Mary Hughes: Contributions to the Monthly Repository

M. H., “Popular Preaching Recommended to Unitarians,” Monthly Repository 3 (June 1808), 321-23. From Shrewsbury, undated.

She writes to Unitarian ministers who wish to reach the “poorer classes” with “gospel doctrines” about altering their preaching style to be more amenable to them. Normally, the language of Unitarian sermons is “far too refined” for the poor and not aimed at their vices (“drunkenness, dishonesty, and lying”) sufficiently to awaken them to “religious doctrines” (321). She wishes that at least one sermon (possibly two) a week should be aimed at “the untaught and ignorant” who, when they attend “a discourse calculated for the polite audience, they gain absolutely nothing” (322). Many servants do not wish to attend, not because they disagree with the church’s doctrines but because they are “unable to understand what those doctrines” are (322). She believes an evening sermon is best suited to the poor because of the nature of their daytime activities. She is adamant that “the people must be addressed in a language that they can understand – in a simple and energetic manner” (322). Ministers are commanded by Christ to “feed my sheep,” and the poor are a portion of the sheepfold. In so doing, these ministers can “instill into their minds the pure and rational doctrines of him who came to seek and to save that which was lost” and not the “mysterious doctrines of the Methodists” (322). She believes the nature of the discourse is the primary reason why in every village and town in South Britain you will find “an empty church and full meetinghouse near it, though in both places precisely the same doctrines are taught” (322). Sermons that touch on “the idleness, the insolence, the profligacy” (322) of the poor should be the focus of these evening sermons to “warn them of the precipice on which they totter” and “to awaken the love of God in their hearts” (323).

M. H., “On the Subscription to Mrs. Standeven’s Children,” Monthly Repository 4 (July 1809), 348-49. No location or date of the letter.

She carefully rebukes a correspondent from the Methodists who had sent a letter previously to the Monthly Repository seeking aid for the orphaned children of an Evangelical Anglican minister’s wife. Hughes believes the Methodists were fully capable of answering the needs of the children as they were of their own sect, and is surprised the Unitarians would be chided for not being their benefactors as well. She wonders if the children were those of a Unitarian minister’s wife, would the correspondent expect a Unitarian to write to the Methodist Magazine seeking aid for the children?

M. H., “On Practical Christianity,” Monthly Repository 4 (December 1809), 579-84. From Salop, dated 3 November 1810.  Very much like a sermon.

She emphasizes that as a Unitarian she seeks the spread of what she believes are “the true doctrines of the gospel” as the only effective means of curtailing the “selfish luxury” of the higher classes and the “profligacy” of the lower orders (579). She blames the rise of both in the past half-century on “the preaching of the Methodists, which has taught men to rely for acceptance with God upon something entirely unconnected with their own exertions,” and the “vast increase of manufactories” and the “almost uninterrupted continuance of war” (579). All three have harmed the character of the rich and the especially the poor, who are now “needy, thankless, impudent and profane; viewing the ranks above them with envy, unmingled with respect, and often devoid of those kindly feelings towards each other, which humanise the mind and mark man as the favoured work of an infinitely beneficent Creator” (580). She is convinced that Unitarians who believe in the “pure and unadulterated doctrines of Christ” can remove this plight from England, though many religious people still remain in denominations marred by “a thick veil of mysteries, contradictions and absurdities” (580). She questions why so many who are keen on maintaining “the outward ordinances of religion” and who “bestow a part of their substance to relieve the wants of the poor, so often show little of the real Christian spirit in their general manners and deportment?” (581). She blames those evangelicals who hold to the doctrines of original sin, the imputed righteousness of Christ through grace, and the Trinity as keeping the poor and profligate from ever reforming their lives. She sees the Trinity as requiring “an entire renunciation of reason and common sense” (581), as “irrational,” even “an unholy thing” (581).  She does not see many among the “unlearned” being willing or able to explore such controversial subjects on their own, mainly for fear of their faith becoming “unsettled” (582). Even among women, and women writers, this is common. She chastises Elizabeth Hamilton for declaring that in such matters “she is (and must therefore chuse to be) ‘deplorably ignorant’” (582). She hopes the Unitarian Fund can be of help in this endeavor of reaching the rich and the poor with Unitarian beliefs, enabling those who do the work as well as those who provide funds for the work to become “the benefactor of his species” (582). She exhorts her fellow Unitarians to demonstrate to the world “that our’s are the true doctrines of Christ, by the effects which they produce on our temper and conduct!” (582). She hopes they will “revive the pure doctrines of the primitive professors of Christianity, to imbibe the spirit by which they were animated!” (583). To do this, they need to exhibit a “marked simplicity and plainness” in their manner of living,” especially the women, whose “low-minded vanity” has greatly contributed to this false way of living (583). She argues that it is not enough merely to abstain from “gross immorality or profaneness,” but rather they should “adorn our profession by active goodness” (583) in bringing “to pass that great reformation in our fellow creatures” (583) and the ultimate “salvation of the world” (584).

In that same volume of the Monthly Repository, the annual report of the Christian Tract Society for 1810 appeared (pp. 609-10), and the publication of Volume 1 in the Tracts, of which Mary Hughes was the most prominent writer and figure. She is mentioned by name in this report, as well as “the other ladies who had during the year added to the number of the Tracts, it appearing that all the Tracts published since the last meeting, whose authors were known, were the productions of females” (610).

M. H., Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 10 (March 1815), 146. Undated and no location or title.

Here she attacks once again the evangelical doctrines relating to the pre-existence of Christ as God, noting that Justin Martyr did not rely upon the doctrine for his belief that Jesus was nevertheless, pre-existent or not, the Christ (146), nor did he separate necessarily from those who disagreed with him or call them unbelievers. She hopes that, like Justin Martyr, the Protestants of her own day “would lay aside the notion of the infallibility of their own creeds, and with the candour and meekness which characterize true Christianity, join with those who differ from them, in calmly investigating the questions at issue between them; owning that all are to be commended, and not anathematized, for obeying the command of their Master, to ‘search the scriptures;’ and not take upon trust the dark, mysterious and contradictory doctrines, which cannot be laid before them in scripture language, and were therefore only collected from thence by inference” (146).

M. H., Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 11 (May 1816), 270-72.

She admonishes her fellow Unitarians to enter more fully into sharing their interpretation of the Gospel to the world at large, primarily through letting others see Christ through their good works and avoid any “cold, heartless profession of our faith” (270). Her aim here is to goad her fellow Unitarians into living out a “practical” Christianity, in which the Christian stands on “higher ground” than the world around him. Are her fellow Unitarians in their churches in England living out in their lives “that purity, that simplicity, that heavenly-mindedness, which ought to flow from their clear and sublime views of gospel truth” (271). “Are the rich,” she asks, “‘zealous of good works,’ the benefactors, the advisers, the comforters of their poor brethren?” (271). Instead, she sees many who believe correctly live the same as the rest of the world. She believes the Unitarians, more than any other denomination, should never “love [Christ] no more, and obey him no better, than others” (271). She calls this “religious negligence” (271). She is seeking a kind of experiential faith as a Unitarian, but does not see many around her following her lead. “Oh that Unitarians would come out from amongst the sons and daughters of vanity and selfishness, and prove to the world that they have higher aims than this uncertain life can satisfy; that they consider themselves as ‘strangers and pilgrims upon earth,’ seeking a [272] ‘better country,’ an ‘abiding place,’ a ‘city which hath foundations!’ and using all the powers which have been entrusted to them to extend the knowledge of that great salvation which god has graciously offered toe the world by Jesus, the ‘author and finisher of our faith’” (271-72). Her hope is that God will “give a blessing to our zealous endeavours, and grant that by reviving the genuine doctrines of our Master, and diligently striving to exemplify them in our lives, we may bring salvation to ourselves, and forward the progress of gospel truth amongst our brethren of mankind!” (272).

M.H., Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 12 (June 1817), 350.

She is promoting a plan set forth by a Dr. Thomson that advocated subscriptions by members of Unitarian congregations in weekly or quarterly sums “for the purpose of assisting poor congregations in carrying on their worship, building chapels, supporting aged ministers, and other Unitarian purposes,” and, in the end, “promoting the great cause” of sharing the truth and seeking “the conversion of the Jewish and Heathen world” (350).

M.H., “Anecdote of Dr. John Taylor and Mr. Newton,” Monthly Repository 12 (August 1817), 474-75. Dated 4 July 1817.

Hughes provides an account of a theological discussion she had with a gentlemen she met on a stagecoach between Birmingham and Shrewsbury. The gentleman was orthodox and opposed to Unitarianism. He provided her with an anecdote about a meeting between Newton and Taylor of Norwich, in which Newton delayed reading a book by Taylor through to the end because it was more than likely “tainted” (475), a story she thought did not speak well for the gentleman or the followers of orthodoxy.

M.H., Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 13 (May 1818), 309. Dated 12 March 1818, no location.

Here Hughes weighs in on the doctrine of the miraculous birth of Christ through the Holy Spirit, which she believes becomes the Father of Christ, and not God the Father. She cannot accept the three persons of the Godhead and believes the doctrine to be irrational, and finds the immaculate conception irrational as well and wishes for an orthodox believer to inform her as to who is the proper “father” of Christ. To her, this doctrine is “an invention of man in the dark ages of ignorance” (309).

M.H., Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 13 (July 1818), 427-28. Dated 2 June 1818, no location.

She is writing to members in Unitarian congregations that are a part of the labouring classes and seeking their involvement in contributing to the work of the church through their own offerings. She sees too many that are worldly, “anxious for its riches and honours, lovers of its luxuries and pleasures,” who have joined “in the worthless, mean pursuit” of worldly things (427). Many who seek and attain wealth forget their duties to the poor, forgetting compassion and benevolence. They should be setting aside at least a tenth of their income for “the purpose of instructing and relieving our ignorant an indigent brethren” (428). Those who do so will find “a glow of delight” that will warm their bosom and satisfy the commands of Jesus. This discussion foreshadows Dickens’s Ebenezer Scrooge, for she writes that some wealthy men “hoard up without weighty and justifying reasons, a part of that overplus of income, which the moderation of their own wants and wishes render unnecessary for their current use. When I see such persons, I lament that they should deprive themselves of the rich source of happiness which a bountiful Providence has put into their hands, and forfeit the bright reward which is promised to those who diligently send their Lord’s money “to the exchangers,” that at his return he may receive his own with interest” (428). Benevolence will lead its practitioners to “become more and more assimilated to his [Christ’s] own divine nature, of which he hath assured us we may in a degree become partakers” (428).

Mrs. Mary Hughes, “Instances of Sanguinary Superstition,” Monthly Repository 13 (October 1818), 615-16. Dated 12 September 1818, from Hanwood. She signs for the first time as “Mary Hughes.”

She admits she had always used initials or published anonymously (her tracts), but a recent article in the Repository by Mr. Luckcock of Birmingham about the need for writers, even women, to acknowledge their authorship, had convinced her she should follow suit, and she does so in this instance for the first time.

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 14 (January 1819), 20-21. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 12 October 1818, from Hanwood.

She recounts the recent celebration of the Catholic mass at the Cathedral in Edinburgh, where the Bishop praised all of Christendom for uniting around the doctrine of the Trinity in opposition to “the obnoxious and baneful tenets of Socinianism and infidelity, which are so industriously disseminated by the pseudo-philosophers of this degenerate age” (20). She thinks the current age will soon dispense with “such ridiculous displays” of “superstition” (20). She rails against the Bishop’s linking of Socinianism and infidelity, though it had been common for some time. She decries the pomp and circumstance of the mass and the irrationality of the Trinity and argues that Unitarians believe in “free and fair discussion,” in “sound reason, and clear scriptural authority” (20). She no longer fears the Catholic church coming after the “persons and properties” of the Unitarians, but instead relishes in the possibility of a “full and patient discussion” with them on “all points in which they differ” from them in a “spirit of meekness and candour” (21).

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 14 (March 1819), 160-62. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 28 January 1819, from Hanwood.  The letter that follows this one is by Benjamin Flower, dated 11 February 1819, from Hackney Road, concerning Dr. Walker’s treatment of scripture.

This letter is about the conversion of the Jews and how orthodox Christianity had never adequately solved the best means of doing so. She believes the Unitarian doctrine of “one God” is much more inclined to meet the approval of the Jews than the doctrine of the Trinity. The Unitarian emphasis upon the “universal love” of God suits well with addressing the concerns of the Jews, more so than the doctrines taught by the orthodox evangelicals. To prove her point, she provides a brief history of the Christian church from the apostolic period to the present and discusses the corruptions that occurred, she believes, in the pure faith of Christ and the New Testament and that which followed after the formation of the Church, primarily the movement from the worship of one God to many Gods (the Trinity). They could not accept a Saviour who was born a mere man but became the Son of God and rose from the dead, but replaced it with the idea that three equals one and one equals three (161). More absurdities followed, she argues, but even the free spirit of enquiry brought in by the Reformation was soon squelched by the orthodox with new errors, such as the imputed righteousness of Christ and the doctrine of election. She writes, “To tell men that if they are saved at all, it must be by the righteousness of another being imputed to them, and that all they have to do, is to fix their trust in this doctrine so ‘comfortable to sinners,’ to ensure the full benefit of it to themselves! What is this but to outrage all our ideas of rectitude and justice, to loosen even in thinking minds, all bonds of moral obligation, and in others, to open a wide gate for the indulgence of every passion and inclination, and to lead to crime and profligacy of every description?” (162). She proposes a “Fellowship Fund” which would be used to bring Jews and Unitarians together for the purpose of converting them.

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 14 (May 1819), 288-90. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 17 January 1819, from Hanwood.

This essay is focused on Hughes’ reading a passage from Dr. Buchanan’s Christian Researches, p. 216, where he talks about the conversion of the Jews and the end of the age (the downfall of the Papal and Mohammedan empires). Hughes is very keen on this aspect of biblical eschatology and believes the Unitarians are the ones who will be most instrumental in this conversion of the Jews in the latter days before the onset of the millennium. She mentions Daniel and the time, times and a half, which was generally believed to represent 1260 years after the rise of the persecuting empires and their duration of power (this would come to an end about the middle of the 19th century). She believes the prophecies are accurate and should become a major part of Unitarian action into the 19th century. She argues that “The inattention of men in general to the fulfilment of the Divine predictions, does not proceed so commonly from principles of infidelity, as from ignorance of facts – pure ignorance of historical facts” (289). After citing numerous passages from the prophets and St. Paul and St. John, she writes: “Surely these statements and calculations from the most striking parts of the prophetical writings, appear plainly to announce the speedy fall of the “beast” and the “false prophet,” and the bringing in of God’s ancient people to the Christian fold!” (289). For further evidence she cites the translating of the Bible into numerous languages around the world. She believes that in the next 100 years “the whole Heathen world will follow” (290) into belief in Christ, which will then usher in the millennium. “The next century will, according to our reckonings, conclude the 6,000 years of the world, and the seventh has been always considered and looked to as the promised Millenium, the reign of Christ upon earth, which is to be completed before the general resurrection” (290).

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 14 (June 1819), 370-71. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 6 February 1819, from Hanwood.

In this short letter, she discusses the Final Restitution of the wicked, arguing that they suffer for their evil in this life and will in the next, but only in a corrective manner and not forever. There will be a restitution in the end for them, because for that not to happen would violate the nature of a benevolent, loving God. A God of perfect goodness cannot inflict vengeful retribution (371).

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 15 (September 1820), 514-15. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 17 August 1820, from Bristol [she moved the that year].

In this letter she is responding to a letter from “A Constant Reader” that was sent to her by the editor, apparently pondering the absence of ministers for small groups of Unitarians meeting in many towns and villages across England at that time. Hughes believes these small groups can meet every Sunday and still carry on quite well without a stated minister. She says she experienced this for many years, first attending in a neighboring family during her time in Hanwood (this was in the home of her former parish minister, the Rev. Harries) and then in her own home after his death. [She says in a note that these two home groups used Devotional Offices for Public Worship, collected from various Services in Use among Protestant Dissenters, printed by J. and W. Eddowes of Shrewsbury (514).] She believes a collection of sermons to be read by someone in the group each Sunday could easily be compiled from among the many collections of printed sermons by Unitarian ministers already in print by 1820. She believes her health will not allow her to complete such a task but is content “with adding, as I can, to the number of those short pieces which appear to be generally esteemed useful; grateful for having been enabled, in however humble a degree, to forward the glorious cause of Christian truth and righteousness” (515). She says that in her home group she used the sermons of Theophilus Lindsey, along with those of the Unitarian missionary Mr. Wright, joined by Drs Toulmin, Enfield, Estlin, and Rees, and, more recently, those of Dr. Lindsay, Mr. Cogan, Mr Butcher, and others (515). She says that though the number of hearers is low, the energy with which the sermon is read must not be diminished. She writes, “He must not read prayers and a sermon, he must pray and preach; and a tolerably good English scholar is as competent to do this as the most learned. To understand and to feel, are the indispensable requisites; and a union of these often inspires a flow of natural eloquence, which produces more powerful effects than all the studied graces of art” (515).

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 15 (October 1819), 586. Signed “Mary Hughes,” undated without a location.

This letter is about Catholics and the accusation they worship idols. She does not believe this, but still questions their practice of invoking the saints in their prayers and where in scripture they ground this practice (586). Since numbers of people around the world do this at the same time, it implies omniscience in the departed saints to be able to hear and answer such prayers, a quality and power granted only to God himself. She also believes the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved by the Last Supper, in which Christ stands in front of the disciples but his body is whole. She sees this doctrine as “monstrous” and “an absurdity” (586).

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 16 (May 1821), 276-77. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 26 April 1821, from Bristol.

This letter concerns Lord Brougham’s Education Bill, which she sees advantageous to British males but very harmful to British females. She argues that “it will necessarily have to degrade and demoralize a large part of the population of this country . . . The ‘glad-tidings’ of the gospel are to be disclosed to English women only through the medium of the desk and pulpit, or by the pure and correct information which they may be likely to gain by inquiring of their husbands, brothers, &c. at home! for our liberal and enlightened legislators are about to seal up the Bible from their view!” (276). Education for girls will require a “degree of additional parish taxation” which, she believes, will put female education is such as position that it will never recover if only dependent upon voluntary contributions from the public (277). She hopes the Bill will fail and Brougham’s talents be applied elsewhere than public education.

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 17 (April 1822), 199-200. Signed “M. H.,” dated 13 February 1822, from Bristol.

This letter concerns “religious conversation.” She believes the religious “enthusiasts” dominate religious conversation in private and public and many Unitarians, or “rational” Christians, hold back for fear of imitating views they do not agree with. She believes that, in so doing, they give up the ground of religious conversation unnecessarily and for all the wrong reasons and thus appear cold and indifferent in their conversation rather than fervid for their religious views. She sees the enthusiast as guilty of “affected airs of sanctity” and “superstitious formality,” and believes the Unitarian can still engage in religious conversation without being guilty of similar airs and formality (200). She admits that “zeal without discretion often injures the cause it seeks to serve” (200), yet there are many points on which nearly all sects agree and these should be stressed and those of great contention should be “touched lightly” in a spirit of Christian “candour and humility” (200). She hopes that she and those with whom she disagrees will open their hearts “to the sweet and expanding influence of ‘the spirit of Jesus;’ and when that is in some good measure imbibed, all notions of the infallibility” of one’s own creed will disappear (200). Only then can those who disagree engage in conversations promote “the cause of truth and righteousness” as well enable each person to “listen with complaisance to the differing sentiments of his Christian brother” (200).

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 17 (August 1822), 464-65. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 10 July 1822, from Bristol.

This letter concerns a congregation of Unitarians meeting in Newchurch, Rossendale, Lancashire. They were previously Wesleyan Methodists, but under the leadership of a Mr. Cooke, were moving into Unitarianism when he was removed from his position by the Methodist connexion. A group left the meeting and set up a new meeting in Newchurch along Unitarian principles. Mr. Cooke soon died from the stress of the upheaval, leaving behind a widow and children. The congregation was composed of labouring individuals with little means to support a minister. At this time, John Ashworth, a woollen manufacturer, provided funds for the small group from his own finances. Shortly thereafter, an additional £12 a year was obtained from Lady Hewley’s Trust (464). Once made known to the larger body of Unitarians through the Repository, more funds were raised which reduced the debt of the congregation to £100. After this, £10 was given to the church through the Bristol Fellowship Fund (Unitarian) (465). Due to the growth of the Sunday School (with now some 300 scholars), more space was needed for the chapel which would require additional funds of £200. The Bristol Fund then sent an additional £20 to the church for this new addition. Hughes is writing in hopes that other Funds in England will do likewise and assist the poor congregation in dissolving its debt so that the work will prosper there.

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 18 (February 1823), 97-98. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 3 February 1823, from Bristol.

She provides a report on a Convention of Delegates from New York, Philadelphia, and Delaware debating the “abolition of domestic slavery, the protection of free Negroes illegally detained, and generally the improvement of the condition of the African race throughout the United States” (97). She notes that an attempt at altering the lives of slaves from dependents to independents was performed on the plantation of Joshua Steele in Barbadoes to much success simply by paying them wages, which in turn improved the profitability of the plantation (98). Another plantation owner there traveled to England to witness first-hand the Lancasterian system of education that might work for slaves as well as the poor of England.

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 18 (July 1823), 395-97. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 7 July 1823, from Bristol.

Concerns the work of Richard Wright, the Unitarian missionary, and her disapproval of Tract no. 46 recently published by the Christian Tract Society (written by Wright). She does not see the two brothers as representing the Jews and the Gentiles, nor does she see the Father disrespecting the elder brother by his gladness at the return of the younger brother. She sees the benevolence of the Father in approving of the life of the elder son who now and always has all the the Father has, and his gladness at welcoming home the fallen son who was dead and is now alive. Both sons are treated benevolently by the Father.

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 19 (February 1824), 97-98. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 14 February 1824, from Bristol.

Hughes is very upset that an article had appeared in the January issue of the Repository suggesting that the dissolution of the body is the punishment accorded for sinners, not anything after this life, and is sufficient for changing the views and morals of those apart from Christianity. Hughes rejects this adamantly, arguing that such a view “can mean nothing else but the act of dying; and if this can produce so vast and so happy a moral effect, a general at the head of an army may, after a day of carnage, boast of having made more converts than all the Christian ministers throughout the world, can hope to do in the course of months and years to come” (98). She believes the article does damage to those already prone to disparage the beliefs of the Unitarians.

Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 19 (April 1824), 240. Signed “Vindex,” dated 8 March 1824, location not given.  [The letter is preceded by one from Benjamin Flower.]

The writer rebukes Hughes for taking the other writer to task unfairly and not actually countering his arguments but merely dismissing them out of hand. He knows she is a giant among the Unitarians but still felt compelled to call her out on her attack on the writer.

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 19 (June 1824), 324-27. Signed “Mary Hughes,” dated 29 May 1824, from Bristol.

Her letter concerns Peace Societies and the need to incorporate as many as possible into an understanding of the basic principles at stake while allowing for some differences as to the degree one can go in seeking peace, especially concerning the right of self-defence. She mentions the practice of William Penn in Pennsylvania who purchased his land from the natives and lived in peace with them for decades. She is clearly a pacifist, which her opponents termed “theoretical and impracticable” (326). She writes,

The more I consider, the more certainly do I come to this conclusion; either the flaming sword must wrest the New Testament from our hands, and utterly destroy, or again immure it between walls impenetrable to the public eye; or its precious records, which so plainly and powerfully delineate the character of our Lord, and so incessantly in the epistolary parts exhort his followers to view him as the perfect model set forth for their imitation, will change that instrument of destruction, and its fellow enemy of man, the spear, into those useful helpers of the human race, the ploughshare and the pruning-hook. (326)

She then adds with force: “War and real Christianity cannot subsist together” (326). Cp. this with Coltman’s The Warning.

She closes with a statement about her writing: “I have never pretended to any skill in composition; what I write comes from the heart, and if, in a very few instances, what I now send should reach the hearts of those to whom it is addressed, my time will have been well bestowed, and as a sincere well-wisher to the cause, you will be glad to have furnished me with the opportunity” (327).

Mary Hughes, Letter to the Editor, Monthly Repository 19 (July 1824), 391. Signed “Mary Hughes,” undated without a location. Hughes died in Bristol on 14 December 1824.

This letter concerns Unitarian Sunday Schools, about which a previous correspondent had suggested that “Unitarianism” should be left out of the curriculum and the focus be mainly on learning to read. Hughes objects to this with passion, believing Unitarianism the best thing that could be taught to the children. She sees this as another nail on the perception that Unitarians are cold and indifferent to their own religion and the Bible in general. When this is done, she believes onlookers “must conclude that we set a small value on our principles, and hold them to be of little or no practical importance” (391). Leaving Unitarianism out of the instruction is about the worst thing these churches can do, both for the children and those outside of the denomination.