as the tract of the Bishop treats the precise subject of Dr. Mant's tract in a directly contrary manner, and was not only printed, in the first instance, at the express desire of the Society, but, so late as 1811, was strongly recommended, by a separate advertisement, to the attention of the members, as a judicious and scriptural discourse. This transaction, whilst it fully, though tacitly, admits the charge of inconsistency, seems only to increase the real evil of the case; for, while it leaves above forty more books and tracts in undiminished hostility to Dr. Mant, it shows that the adoption and circulation of his novel doctrines is the effect, not of inadvertence, which might otherwise have been alleged as the excuse, but of design.

What has taken place, therefore, renders the present appeal the more necessary, because it suggests the reasonable apprehension that it is but the commencement of a series of measures for gradually changing the language of all the old books and tracts; or perhaps getting rid of them entirely, in order to produce a conformity with the new doctrines which have recently been promulgated. Thus the creed of the Society-a society so closely connected with the Established Church, the Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies of which remain the same-will be essentially altered. And if at one time the Society's various tracts may be changed to suit the

statements of Dr. Mant on one fundamental article of our faith, at another the same writings may be submitted to a similar process, to accommodate some new variation of opinion on the same or some other equally fundamental doctrine. In this way may all the great foundations of Christianity be secretly but effectually undermined. What mischiefs such variations must produce, while the fixed creed of our church, to which all the clergy have subscribed, remains as the witness of our dishonour, I need not point out!

But here another question occurs. With what propriety are these hazardous changes made in tracts which the Society has solemnly, and after due deliberation, admitted and for many years retained on its list? Unimportant improvements in style, after a lapse of years, may fairly be admitted. But to make the productions of former Archbishops and Bishops, perhaps the very founders of the Society itself, speak, even on important doctrines, a language the reverse of what was intended, and then to circulate the tracts thus altered as the works of the original writers, is surely a proceeding of no common temerity.

Nor is it an unimportant consideration in this discussion, that the venerable names of all the archbishops and bishops of our church are implicated in the proceedings of this great So

ciety. And though it cannot be supposed that their high duties admit of their devoting much time to the detail of its concerns, it is, how-ever, on that very account, the more incumbent on the Society to avoid such incautious variations in its religious instructions, as must infallibly compromise their credit and consistency. In the present instance, Dr. Mant's tract comes forth apparently sanctioned by their authority. The forty or fifty books and tracts which oppose Dr. Mant, enjoy the same privilege: and thus are the highest authorities of our church unhappily involved in the contradictions of the body which they patronize.

It is no small aggravation of this distressing case, that the Society should have adopted the step of transmitting Dr. Mant's tract as the exclusive companion of its last Annual Report; thus diffusing in the widest manner, and with the highest sanction, the evidence of its own inconsistency.

Notwithstanding, however, the extraordinary honours conferred on this publication, the evil likely to arise from it may still be remedied, by expunging it from the Society's list. It will become, indeed, a grave subject of consideration, in what manner the recurrence of similar evils may be prevented. On this point I mean not to enter. But, unquestionably, the contradictions which now deform the Society's tracts

must be removed, and removed speedily and effectually, if the Society is to continue the same. The circumstances of the times forbid us to hope that it will receive the same cordial support, if it should be once understood that it propagates error; which must be the case so long as broad and palpable contradictions are permitted to exist in the doctrine of its tracts. Other societies have sprung up during the last few years, which are rapidly rising into distinction one or other of which embraces almost every domestic object of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge. Surely, then, it becomes this Society to exercise a more than ordinary circumspection; for in no other way can it continue to enjoy that pre-eminent share of the public esteem on which its prosperity rests. If it is still to be the leading body in the great efforts of mercy now going on in the world, it must stand forth in the attire of consistency and truth. No large mass of voluntary subscribers can long be kept together by any other conduct.

I need not, I apprehend, do more than allude in this place to the unfavourable light in which the Society's late proceedings with regard to Dr. Mant's tract must tend to place the Church of England in her controversies with the dissenters from her communion. Already has a most injurious use been made of the cir

cumstance. And unless the Society shall vindicate its own consistency, it is unnecessary to say what advantages the opponents of our apostolical church will derive from the contradictory interpretations of a Society which includes so large a portion of her ministers.

But from these and similar topics I purposely abstain; my sole object being to solicit most earnestly the attention of the general body of subscribers to what appears to me a fatal inconsistency, on a fundamental article of faith, in the Society's publications. A sincere regard for the interests of that Society, and an ardent wish for the increasing and permanent prosperity of that church with which it is so closely connected, have dictated these observations; and I the more earnestly press them on the consideration of its members, from a full persuasion that the speedy and effectual removal of the evil which they point out, while it is imperiously called for by a regard to the interests of true religion in this country, is essentially and indispensably necessary to the respectability and continued usefulness of the Society'.

It may be proper to mention, that the above Address was suggested by the publications of the Rev. J. Scott, of

Hull, and the Rev. T. T. Biddulph, of Bristol, in reply to Dr. Mant's Tract. From the Appendix of the latter work the extracts from the Society's former publications are given; not, however, without being first compared with the original books and tracts.