to the loose and generalizing notions of some modern interpreters, (with the view of accommodating the word to those multifarious separations from the Church, which they appear interested to support) "consists not in the visible union of members in one community, but in that great unity of the members of Christ's body, dispersed over all parts of the earth, visibly united to communities of different persuasions."* Now, though we do not take upon ourselves to explain how the members of Christ's body, the Church, which is described "as a city that is at unity in itself,"+ can be visibly united to "communities of different persuasions,” and still remain members of a community united in itself, (because we have always regarded the union and division of the same body as conditions impossible, in the nature of things, to co-exist) yet we may be considered as discharging a part of our duty to the reader, in thus furnishing him with a specimen of that confusion of ideas, and misconstruction of meaning, by which so many sincere, though unsuspecting Christians, are continually led away from the plain unsophisficated language of their bibles; which, if suffered to speak for itself, would rarely fail to preserve them sound members of the Church. Impressed by a deep and repeated attention to the principles of the present times, and looking almost with an eye of despondency to that destruction of establishments, which such principles, if *Critical Review, March 1799, on the "Guide to the Church." + Psalm cxxii. 3. not timely counteracted, must ultimately effect; I feel myself, as a Minister of the Church, justified in bringing forward to the consideration of every serious and thinking man the important subject of the following work. In this mind, opposing patient investigation, Christian firmness and charity, to hastiness of decision, to ignorance and slander, I have taken the ground on which a Minister of the Church of England ought to stand; and on which, provided he be not wanting to himself, he may ever stand firm; by defending our Ecclesiastical government on the high ground of Apostolical Institution. The language made use of for the purpose has been that, which I have for the most part learned from my mother, the Church; a language, which were I, in times like the present, to withhold for fear of giving offence, I should be unworthy the character in which I glory, that of being her dutiful son. In stating the authority derived from the Apostles to those sacred persons to whom the ministry of reconciliation has been committed, my object has been to press on the minds of my readers the importance of the enquiry heretofore suggested by the judicious Hooker:› "Whether, as we are to believe for ever the articles of Evangelical Doctrine, so the precepts of Discipline we are not in the like sort bound for ever to observe?" It is not, I will venture to say, from an improper prejudice in favour of names and distinctions, nor from a narrow notion that the affairs of Christ's kingdom may not be administered under any of con government different from that which has been actually established, that my conclusion on this subject has been drawn; but from the settled conviction, that what Divine Wisdom ordains, must, in this as in every other case, be best calculated to promote the object which Divine Goodness has in view. It being, therefore, in our judgment at least, a matter capable of demonstration, that the Apostolic constitution of the Church was the provision made, under the Christian dispensation, for the preservation of true religion in the world; for this reason it is, that we look up to the circumstantials of order and government as they exist in the Episcopal Church of this country, (considered as a branch of the Catholic Church of Christ) as to means divinely appointed for the purpose ducing to that important end. And it is to be deeply lamented, that Christians of the present day seem, for the most part, not to be acquainted with the fundamental constitution of the Church; nor sufficiently to have attended to the consequences of rebellion against it, to be duly sensible of its value. It is, however, incumbent on us to remark, what the testimony of almost three centuries has now proved, that to the establishment of the Apostolic constitution of the Church in this country, we are, under Providence, indebted for the maintenance of primitive truth among us, assailed as it has been by every mode of attack, and by every diversity of sect. And it is to the possession of this Establishment (provided the Clergy of it be faithful to their important trust, and the members of it manifest a due regard for that Christian unity which the Apostles so solemnly enjoined) that this country will be indebted for the preservation of that character, which the general voice of Europe once conferred upon it, of being the Eye of the Reformation; and our excellent Church continue, what at that period it was deservedly considered to be, the glory of all churches. My Preface might here conclude; sufficient, it is presumed, having been said in it to demonstrate the importance of the subject which it is intended to introduce. But as there are some words frequently employed in a perverted sense, which, by creating an undue impression on the mind, thereby prevent that fair enquiry into certain subjects which might ultimately establish truth, I crave indulgence whilst I detain my reader a few moments longer. It is common with the world to pay more attention to names than to things; and writers are never wanting to take advantage of this too general weakness, by making the language of popular impression their substitute for that of sound reasoning and legitimate proof; a specious kind of writing, perfectly well suited to the indolence of the present readers, who, generally speaking, have neither time, patience, nor candour of mind, fairly to examine received opinions to the bottom. In consequence of this degradation of the mental powers, should a Divine in these days venture to write on professional subjects, as a sound member of the Church may be expected to write; he must make his account to have his character stamped with the titles of bigot and high-churchman; titles which, whatever be their 66 a proper meaning, in the sense in which they are on such occasions to be taken, are certainly intended to disgrace the party to whom they are applied. But when, on turning to my dictionary, I find that under the article bigot, I am to understand, on the authority of Dr. Watts, man unreasonably devoted to a certain party or to certain opinions," I am at a loss to conceive with what propriety that title can attach to a Divine, whose opinions have been formed, not by any blind and unreasonable attachment to certain prejudices, but by the deliberate established judgment of the Church of which he is a member; a judgment which itself stands on the broad and firm ground of Scripture and primitive antiquity. And if the title of high-churchman conveys any meaning beyond that of a decided and principled attachment to the Apostolic government of the Church, as originally established under the direction of the Holy Spirit by its divine Founder, (from whom alone a commission to minister in holy things can properly be derived) it is a meaning for which those must be answerable who understand and maintain it; the sense annexed to that title, in my mind, containing in it nothing but that in which every sound minister of the Church of England ought to glory. And when it is considered, that that constitution of the Christian Church, for which we manifest our reverence, and in defence of which we have ventured to commit ourselves to the public, has |