worship erected, at Wiltown and "three of the Maritime Islands," and subsequently at Jacksonburg, Indiantown, Pon Pon, or Walterborough, Port Royal, and Williamsburg.1

In 1710, a letter from South Carolina, published in London, stated that there were in the colony five. churches of British Presbyterians. Some of these may subsequently have become extinct. The church on Edisto Island dates from 1717; that of Pon Pon, or Walterborough, of which Stobo, on leaving Charleston, became pastor, from 1728; those on John's and James's Islands from 1734 or 1735; that of Wiltown was many years anterior; while the Independent Presbyterian Church of Stoney Creek dates from 1743. The five early churches must have been those of Charleston, Dorchester, perhaps Wiltown or Edisto, and one or more on the Maritime Islands.

The pastors were obtained for the most part, if not in every instance, from Scotland. The Presbytery regarded itself as a portion of the Scotch Kirk, and looked to it for a supply for its pulpits. The presence in the colony of "ignorant" and "fanatic" men who assumed the right to preach, but who were regarded by the members of the Presbytery in the light of ranters, made them jealous as to the character of those whom they admitted to their pulpits or to the care of their vacant churches, In full sympathy, as we have reason to believe, with the Moderates of the Church of Scotland, it would not have been strange if

1 Williamsburg was founded by a colony of Irish in 1734.— Simms's South Carolina, 132.

2 Dr. Howe's Historical Discourse.

3 In 1705, Henry Brown obtained a grant for three hundred acres of land, which in 1717 he conveyed to certain persons "in trust for the benefit of a Presbyterian clergyman in Edisto Island." -Hodge, i. 58.

their antipathy to the revivalists of the New side-who may have penetrated into what the former considered their exclusive domain-should have led them to class the intruders with ignorant fanatics.

The successors of Stobo and Livingston,' Alexander Hewatt (1763-1776) and George Buist (1793-1808), were, like himself, natives of Scotland, and were there educated and ordained. At the request of the Church, addressed to ministers in that country, the last two, at least, were sent out to supply the pulpit. Hewatt was a man of learning, ability, and no little of kindly feeling. To his congregation he ever remained strongly attached. Among them for twelve years he continued his labors, till the near prospect of war with the mother-country led him, as is supposed, to return to Scotland. In 1779, he published in London his History of South Carolina.

His successor, Buist, was sent out, at the request of the Church, by Principal Robertson and Dr. Blair, of Scotland. They pronounced him from their own. acquaintance to be "a good scholar, an instructive preacher, well bred, and of a good natural temper." The recommendation is characteristic of the moderatism of its authors. Nor did he on his arrival in this country belie the assurance given in regard to his

1 Stobo (Dr. Howe's Historical Discourse) was succeeded at Charleston by Livingston; or rather Livingston, I suspect, took charge of the Scotch Church when formed in 1730, and Stobo withdrew from Charleston to one of the country churches. The labors of the latter continued until as late at least as 1740, in which year the slave insurrection took place. When the intelligence of it reached Wiltown, he was preaching at the church, whither the men, according to custom, had come armed. To this fact the prompt and successful suppression of the insurrection was due. How much longer Stobo lived, we have not the means to determine. Howe and Smythe both speak of Livingston as Stobo's successor; but the fact is probably as stated above.

qualifications. He was a man of original genius, an eminent classical scholar, and an impressive preacher. He took charge of the church in 1793, and in 1805 was appointed Principal of the Charleston College,-a post for which he was eminently fitted. It was during his pastorate (1805), and not improbably at his instance, that the Presbytery with which he was connected petitioned to be received by the General Assembly. They were not disposed, however, to unite themselves with the Synod of the Carolinas. Their sympathies, if fairly represented by men like Hewatt and Buist, whom the moderates of the Church of Scotland could commend, were not very strongly in the direction of the revival in which the churches of the Synod had so recently and so largely shared. The petition was one which the Synod, therefore, for very obvious reasons, opposed. They drew up a remonstrance (Oct. 1805) to the Assembly against the reception of a Presbytery which declined to unite itself first with the Synod within whose bounds it properly belonged, and pronounced the proposed measure unconstitutional and reflecting upon the Synod.

Here the matter rested until 1811. In that year the Presbytery renewed its request to be united with the General Assembly. The prayer of the petitioners was

1 The Presbytery of South Carolina received quite a number of members from New England and the Presbyterian Church long before its connection with the Assembly. William Richardson, in 1760, was dismissed from New York Presbytery to South Carolina Presbytery. In 1768, James Latta, from Philadelphia Presbytery, united with the same body. In 1770, John Maltby, of New York Presbytery, also united with it. In 1768, Dr. McWhorter was appointed by the Synod to correspond with the South Carolina Presbytery; and in 1770 the latter body proposed to unite with the Synod. The troubles of the Revolution doubtless interfered with the execution of the project. See Synod's Minutes, 307, 378,

granted, but on such conditions that the Synod had no longer any reason to object. These conditions were the adoption, by the members of Presbytery, of the Confession of Faith and Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, and a compromise or union with the Presbytery of Harmony, subject to the review and control of the Synod.

CHAPTER XIII.

"OLD REDSTONE," 1776-1793.

THE treaty of peace between England and France in 1762, opened to colonial enterprise and immigration the vast territory to the west of the Alleghanies, which France had hitherto claimed, and of which Fort Pitt was one of the defences. Almost immediately settlers began to find their way across the mountains, and in the course of a few years a population of thousands had extended the frontiers of civilization to the vicinity of the Ohio. The emigrants came mainly from Eastern Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the North of Ireland.1 A large proportion of them were Presbyterians, baptized and brought up in the bosom of the Church, and some of them, before their emigration, members of its communion. For the most part, they were a bold and hardy race. Only strong men, physically and morally, would have braved the hardships they freely encountered, the hardships not only of the pioneer settler, but those of danger from Indian hostilities.

Almost at the same time that the preliminaries of

1 Old Redstone, p. 52.

peace were signed at Fontainebleau,-in fact, only thirteen days afterward,-the "Corporation for poor and distressed Presbyterian ministers" agreed to appoint some of their members to wait on the Synod at its next meeting, and in their name request "that missionaries might be sent to the distressed frontier inhabitants, report their distresses, learn what new congregations were forming," what was necessary to promote the spread of the gospel among them, and discover what opportunities there might be of missionary work among the Indian tribes. Messrs. Charles Beatty and John Brainerd-brother of the missionary -were accordingly appointed, and provision was made for their absence for several months. But the whole design of the mission was frustrated by the breaking out of the Indian War. French hostility, no longer open and avowed, still instigated its former savage allies to the work of vengeance. The whole country west of Shippensburg was ravaged. Houses, barns, corn, hay, and every thing combustible, were burned. The wretched inhabitants, surprised at their labor, at their meals, or in their beds, were massacred with the utmost cruelty and brutality, and those of them who escaped might almost envy the fate of those who had fallen. Overwhelmed by the common calamity, terrified by danger, reduced by want and fatigue to a state of exhaustion, famished, shelterless, without the means of transportation, their tardy flight was delayed by "fainting women and weeping children." "On July 25, 1763, there were at Shippensburg thirteen hundred and eighty-four poor distressed back inhabitants, many of whom were obliged to lie in barns, stables, cellars, and under old leaky sheds, the dwelling-houses being all crowded."2

1 Old Redstone, p. 113.

2 Hist. West. Penn.