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elective and representative rights of the people are therefore denied, and the management of funds in a great measure withdrawn from their control.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 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:

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

'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 methodist 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,

*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.

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 might retain. A man may be a sincere and pious presbyterian, episcopalian, or baptist, and yet be unprepared for the amount of privations and sacrifices, and the surrender of certain privileges, which the methodist church demands.'

Again, our itinerant organization renders unnecessary any lay representation, either in the general or the annual conferences. To other churches, constructed on a different organic principle, such a representation may be necessary, for any thing we know to the contrary.'

Again, in proof of the working and success of their system, a contrast is presented between its success and that of the Protestant Methodist church. 'We need only remind the reader, that the Methodist Protestant church, organized specifically and purposely on so-called republican principles, in which a lay representation in the general and annual conferences is a fundamental element, has been in operation some twelve or fourteen years.'

As it regards the rights of the laity, it is also said. 'Now we admit to the full extent, the alleged peculiarity. The constitution of methodism, is such as to demand a relinquishment of the privilege of choosing a pastor. The people actually have no voice in the selection of their spiritual guides. And this peculiarity, so far from being a late discovery, is just as old as methodism. It

has been from the very beginning the main centre of our strength.'

We wage no quarrel with our methodist brethren. They are cut loose from all European influence. They are, we doubt not, heart and hand' republicans in civil matters. They have all right, humanly speaking, to frame their own code of discipline; to restrict its supreme power to their ministry, and to deny it to the people, so long as it shall appear to the people to be for the common advantage of the church that it should be so. And truly they have accomplished wonderful things, for which we are glad. But when our methodist brethren claim comparison with us, and superiority to us, on the ground of the republican character of our respective systems, we must maintain, that the essential principles of republicanism, before mentioned, are found wanting in the methodist polity, while they are prominent in our own. Neither can we believe, that the marvellous success of this denomination is to be attributed to its constitution, so far as it is 'opposed to republicanism,'* but to the zeal, energy, and devoted piety with which they have proclaimed the gospel. And we must believe, that the adaptation of their system to that republican form laid down, as we think, in the scriptures, would immeasurably increase, and not diminish, their power to do good. Thus much we say in all kindNeither should we have said any thing, had we not been called upon to do so, by these recent and repeated efforts to produce a contrary impression. With our brethren of the Methodist Episcopal churches we desire to cultivate the kindliest relations, and a growing harmony and coöperation in every good word and work.

ness.

*See extract at p. 15.

SECTION II.

Presbytery more republican than the Protestant Episcopal church.

We pass on to consider the superiority of the presbyterian polity to that of the Protestant Episcopal church in these United States. Before, however, proceeding to remark upon its present constitution, we feel it but justice to ourselves to make some reference to its past history. And while, we would again say, that nothing can be further from our intention than to impute to the prelates, clergy, or members of the episcopal church in this country, an anti-republican spirit, or any want of the most devoted attachment to the interests of the commonwealth; or insincerity in their avowal, that, as they regard it, the ecclesiastical polity of their church is in perfect keeping with the genius of republicanism; yet we may be allowed to state, that very opposite views of the necessary tendency of that system have been insisted upon by its ablest advocates. Of this declaration, we will present one pregnant illustration, taken from the work of Doctor Chandler, in which he very ably advocated the then unpopular scheme of an American episcopate. After going through an examination of the religious grounds, upon which the propriety of this scheme was based, he proceeds to show, that considerations of a political nature were of themselves sufficient to decide the question, whether or not bishops should be introduced into America. He says,✶ But, notwithstanding, episcopacy and monarchy are, in their frame and constitution, best suited to each other. Episcopacy can never thrive in a republican government, nor republican principles in an episcopal

* Appeal on behalf of the Ch. of Eng. in America, N. York, 1767. p. 115.