1800. ] 
will no doubt bring to a happy clofe this 
new union of Prefbyterianifm and the 
ruling power, of which the chic f fecretary 
will become the official ower/zer and per- 
manent moderator. 
Ido think that the regiusm doxum has 
been perverted from its original purpotes. 
Firft. What was defigned to operate as 
areward and. presum to certain princi- 
ples is now accumulated into a purchaje of 
all principle. A donation, the {abject of 
gratitude, is now mounted into an endow- 
ment, a bounden duty of mercenary to 
matter. A prefent for which, we are obli- 
ged, is very different from a {ettlement by 
which we are fubjetied a and) falaried. for 
life; and, if the laity, as is too probable, 
will leffen their ftipend as government 1n- 
creafes its ftipend, the proportion.of obli- 
gation will become fo great to the prime 
benefactor, the crown, and the eftrange- 
ment fo manifeft from the natural Benen 
the people, that what was firft gratitude 
will then become debt; then irrefiftible 
obligation ; and the whole fyftem of Pref- 
byterianifm will grow adfcititious to the 
powers which happen to be, the parafitical 
fervant of two mafters, Chrift and Mam- 
mon. 
Secondly. The principles which attract- 
ed the royal confideration were the princi- 
ples recognized at the revolution, and 
again fanctioned at the Pianenenian fuc- 
ceffion ; not principles of pafiive obedi- 
ence and non-refsitance, not. principles 
linking the government of the church and 
difpoitions of its clergy by a chain of 
mercenary dependence to a fort of ftate 
metrepolitan,.in breach of that fole allegi- 
ance to one fpiritual mafter, whofe fervice 
is perfect freedom. The bounty was gi- 
yen for a rigid and hardy adherence, 
through all changes of political wind and 
weather, to the genuine principles of the 
good old Britith conftitution, tteering be- 
tween the republicanifm of the Indepen- 
dants, and the flavifl loyalty of abfolute- 
monarchy men, but always recognizing 
the ultimate fovereignty of the people in 
civil concerns, and even in the frame and 
conflitution of their church government 
allowing them an equal participation of 
authority. The bounties of Charles IT. 
William IIL. and George I. were not gi- 
ven for any derelition of principle either 
religious or political. “Ichey were not gi- 
ven as hufh-money for a humiliating fi- 
lence upon great public queftions. In 
faét, political and religious principle fuf- 
tain each other, and the layman or clergy- 
gman who fubjugates his mind to the fove- 
reignty of opinion in civil concerns, is 
On the Royal Bounty to the lrifo Prefoyterian Clergy. 299 
ae 
more than half prepared to have his creed 
fafhioned by the fame external authority. 
Did the uniform manifeftation of the piia- 
ciples of Chriftian and contitutional liberty 
during the whole progre({s of the Aimecrican 
war gain them the kindnefs of government, 
and the favour of Lord North? No. Bur did 
not thefe very principles receive their me- 
rited reward, their honorarium, during the 
fhort funfhine! of Charles adramnit. 
tration, and Lord Northington’s lieutenane 
cy? Thole fame principles which made 
Dixon a bifhop, paying due refpeét to the 
right divine of haman virtues, thofe fame 
avhig principles,.rewarded the political 
coufiiency of the Prefbyterian clergy, by a 
moderate augmentation of the regium do- 
uum, not amounting to an annihilation ef 
free opinion, but rather its encouragement 
and reward. _ 
Now. it is to be afked, whether the in- 
dividual who receives a penfion, great er 
Fox’s 
{mall, from two miunifters {fo perfectly 
Gapoled in principle and_ practice as 
Charles Fox and William Pitt, mut not 
be. either a hypocrite or a tergiveriater ? 
© but, fays the ingenious equivocator 
with confcience, the “penfion i is not giver 
to us asindividuals, but as a body; and as 
there are about 180 congregations includ- 
ed inthe fynod, each minifter bears but 
an r8oth part of the onus of obligation.— 
In reviewing the fum total of the bounty 
already obtained, I think there ts received 
on the Iri/h eftab! ifhment, in the whole, 
22001. including roool. given in Lord 
Northington’s adminiftration, 6001. bein 
before granted in the reign of Charles IL. 
and 6ool. more in the reign of William, 
On the Exgh/d eftablifament, I believe, 
there is 8o0l. a grant from George I. 
equally divided between the north and the 
fouthern Raia we whofe congregations 
being fo much fewer than Hole in Ul fter, 
and itil leflening, the annual ftipend of 
government is already more than zal. and 
will foon amount to 4ol. 
The laity in general are ignorant of thefe 
matters. “They have been too much a fe- 
cret. It is time that the fun fhould fhine 
onthem. It would have been highly be- 
coming the fynod afiembled on a fubje& 
fo interefting to the welfare of their reli- 
gious as well as temporal concerns, te 
have circwWated a paftoral letter on the 
ftate of their church, the condition of their 
incomes, the nature, perhaps the neceflity, 
of relief from government, and the juft 
claims they may have of an increafed ({t1- 
pend from the people. Are the people no 
part of the church? Is the natural rela- 
tienfhip of pafter and flock to be entirely 
2 luperfeded 
