ADVERTISEMENT.

THE volume now presented to the public in a new dress has been considered by many of the most learned divines not only as a rare exhibition of patient and impartial investigation, but, in its leading facts, a true representation of the government and usages of the primitive church. But it is rendered especially interesting to the Methodists as the instrument of breaking down the high church prejudices of Mr. John Wesley, and so of preparing the way for the distinct organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States.

In his Journal for January 20, 1746, Mr. Wesley says, "I set out for Bristol. On the road I read over Lord King's account of the primitive church. In spite of the vehement prejudice of my education, I was ready to believe that his was a fair and impartial draught; but if so, it would follow that bishops and presbyters are (essentially) of one order; and that, originally, every Christian congregation was a church independent on all others."

Thirty-eight years after the above was written, in his letter "to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and the brethren in North America," dated Bristol, September 10, 1784, Mr. Wesley says, "Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me, many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been importuned from time to time to exercise this right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But I have still refused, not only for peace' sake, but because I was determined, as little

as possible, to violate the established order of the national Church to which I belonged."

Our venerated founder was thoroughly read in the history and monuments of the primitive church, and perfectly intimate with the writings of the fathers, upon which the conclusions of Lord King are founded. And that such a mind-one so well stored with classical learning and the records of antiquity-should be so affected by a perusal of this book, is certainly not a little in favour both of its facts and reasoning.

It must however be borne in mind, that Mr. Wesley called no man father, upon earth; and in several instances, in the organization of the connection, he departed from what Lord King supposes the primitive practice. In one point, (and that is a very important one,) Mr. Wesley's system is more strictly apostolic than the draught of the "Primitive Church" by our author. We refer to the connectional principle, acting through a general itinerant superintendency. Upon this point our author is not so satisfactory, and incautious readers need to be put on their guard.

When he asserts that there was "but one bishop in a church," his meaning must be restricted to those primitive churches or congregations in populous places which assembled in "one place." These churches expanded until it became necessary to divide and subdivide them, and so the appropriate officers were multiplied to meet the emergency. There were certainly several εñɩσкoñоí, bishops, in the church of Ephesus in the apostles days. (See Acts xx, 17, 28.) Bishops in primitive times were properly pastors; and as their age or eminent holiness entitled them to more than ordinary respect, for the edification of the body they were by general consent invested with a jurisdiction over the ordinary pastors and their flocks; but this did not constitute them a different order from that of presbyters.

The following question and answer, taken from the Minutes of the conference of 1745, will present this subject in its proper light, and clearly show Mr. Wesley's views.

"Quest. Is Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent church government most agreeable to reason? Ans. The plain origin of church government seems to be this :Christ sends forth a person to preach the gospel: some of those who hear him, repent and believe in Christ: they then desire him to watch over them, to build them up in faith, and to guide their souls into paths of righteousness. Here, then, is an independent congregation, subject to no pastor but their own; neither liable to be controlled, in things spiritual, by any other man or body of men whatsoever. But soon after some from other parts, who were occasionally present while he was speaking in the name of the Lord, beseech him to come over and help them also. He complies, yet not till he confers with the wisest and holiest of his congregation; and, with their consent, appoints one who has gifts and grace to watch over his flock in his absence. If it please God to raise another flock in the new place before he leaves them, he does the same thing, appointing one whom God hath fitted for the work to watch over these souls also. In like manner, in every place where it pleases God to gather a little flock by his word, he appoints one, in his absence, to take the oversight of the rest, to assist them as of the ability which God giveth.

"These are deacons, or servants of the church; and they look upon their first pastor as the common father of all these congregations, and regard him in the same light, and esteem him still as the shepherd of their souls. These congregations are not strictly independent, as they depend upon one pastor, though not upon each other.

"As these congregations increase, and the deacons grow

in years and grace, they need other subordinate deacons, or helpers, in respect of whom they may be called presbyters or elders, as their father in the Lord may be called the bishop or overseer of them all."

To this we add the following view presented by Dr. Stillingfleet:

"When there was but one congregation in a church, it was necessary, if it had any church power, that it must be lodged in that one congregation: but when this congregation was multiplied into many more, is it not as necessary, for their mutual government, there should be a common power governing them together as a joint society? Besides, the first congregational church in the New Testament, viz., that of Jerusalem, could be no particular organical church; for it had many, if not all, universal officers in it; and if they were the fixed pastors of that church, they could not, according to the principles of those who thus speak, preach to any other congregation but their own, by virtue of their office: and so, either their apostolical office and commission must be destroyed, if they were pastors of particular organical churches; or, if their apostolical office be asserted, their pastorship of particular organical churches is destroyed by their own principles, who assert that the pastor of a church can do no pastoral office out of his own congregation. The case is the same as to other churches planted by the apostles, and governed by themselves; which two, as far as I can find in the New Testament, were of an equal extent; viz., that all the churches planted by apostles were chiefly governed by themselves, though they had subordinate officers under them. These first churches then were not such particular organized churches, but they were as the first matter of many congregations to be propagated out of them; which after made one society, consisting of those several congregations embodied together, and ruled by one common