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, however, 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.

266

September 1824.

It may be right to add, that soon after the publication of this ADDRESS, a revision of the tracts of the Society was directed to be undertaken by a general board, and a Committee appointed for that purpose. The Report presented afterwards by the Committee denied, indeed, that they had found any contradictions to be involved in the language of the older tracts and that of Dr. Mant; but distinctly admitted all that the ADDRESS contended for; that the term Regeneration was employed in them sometimes in a strict liturgical sense for the grace conveyed in Baptism; and sometimes in a more enlarged and popular sense for the renewal and conversion of the heart generally. It abstained from any direct approbation of the obnoxious tract of Dr. Mant.

About the same time, a new edition of Dr. Mant's Tract was published, in which the most objectionable expressions, all those indeed on which the controversy turned, were expunged or modified.

In how strong a manner the old writers most in repute in our Church differed from the persons who guided in the publication of the Society's Tracts at this time, was further apparent from the circumstance, that in transferring a comment upon a passage in Ezekiel from Dr. Lowth's pages to those of the Family Bible, the word Regeneration was expunged, and another and softer word substituted, without the slightest authority or explanation. The alteration was retracted on an expostulation being made at the General Board.