the two parties into which the members of our Church are virtually, although not as yet ostensibly or avowedly, divided, are usually characterized by the distinctive appellations of 'Highchurch' and Evangelical.'

Alluding to the party-denominations of 'Whig' and Tory,' Bishop Burnet speaks of them as "terms that I have spoken much against, and have ever hated, but must employ to avoid making always a longer description." And the same necessity which constrained Bishop Burnet to have recourse to 'Whig' and 'Tory,' compels the Author to make use of 'High-church' and 'Evangelical ;' terms which he dislikes, and most unwillingly employs.

But inasmuch as the terms High-church' and 'Evangelical,' though very common and familiar, are, at the same time, but little understood; and since the unexplained and indeterminate use of common but ill-understood terms ever leads to confusion of thought, and often involves much of misconception and fallacy, the Author deems it expedient to particularize the meaning which he attaches to the terms adverted to when he employs

them to designate the parties into which the members of our Church are virtually divided.

There can be no doubt, then, that the primary and proper meaning of the word Evangelical,' is that of enunciatory of good tidings.' It is in that sense of the word that Isaiah is characterized as the evangelical Prophet.' But besides this its primary and proper signification, the term Evangelical' has a recognised secondary one. Works, for instance, which we term works of supererogation, are called by the Roman Catholics Evangelical works. And it is certain that when first employed to designate a party in the Church, the term evangelical was used in its secondary sense; because it is an indisputable fact, that it was originally made use of as a term of reproach, and as synonymous, or nearly so, with the sobriquet "too-good.'

Now, although it is very far from his intention to use the term 'Evangelical' in the invidious sense which was formerly attached to it; yet, when he employs it in the following pages, he uses it, the Author begs to intimate, in a sense which has no connection with its primary and proper significa

tion. It is simply because it is the most convenient, from being the most generally recognised appellation of the party of which he has occasion. to speak, and of the doctrines they profess, that the Author has adopted and employs the term Evangelical.'

The term High-church is usually, or at least frequently, employed to designate such as are zealously affected to the Church; or, in other words, those whose zeal for the Church is 'high' or fervent. But the genuine meaning of the term is very different. According to its proper and legitimate acceptation, it signifies high estimation of the Church; and can only properly be applied to those who believe in the Divine efficacy of her sacraments, the Apostolic succession of her prelates, and the sacred commission of her priesthood. It is in the latter and more legitimate signification of the term, that the word 'High-church' is made use of in the following pages. But to proceed.

Just as some imperceptible cause often fans smouldering embers into a flame, and creates a conflagration, before men are aware that there existed the slightest danger of any such

catastrophe: so, when the disconformity of opinion adverted to has occasioned an unavowed division in our Church, any incident, however trifling, may lead to open disunion, and cause an irreparable breach, at a moment when such a result was far from the contemplation of the parties.

Now it is clearly self-evident, that such a result --that a breach betwixt the Evangelical and Highchurch parties, or even the continuance of a disunion which precludes all cordiality between them, must (humanely speaking) be productive of the most lamentable consequences at a period like the present, in which our Church is assailed on all sides, by the most active and inveterate hostility.

Being thoroughly convinced of this, and finding, upon a perusal of the "Plain Tracts for Critical Times," that they directly, and most powerfully, tended to produce such a result, the Author has been led to attempt a refutation of their contents.

By making this attempt, the Author fears that he may possibly lay himself open to a charge of presumption, upon the ground that he, an anony

mous Layman, has taken upon himself to impugn a work published by a Union of Clergymen, upon a subject immediately within the sphere of their sacred profession. In answer to any such anticipated charge, the Author begs to allege that he has been emboldened to enter upon the adventurous attempt which he has made, by a strong conviction of the truth of the following dictum :

Αἰεὶ τ ̓ ἀληθῆ καὶ τὰ βελτίω τῇ φύσει εὐσυλλογικότερα καὶ πιθανώτερα,*

With respect to the Oxford Tracts, to which the Plain Tracts for Critical Times are stated to have "especial reference," the Author begs to observe that he has abstained from the perusal of them, for fear lest, by confusing his own conceptions with those of their authors, he might impair the distinctness of the views which he has long entertained upon the subject of baptismal regeneration. But, from what he has been able to collect, as to their character and import, from oral disquisitions of which they have formed the topic, and from various publications which incidentally refer to them, the Author has been led to conclude that

*Aris. Rhet. lib. i. 1.