pen in the house. He that will not respond to its accents, and strain every nerve to carry into effect its provisions, is unworthy the name of a freeman. For my own part, of property I have some of reputation, more. That reputation is staked, that property is pledged, on the issue of this contest. And although these gray hairs must soon descend into the sepulchre, I would infinitely rather they should descend thither by the hands of the public executioner, than desert, at this crisis, the sacred cause of my country.' Who was it that uttered this memorable speech,-potent in turning the scales of the nation's destiny, and worthy to be preserved in the same imperishable record in which is registered the not more eloquent speech ascribed to John Adams, on the same sublime occasion? 'It was John Witherspoon-at that day the most distinguished presbyterian minister west of the Atlantic ocean-the father of the presbyterian church in the United States.'*

An inquiry into the matter would show, by an actual biography of the veterans of the revolution, that a large proportion of them were connected with the presbyterian church. Without attempting to make such an investigation, we will merely mention the following facts which have incidentally fallen into our hands in reference to South Carolina.

The battles of the 'Cowpens,' of 'King's Mountain'-and also the severe skirmish known as 'Huck's Defeat,' are among the most celebrated in this State, as giving a turning point to the contest of the revolution. General Morgan, who commanded at the Cowpens, was a presbyterian elder, and lived and died in the communion of the church. General Pickens, who made all the arrangements for the battle, was also a presbyterian elder. And nearly all under their command were presbyterians. In the battle of King's Mountain, Colonel Campbell, Colonel James Williams, (who fell in the action,) Colonel Cleaveland, Colonel Shelby, and Colonel Sevier, were all presbyterian elders; and the body of their troops were collected from presbyterian settlements. At Huck's Defeat, in York, Colonel Bratton and Major Dickson, were both elders of the presbyterian church. Major Samuel Morrow, who was with Colonel Sumpter in four engagements, and at King's Mountain, Blackstock's, and other battles, and whose home was in the army till the termination of hostilities, was, for about fifty years, a ruling elder of the presbyterian church.§

These facts we have collected from high authority, and they deserve to be prominently noticed. Here are ten officers of distinction, all bearing rule in the church of Christ-and all bearing arms in defence of our liberties. Braver and better

*Rev. J. M. Krebs.

§He died in Spartanburg district, S. C., in Feb. 1842, aged 82.

officers cannot be found in the annals of our country-nor braver or better troops.

It may also be mentioned in this connection, that Marion, Huger, and other distinguished men of revolutionary memory, were of Huguenot, that is, full-blooded presbyterian, descent.

'A presbyterian loyalist,' says Mr. William B. Reed, himself an episcopalian, 'was a thing unheard of. Patriotic clergymen of the established church were exceptions to general conduct; for while they were patriots at a sacrifice, and in spite of restraints and imaginary obligations, which many found it impossible to disregard, it was natural sympathy and voluntary action, that placed the dissenters under the banner of revolutionary redress. It is a sober judgment, which cannot be questioned, that, had independence and its maintenance depended on the approval and ready sanction of the colonial episcopal clergy, mis-rule and oppression must have become far more intense, before they would have seen a case of justifiable rebellion. The debt of gratitude which independent America owes to the dissenting clergy and laity, never can be paid.'†

tAddress before the Philomathean Society, Philad. 1838, pp. 59, 60.

CHAPTER IV.

PRESBYTERY MORE REPUBLICAN THAN OTHER FORMS OF CHRIS

TIAN POLITY.

It remains that we should say something on the comparative claims to the character of republicanism, of our own and other ecclesiastical systems. Comparisons are always odious. We shall, therefore, discharge the incumbent duty now forced upon us, with as much lenity and despatch as truth and justice will admit.

Passing by the minor differences existing between the presbyterian church, strictly so called, and other denominations. essentially agreeing with it, and who may be properly included. under the general term presbytery, we will institute a claim of partial superiority to our brethren of the Methodist Episcopal church; of still greater to the Protestant Episcopal church in these United States, and an entire superiority to the system patronized by the high-church prelatists, and established among their Roman Catholic brethren.

In making this comparison, we must bear in mind one rule of simple and unquestionable authority in the premises. To deny the first principles of any system is to deny that system; however, in less important points, there may be agreement with it. The rights of particular nations cannot subsist,' says Sydney, if general principles, contrary to them, are received as true.' And in like manner, we must conclude, that ecclesiasti

systems, embodying principles contrary to those which are fundamental to republicanism, or which fail to recognize those principles, are in their measure contrary to it, or irreconcilable with it.

SECTION I.

The system of presbytery more republican than the polity of the Methodist Episcopal church.

We confess, that in pursuing the articles on 'the republicanism of methodist polity,' already referred to,* we were led to entertain a higher opinion of the system, than we had previ

*Disc. on Govt. ch. i. § 4.

These were first printed in "The Christian Advocate,' and republished in The Southern Christian Advocate.'

ously cherished. There are many things in which an analogy may be drawn out between methodism and republicanism, and there is much in it adapted to the popular mind. In its doctrine of the ministry, it is essentially presbyterian, for while it admits of bishops as superintendents, it teaches that there is but one ORDER of ministers, and that these are, in order, equal to the rest. To this doctrine it has fully committed itself by the republication, under its own sanction, of the works of Lord King, and Mr. Powell. Under the name of an office, however, it attributes to its bishops very unlimited powers. And the question, therefore, is, whether this analogy will hold in regard to those principles which are fundamental to a republic, and not merely in those which are secondary in their importance, or common to it with other forms of government.

Now among the principles which are fundamental to the very existence of a republic we found these.

1. The equality of all its members, implying that the laws are made equally by all, acting through their representatives, and that none are elevated to any station in which they can act or legislate, independently of the people.

2. The sovereign power of the people, as the source of all authority; their intervention in all public affairs; their election. of all officers; the consequent responsibility of all officers to them for the discharge of their duty, and the management of funds; and their knowledge and control, through their representatives, of all expenditures.

3. The extension of the right of suffrage, in the appointment of officers, to all capable of exercising it, or, in other words, the rights, privileges, and immunities of the laity.

These principles, among others, are essential to constitute any government fully republican. But are these found in the government and discipline of the Methodist Episcopal church? We think not; for the people, and a large portion of the clergy, have no participation in the legislative assemblies of the church; the people had no voice in the original constitution of the church, although the code of discipline was drawn up and framed by men; the people have no voice in the election, ordination, removal, or dismissal of ministers; the elective and representative rights of the people are therefore denied, and the management of funds in a great measure withdrawn from their control. We do not enter into particulars, although we might in all fairness do so, as, in the articles alluded to, there is a formal comparison of methodist polity with presbyterianism, on this very ground of their republican character. We are saved this trouble, however, by the admissions made in

The Primitive Govt. of the Church.

On the Apostolical Succession, which is a thorough presbyterian book.

some articles on 'the Methodist Church Government,' in 'the Southern Christian Advocate,'* by which it would appear that this system does not base its merits upon its republicanism, but upon other qualities. In reply to the charge of the anti-republican character of this polity, it is there said:

'But may we not reasonably object to have our ecclesiastical system tried by a standard with which it holds no common first principles? And may we not challenge the competency of the court which condemns us, when we find christianity itself subjected to the same condemnation? It is a master-axiom in our republican creed, that the popular will is the source of law. But we find in the statute-book of methodism a system of laws which did not originate in the will of the people. It follows, of course, that methodism is opposed to republicanism.'†

Again the editor says, 'it is not difficult to dispose of the objections based on such terms as, 'the equal and inalienable rights of the people'-'supreme legislature of the church'-'rights of methodist laymen,' and so forth. Here is the methorist church. Its ministers have offered to our acceptance doctrines and discipline which they claim, not as inventions of their own, but as the commands of Him who has said,' &c.

Now all this is very well; but a difficult question previously arises; when and where did Christ delegate power to the ministers alone to constitute themselves the church, to draw up 'methodism, doctrine, and discipline, as the clearest and best exposition and summary of what they believed to be in the Bible,' and then to offer this to God's people, without giving the great mass of the church any possible opportunity of exercising their rights in ascertaining what are the principles of the church, as laid down in the scriptures? What is this, but to make these travelling clergy the church, and to clothe them with the powers of the whole body of the faithful.

But again the editor says. 'Now, then, for the question of rights. There are natural rights, social rights, civil rights, christian rights, methodist rights. In this scale of rights, it will be seen, with half a glance, that social rights interfere to some extent with natural rights; and civil or political rights limit social; christian rights demand surrenders, which civil rights may not claim; and, last of all, methodist rights are limited, and tied down to sacrifices of natural, social and even christian rights, which are demanded by no other ecclesiastical system... And, finally, as a methodist, by the essential conditions of the system, he must, in limine, deliberately surrender what, as a christian of some other denomination, he

*See Dec. 23, 1842, and Jan. 6, 1843.

The editor goes on to show, that christianity is equally opposed to republicanism. How far this is the case, we leave our readers to determine. See our remarks in chap. i.

8-VOL. III.