employing so much time on this subject; as it must be confessed, that the ignorant and prejudiced are most in the habit of despising, or affecting to despise this science. To those who are capable of forming a right judgment on the subject, it must be obvious, that the study of grammar is of great importance; that an author can never dispense with it; and that he who shows by the carelessness and incorrectness of his style, that he considers it beneath him, must have great reliance on the value of his matter, if he expects attention to what he delivers. E. C. never most moderate abilities may be much The study of language may be thought dry and uninviting; but unless it could be shewn that we speak by instinct, and not by the efforts of reason, it niust be clear, that the best manner of speaking and writing will never be acquired without a considerable portion of labour. Those authors who have been most admired for the beauty of their writ- To the Editor of the Belfast Magazine ings, were men who considered words and sentences, as deserving of the most uninterinitted attention. Valuable as was their matter, they had not the foolish vanity of supposing that it needed not the advanfage of the most elegant language their art could bestow on it. Whatever there is in their manner that is admirable; their strength of expression; their exquisite polish of style; their happy choice, and beautiful arrangement of words and phrases; and above all, their inimitable case, and charming flow of language, can only be the result of close and longcontinued labour. Those divine po ems, and those strains of more than nortal eloquence, which seem to burst, as if by inspiration, from the everflowing soul, have all been elaborated with the utmost care and attention. Horace, Virgil, Addison, and many other fine writers, were never satisfied with what they had written, and death alone could stop them from making daily altera tions, not so much in the sense, as in the construction, of what had already astonished the world by its Leauty. Perhaps an apology is due for STR, HAVING observed in your num ber January, certain obser vations on the principles of the Piesbyterian church, and on the supposed inconsistency of Presby terian ministers, accepting of the late augmentation of Regium Donum; I feel it necessary, as a friend to the Presbyterian interest, to trou ble you with a letter on that subject. A respectable body has been attacked; it is but just to hear what may be said in its defence, and if it shall appear, that it has been foully calumniated, I know what it becomes the friends of virtue to think of those writers, who have endeavoured to cast a slur on the Presbyterian church, as existing in this country, and to bring its ministers into discredit with the people con mitted to their care. Such subjects should not be lightly undertaken: yet the writers in your Magazine especially R. have made the severest remarks without a due acquaintance with the principles or discipline of our church. The writer of the retrospect considers the augmentation of R.D. " as while in actual possession of R. D. ministers cannot be tempted to abandon their patriotism, from any dread of losing it. Nor even a mong candidates for the ministry can we suppose the terms of the grant to be productive of dangerous effects. "Tis true, his excellency, the Lord Lieutenant has a yote on the grant of bounty to each minister, at first: but this is merely with a view of guarding against "the disgrace and evil that would attend the appointing of a disloyal minister." Nor can we conceive it to have any more extensive iufluence. For the choice of a minister always rests completely with the people; and of course, no minister can be inducted into a congregation, whose principles they dislike. As to the veto, considered as a guard against disloyalty, it is undoubtedly reasonable, that those to whom his majesty grants bounty should be loyal subjects: Nor do I see in the requisition of government for each minister to take the oath of allegiance, any thing that even the most conscientious ministers should reprobate. The primitive teachers of christianity were enjoined to be in subjection to the ruling powers; and if I understand the ministerial office and character aright, the public teachers of religion, are not, except perhaps, in some very extraordinary cases, to interfere actively in civil matters. They have peculiar duties to discharge, the faithful per The author of the retrospect adds, "To the lovers of freedom, the measure is highly objectionable, as increasing the overgrown influence and patronage of the crown." Were the R. D. granted to each minister for a term depending on the pleasure of the crown, it is admitted, that "to the lovers of freedom, the measure would be highly objectionable." For in this case, ministers would be very improperly under the influence of the administration.formance of which will not permit But according to the plan on which them to actively interfere in the the R. D. is given," the bounty bustle of the political world. I do once granted is, in no case, to be not say, that ministers should, in, withdrawn from any minister, du- every case testify passive obedience ring his continuance in the charge and non-resistance-but I do say, of that particular congregation, so that that attachment to govern long as it shall please his Majesty, ment, which the receipt of bounty to continue his bounty to the body supposes, is not eversive of true ciat large. "Of course, it cannot be vil liberty. Ministers will underconceived, how ministers can be im- stand that the support of all men properly influenced by government; and of all measures, is not true loy an improper addition to the burdens of the people. That patriot must be truly considerate for the people, who complains that thirteen or fourteen thousand pounds are given from the public purse, to a respectable and deserving body in society. When it is considered, how richly the established church of this coun try is endowed, at the expense of all denominations, it is natural for Presbyterians and those of other sects, to desire some remuneration in return for those heavy contributions. The endowment of the college of Maynooth, and the R.D. granted to presbyterian niinisters, and also to those of the Seceding persuasion are a small remuneration for their contributions to the established church, so far there fore from its being proper to consider the grants as an improper addition to the burdens of the people, other denominations might justly consider the church establishment more oppressive than it is; did the bounty of government not, in some degree, extend to them. alty; and that the spirit of the oath of allegiance on the contrary, requires, that they should support the liberties of their country, in opposition to all, who, by corrupt measures, would destroy the native influence of our excellent constitution, and consequently tarnish the lustre of the British crown. + that it is agreeable to presbyterian principles." Now, sir, I am one, who, in opposition to such dogma. tical assertions, will contend that the conditions of the late grant of R. D. are agreeable to presbyterian prin. ciples: and that parity of rank amongst the pastors, and an unbiassed choice of their pastors or ministers by the people," are not "some of the essentials of a pres byterian church." In the kirk of Scotland, which is strictly a presbyterian church, the ministers are not chosen by the people. And it may be proper to inform R. that the great principle of distinction between the presbyterians and episcopalians, is, that the former in opposition to the latter, maintain, that the church should be governed by pres byteries, synods and (as in the kirk of Scotland,) by general assemblies. If parity of rauk were essential to a presbyterian church, there never could have been a presbyterian church at all. For as congregations differ widely from one another in size and opulence, the stipend given to ministers must, of course, be larger in some congregations than others:-and even in private property; some ministers are greatly, richer than others, so that in this kind of rank, there must ever be a disparity in the presbyterian church. But there must also, of necessity, be a disparity of rank in respect of intellectual acquirements, ability in the discharge of ministerial duties, and general consequence in society. For one minister has naturally better powers than another, or has enjoyed the advantages of a better education. But I will even go farther, and say, that even at Presbyterian and synodical meetings, there must unavoidably be some disparity among ministers.For although it is necessary that they should possess equal ecclesi With respect to the comparative degrees of patriotism existing among the dissenting priesthood in 1782, and in the period since the augmeutation, I am at a loss for want of something more explicit, to understand the exact meaning of the writer of the retrospect. I fear that he and I differ very much in our ideas of patriotism. I conceive, that true and rational loyalty is, by no means inconsistent with patriotism. And I am not aware that since the year 1803, when the R. D. was augment ed, the presbyterian ministers have, by any public act forfeited their pretentions to true patriotism. Nor do I believe that any change of political character, to the injury of patriotic principles, has appeared in the body at large, since that period. The author of the retrospect has brought a charge in general terms, against the body of Presbyterian ministers, I now call upon him for the particular facts, on which he founds his charge. He has pru dently declined cousidering the angmentation of R. D. as affecting Presbyterian principles: but that subject is taken up by your correspondent R. with what propriety or success, we shall see presently. R. begins in a very high and lofty tone, by affirming, that no consistent Presbyterian would have asked the question, put by Simplex, which implies, that no condition in the late grants of R. D. encroaches on the discipline, or rights of the presbyterian church; for, adds he, no one can seriously contend " astical priviliges and authority, yet one man, merely from possessing superior powers of understanding or of elocution, will have greater Jufluence than another. The disparity of rank produced by classification therefore, is not inconsistent with presbyterian principles: because a similar disparity must ne cessarily exist in every state of the church. I do not pretend to say that the system of classification is a good one. I originally thought and do still think that the equalizing system would have been betters but for very different reasons from those assigned by R. and which it is not necessary for me at present to enumerate. By the bye, it may not be amiss to inform R. that he is incorrect in his account of the classification. The bounty is given not in two por tions of £100, and 50, as he states, but in three and sixty-two ministers receive 100 per annum, 62, 751. and 62, 50. Further, I contend, that minis ters becoming more independent of their people than formerly is not at variance either with the principles they profess, or the constitution of the church. First, however, I must observe, that this greater independence, which some have so migh tily insisted upon, as prejudicial to the presbyterian interest, is really much misrepresented. It is well known that money has greatly diminished in value, within the last 50 or 60 years insomuch that the augmen Lation of bounty has done little more than obviate the effect of that diminution. And if in any congre gation a cry arose (though I do not believe there did,) that there was now no occasion to increase the stipend, but rather a propriety in diminishing it, in consequence of the augmentation of bounty, the people must have been-most-gross ly and absurdly ignorant of the rank which it is right the clergy should hold in society, as well as of the necessities of the times. Every necessary of life has increased in price perhaps a third or more, in the last 50 years and even in the matter of education alone, how ex tremely expensive is it to qualify a young man for any of the learned professions, now, compared with what it was, 15 or 20 years ago! A minister even of the first class, with all that can be reasonably ex pected from his congregation; wilk find it a sufficiently difficult matter to educate a family of five or six children in a liberal manner, especi ally if any are designed for the learned professions, unless he has something else to depend on than his stipend and bounty. It must appear therefore, that ministers are not so independent of their people now, any more than formerly, when the R. D. was only 321. per annum as to undervalue their contributions, or to think of relaxing their exer tions in the discharge of their duty, because they no longer require their support, When R. is informed that in the Scottish church the ministers are not paid by the people, and that, except in the relief church, the people do not even choose their own pastors, he will find, he has "totally mista ken the nature, and misapprehended the spirit of Presbyterianism." The mode of choosing and paying ministers, forms no necessary part of Presbyterianism. At the same time, consider our plan a better one than that of the Scottish establish ment. And notwithstanding the exception made by some very sincere men to R. D. in any form, so far from considering it an evil, I am in cliued to think it has always tended to promote the Presbyterian interest. In • 8Q far as it has contributed to raiser alty; and that the spirit of the oath of allegiance on the contrary, requires, that they should support the liberties of their country, in opposition to all, who, by corrupt measures, would destroy the native influence of our excellent constitution, and consequently tarnish the lustre of the British crown. that it is agreeable to presbyterian principles." Now, sir, I am one, who, in opposition to such dogmas tical assertions, will contend that the conditions of the late grant of R. D. are agreeable to presbyterian principles and that parity of rank amongst the pastors, and an unbiassed choice of their pastors or ministers by the people," are not "some of the essentials of a pres byterian church." In the kirk of Scotland, which is strictly a presbyterian church, the ministers are not chosen by the people. And it may be proper to inform R. that the great principle of distinction between the presbyterians and episcopalians, is, that the former in opposition to the latter, maintain, that the church should be governed by presbyteries, synods and (as in the kirk of Scotland,) by general assemblies. If parity of rauk were essential to a presbyterian church, there never could have been a presbyterian church at all. For as congregations differ widely from one another in size and opulence, the stipend given to ministers must, of course, be larger in some congregations than others :-and even in private property; some ministers are greatly; richer than others, so that in this kind of rank, there must ever be a disparity in the presbyterian church: But there must also, of necessity, be a disparity of rank in respect of intellectual acquirements, ability in the discharge of ministerial duties, and general consequence in society. For one minister has naturally better powers than another, or has enjoyed the advantages of a better education. But I will even go farther, and say, that even at Presbyterian and synodical meetings, there must unavoidably be some disparity among ministers.For although it is necessary that they should possess equal ecclesi And With respect to the comparative degrees of patriotism existing among the dissenting priesthood in 1782, and in the period since the augmeutation, I am at a loss for want of something more explicit, to understand the exact meaning of the writer of the retrospect. I fear that he and I differ very much in our ideas of patriotism. I conceive, that true and rational loyalty is, by no means inconsistent with patriotism. I am not aware that since the year 1803, when the R. D. was augment ed, the presbyterian ministers have, by any public act forfeited their pretentions to true patriotism. Nor do I believe that any change of political character, to the injury of patriotic principles, has appeared in the body at large, since that period. The author of the retrospect has brought a charge in general terms, against the body of Presbyterian ministers. I now call upon him for the particular facts, on which he founds his charge. He has prudently declined cousidering the angmentation of R. D. as affecting Presbyterian principles: but that subject is taken up by your correspondent R. with what propriety or success, we shall see presently. R. begins in a very high and lofty tone, by affirming, that no consistent Presbyterian would have would have asked the question, put by Simplex, which implies, that no condition in the late grants of R. D. encroaches on the discipline, or rights of the presbyterian church; for, adds he, no one can seriously contend |
