400 
faverfeded by a habit of covert intrigue, 
and dark deputation to the caftle? The 
quakers, without any order of clergy, 
take care to publifh annually a truly paf-. 
tora! letter, in which a faithful account is 
given of their church, for the ule of their 
wholecommunity. Are tne clergy of the 
Prefbyterian church afhamed or afraid to 
imitate an example fo truly apoftolical ? 
Aire the people not worthy of a ‘* General 
Epittle ;”’ or is the attention of the fynod fo 
taken up with a felffh correfpondence, 
that the general epiftle would not feem 
worthy of the people? Are the people, 
TI again afk, to be excluded from church 
and from ftate ; and is the ‘* ecclefia” (by 
which term I have always underftood the 
meeting of the faithful called into one af- 
fembly), fo far perverted from its primi- 
tive and feriptural acceptation, as to be 
confined exclufively to a fyned, from that 
converging into an acting committee, and 
afterwards ftill more condenfed into the 
very focus of a familiar dinner with the pri- 
wate fecretary, where the reverend agent of 
the royal bounty acts as an interpreter be- 
tween the cabinet and the commiffioners, 
not on the fubjeét of acceptance or non- 
acceptance of bounty, but merely to make 
the diftribution in fuch a manner as may 
beit reconcile the government of the church 
with the prefent views of the Pitt admint- 
firation. fie 
The profefled maxim of that admini- 
firation has, of late, been toconfolidate the 
empire by uniting thefe iflands, and to 
form a friendly combination of the diffe- 
rent religious perfuations, in the fupport 
of the moft highly ftretched regal prero- 
gative. Their internal like their exter- 
nal coalitions are forced and unnatural. 
‘They are planned on the preflure of tem- 
porary exigencies, not eftablifhed on a 
knowledge of human nature ; ard this 
novel plan of fubfidizing the Cathclic and 
the Prefbyterian clergy, without an{wer- 
ing the end intended, will, in each ot thefe 
perfuafions, have the effi & of an infidious 
perlecution, Such union is fo far from 
being a bond of peace, that, in my mind, 
it forebodes nothing fo immediately as 
ichifm and diffenfion and feparation. 
It forebodes a fchifm and {eparation 
among the Pre fbyterian clergy themielves. 
It forebodes a {chim and feparation of 
the laity from the clergy, a feparation of 
popular attachment to that order of men. 
The ftate of human opinions on church 
authority and difcipline is wonderfully 
‘changed fince the year 1719, when the 
{chiim of non-fub{cribers headed by Aber- 
nethy, Fitzpatrick, Halicay, M. Bruce, 
Nevin, and Mears, yrotefted againit the 
On the Royal Bounty to the Irifh Preftyterian Clergy. — [Dec. 1, 
arbitrary, exorbitant, and inquifitorial 
power of the fynod, and afferted the fingle 
communion of the New Teftament, againft 
the ufurped power of adding other terms, 
particularly a fubfcription to the Weftmin- 
fter Confeffion of Faith. This oppofition 
to the fupremacy of fynodical jurifdiétion 
over both clergy and laity was then fo uzpo- 
pular, that;their congregations were difguit- 
ed with the religious liberty of their paf- 
tors ; and the Beltaft fociety, which then 
vindicated the true principles of Protef- 
tantifm and the inalienable rights of the 
people, was little encouraged by the peo- 
ple themfelves. The refiftance then made 
to the arbitrary requifitions of fubfcrip- 
tion had a flow but fure effe&t; and the 
{piritual fubordination, I may fay fubju- 
gation, of both paftors and people have, 
fince that time, furprifingly decreafed—So 
much fo indeed, that it is to be feared the 
fympathy which ought at leaft to fubfift 
between clergy and laity, has given place 
to an apathy and indifference on the part of 
the people, inimical to the interefts of a 
fect, and perhaps equally fe to the interefts 
of Chriftianity itfelf. Will not this pe- 
cuniary fubfervience to government tend 
fill farther to deftroy all relationfhip with 
the people, who will afk each other, from 
views perhaps not a little felfith, * Why 
fhould we continue to pay thofe men who 
have placed their confidence of fupport in 
the crown?’ It is certain that the people 
themfelves have expofed their clergy to 
be tampered with and tempted by the ru- 
ling power. I believe the country ftipends 
over the whole extent of the fynod of Ul- 
fter do not average at more than 4ol. per 
annum; and it mult be acknowledged, that 
the people are bound to give that compe- 
tent {upport to their minifters which may 
become the fhield of perfonal, political, and 
religious independence. 
There is certainly a ftrange, I cannot 
call it natural, coincidence between demo- 
cratical and deiftical doétrine. I fhould 
have thought, @ priori, that the principles 
and practice of the unlettered Prophet 
Chrift would have blended with the moral 
and political difcipline of equality. But 
the contrary has taken place, and the pre- 
fent practice, or rather practices, of the 
Prefbyterian clergy feem to accelerate and 
aggravate a prevalent difguft taken againft 
thefe interpreters of the qvords of Chrift. 
The habits of religious fubordination or 
fubjugation have quite loft their hold. It 
is time, it is high time, that the order of 
fociety fhould be {upported not upon prieft- 
craft and popular credulity, but upon the 
morality of an enlightened and cultivated 
reafon. dD. 
Ta 
