health and activity faithfully and conscientiously laboured to do others good, has such strong claims on humane and charitable Christians in general, and, in this case, on Protestant Dissenters in particular, as, I trust, every heart will feel, and every hand, which has any thing to bestow, be readily and generously opened, in order to discharge. Methinks, indeed, I hear some persons exclaim, "How frequently are appeals made to our beneficence! One institution is formed after another, and we are called upon to contribute to its support. Really there is no end to it." Similar language to this I have often heard, and am persuaded, Sir, that you will heartily join with me in the ardent hope that there will be no end to it, till there be an end to all the ignorance, superstition, vice and misery which prevail in the world, and mankind are become wise, virtuous and happy.

THOMAS HOWE.

SIR,

TH

July 6, 1819.

THE "volume of Seven Sermons" by Dr. Mayhew [p. 297] is now before me, as reprinted at London, 1750. These sermons were “preached at a Lecture in the West MeetingHouse in Boston," in 1748. The third sermon onl "The Right and Duty of Private Judgment," and the fourth, entitled "Objections considered," appear to express every thing which the most liberal-minded inquirer would desire.

I have another volume, consisting of " Mayhew's Tracts and Sermons," collected by the late Dr. Disney; and part of his valuable library, which was dispersed by auction, in 1817. On the first page he has written, with a reference to Hollis's Memoirs, where I have seen a portrait of the American divine, "Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, overplied by public energies, died of a nervous fever, July 9, 1766, aged 45."

The first six pieces in this collection comprehend the controversy between Dr. Mayhew, Mr. Apthorp and Archbishop Secker. Respecting the following anecdote, which incidentally occurs, your readers may probably supply some further information. In Secker's "Answer to Dr. Mayhew's Observations," 1764, he says, (p. 35,) speaking of the Church of England, "Mr. Locke, a member of the same church, was, of all English writers, the greatest advocate for toleration." This Answer produced a Letter to the Author, "By a Protestant Dissenter of Old England," under which Dr. Disney has written, " By Caleb Fleming." I find also this Letter in the Catalogue of Dr. Fleming's writings annexed to the funeral sermon for him in 1779. At p. 27, speaking of the Answerer having claimed, "Mr. Locke as a member of the Established Church," the letter-writer says,

"If I have been well informed by an intimate of Mr. Locke's, so far from being a conformist to the Church of England, he, whilst at Lady Masham's, used to prefer the hearing of a lay-preacher among the Dissenters, because there was no other nonconforming church conveniently near for him. But, however, this will not farther debate with you, any more than by saying, I believe he was not a member of the Church of England."

The seventh article in this collection, comprises "Dr. Mayhew's two Thanksgiving Discourses, October the 25th, 1759, for the Success of his

Majesty's Arms, more particularly in the Reduction of Quebec," Loudon, 1760. On the first page is the following autograph, by Mr. Thomas Hollis "Published from the copy printed at Boston in N. E., and sent, obligingly, by the Author to T. H." The strain of these sermons may be discovered by a reference to those of Mr. Towgood and Dr. Price at the same period, and which are described in your IXth. Volume, pp. 548 aud 614. The guilt and miseries of war are too often overlooked by the preacher, while dazzled by the splendour of victorious arms and the worldly advantages of the conquest. At the same time, the wars in which Britain, or British America, engages are, of course, just and necessary. In an Appendix the preacher indulges the following rapture, on mentioning the reign of King George II.:

"In the success of whose fleets and arms the elements seem now to interest themselves, for bringing down the pride of France.

"O nimium DILECTE DEO, cui militat æther,

Et conjurati veniunt ad classica

Referring to "the late field of battle near Quebec," called the Heights of Abraham.

Dr. Mayhew was as little of a prophet. He had not the slightest anticipation of what British folly would effect in the short period of ten years, The Independence of America. Speaking of Quebec, he describes it as "an acquisition, the consequence of which must prove, in time, according to the natural course of things, the exalting of these little provinces and colonies, as it were into as many kingdoms; and, consequently, the raising of the British empire in Europe, on which they will continue dependent, to an height and diguity among the nations which it never knew before." At the close of this Appendix is advertised a volume of sermons. Two of these, "On being Found in Christ," and "On Justification by Faith," would, probably, discover the Author's theology; which was, I apprehend, nearer to that of the reputed Arians of his time than of the Calvinists. The eighth article is "The Snare Broken, a Thanksgiving-Discourse. Occasioned by the Repeal of the Stamp Act." Boston, 1766. This discourse is dedicated to William Pitt, "an illustrious patron of America," who is thus complimented (pp. vi. vii.) : "But, alas! what can poor America do in return -Nothing but call you, over and over again, her father, her father; and endeavour to make good your generous engagements for her prudent, dutiful behaviour towards her mother-country nothing but erect a few marble, brass or copper statues in honour to you (for America has but little silver or gold); statues that will be of no service to you, since they will go to decay, long before your name and memory will need any such poor helps to preserve them."

66

8. The whole sermon is in a strain The text is from Psalm exxiv. 7, most duteous towards the mothercountry, and most complimentary to her government. Her ministry are now upright, zealous for the public good, and knowing wherein it consists." Her King has been endowed with "wisdom to discern, and integrity to pursue the interests of his people" (p. 10). His "generous and royal heart" is bade to rejoice, “ that by a single turn of the sceptre, when