collect ever so trifling a sum, even so small as a halfpenny, from each individual; which he shall send to the clergyman of his parish, to be forwarded by him to the Society in London. To bring this to bear, the clergy should make a point of preaching on the subject the Sunday before Christmas day, and explain simply and clearly, and in a way to be understood by the poor people, how they may make the collection. I mention this, because I have experienced that a mere general exhortation to do something in aid of this Society will avail nothing; the congregation not having understood even what I alluded to. Whereas, on the contrary, I have reason to know that the plain statement I made, when I last preached, had a good effect.

I beg further to repeat a suggestion which I made, briefly, on a former occasion. It is, that some one prepare a little history of the Societies, written in simple and plain language, interspersed with anecdotes relating to the manners and customs of the people among whom the missionaries have been sent:* such a work as may be ordered in a book-club, or placed on the shelf of a parish lending library. I recollect being much amused and instructed by some accounts I read of the missionaries sent by the Romish church. It strikes me that a brief account of what had been done in early times, by that and other churches, might be given in an interesting manner; which should be succeeded by one, of the operations of our own society, pointing out the superiority of the latter, &c. &c.

You, Mr. Editor, are probably acquainted with persons who have both ability and zeal to do this; if you succeed in persuading some one to undertake it, take care to impress upon their minds that they are not writing for their own fame, but for the honour and glory of God. Such a consideration will supply them with a motive for perseverance, and suggest that style of writing which may be acceptable to every class of readers. Trusting that these suggestions will meet with your approbation and support, I subscribe myself, &c., &c., A PARISH PRIEST.

ST. PAUL AT JERUSALEM.

6th January, 1834. SIR,-May I be permitted, through the medium of your valuable Magazine, to ask from one of your many learned readers, a suggestion or two upon a difficulty which occurs to my mind, relative to the conduct of St. Paul at Jerusalem, (see Acts xxi.) where, in compliance with the recommendation of the apostle, there resident, he conformed to the usages of the Jewish religion, in order (as it should seem) to satisfy the scruples of many of the Jews, or Judaizing Christians, who were still zealous for the law.

The conduct of St. Paul has been defended by the learned Witsius, with whom Mr. Townshend, in his Chronological Arrangement of the

Bishop Heber; and Murray, in his five volumes of Travels in Asia and Africa, will supply an abundant fund of anecdotes. It appears to me that an interesting compilation would answer every purpose, and not be so long in preparing for publication.

Scriptures, appears to agree. But the conduct, both of the apostle himself, and the presbytery at Jerusalem, has been censured by others, as sacrificing the truth of the Christian religion to the prejudices of Jewish zealots.-See Townshend, pp. 419, 420 of vol. ii.

The point which occasions the greatest difficulty to my mind, is how to reconcile St. Paul's ready conformity with the advice of the presbytery at Jerusalem, with his previous censure of St. Peter at Antioch. He not only publicly blamed that apostle for having accommodated himself to the feelings of the Judaizing Christians at Antioch, but, in his epistle to the Galatians, himself records the circumstance, asserting distinctly that Peter was to be blamed. Now surely, comparing the two circumstances together, it would seem, that St. Peter's conformity to the customs of the Jews was in a smaller matter than that of St. Paul at Jerusalem. The utmost that St. Paul charged him with, was withdrawing from the intercourse with the Gentiles at meals-which the apostle called dissimulation-a dissimulation with which he said even Barnabas was carried away. But in the compliance of St. Paul with the recommendation of the presbytery at Jerusalem, there was an open conformity with the Jewish ritual, a conformity undertaken to satisfy the scruples of the same description of persons, for pleasing whom he had previously blamed the Apostle St. Peter. I am unwilling to enter into any lengthened discussion on this subject, knowing how valuable the space allotted to contributions in your Magazine must be, but if you will allow my question to appear, it may perhaps elicit some opinion which may be valuable to the church. I do not feel, as the modern scholar mentioned by Witsius, at all shaken in my belief, for I conceive it to be only another proof of the wisdom of God in leading us to a humble estimate of our own characters, when we believe such men as the great apostles of the Lord liable to err, and occasionally exhibiting the effects of that fallen nature, which we all derive from our first parent.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your constant reader, A. C.

ON THE MARRIAGE SERVICE.

SIR,-It does not appear to be clearly stated in our Book of Common Prayer, whether the Christian name and surname, or the Christian name only, should be used in those parts of the Marriage Service which commence thus-M. Wilt thou have this woman; and I, M., take thee, N. The custom of many clergymen is, (and of myself amongst that number,) to make use of the Christian name only in those places, but I imagine it would be more correct and proper to make use both of the Christian name and surname.

The letters M. and N. in the Church Catechism, and in the Baptismal Service, are evidently intended for the Christian name only; while the same letters, when used in the directions for the publication of banns, relate both to the Christian name and surname. An answer from yourself, or some of your learned and critical corre

spondents, pointing out the proper substitutes, would most probably be the means of securing a greater uniformity of practice. I am, Mr. Editor, your obedient servant,

London, 13th Jan., 1834.

A. P. K.

MS. COPY OF THE ARTICLES IN BENE'T LIBRARY,

"And thrice he routed all his foes, and thrice he slew the slain."

MR. EDITOR,-As many of our clerical brethren appear to entertain strangely erroneous notions respecting the MS. of our Articles now preserved in Corpus Christi College, I take the liberty of troubling you with a few words upon the subject. The question is one of great importance, not only as it supplies nonconformists with a ground of cavil, and infidels with a sneer, but even as it affects the uncorrupted integrity of that copy to which we have all subscribed. That this MS. is exceedingly valuable, as a matter of curiosity, and must form a highly important item in every history of our national confession of faith, I am very far from wishing to deny: all that I contend for is, that it possesses no value whatever as a record. For the benefit of such of your readers as may not possess the means of information, it may be as well to remark, in the first place, that the MS. in question was (with other valuable documents) bequeathed by Archbishop Parker to the Library of Corpus Christi College. It is a paper book, of six folio sheets, written in 1562, and containing forty-two articles of religion, with the autograph subscriptions of the two archbishops and eighteen bishops; and amongst other points in which it differs from our present copies, the following remarkable clause of the 20th article is totally omitted:--" The church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith." In after times, this omission furnished the puritans, and, at a still later period, the author of "Priestcraft in Perfection," with a handle for accusing Archbishop Laud of having fraudulently interpolated the Thirty-nine Articles. The eyes of the public were, however, soon opened to the true state of the case, and the controversy had almost ceased to be remembered, till the appearance of Dr. Lamb's work,which, by attributing an undue importance to the Bennet MS. renders it necessary for us to bring again into the field those arguments by which the question ought to have been for ever set at rest.

First, then, is it a thing to be even dreamt of, that Archbishop Parker could have possessed the power of bequeathing a PUBLIC RECORD, any more than the Lord Chancellor has to dispose of an act of parliament, or a clergyman of his parochial registers? Yet, if we are to consider the Bennet MS. as a record, this supposition must inevitably be admitted.

Secondly, can it be believed, that a PAPER MS., "so frequently, and so oddly corrected-sometimes with red lead, at other times with black ink-in which so many portions are struck out, and so many particulars inserted; nay, in which English and Latin are mixed together; and all this without the least memorandum by which posterity

might understand what these articles really were,' can possibly be considered as a record? If public acts might be thus interlined, what a door would be opened for interpolation! and what could have been easier, in the present instance, than to alter the document after subscription; to add or erase a few more words, or to introduce a few more

marks with red lead?

But, independently of these considerations, we have the strongest possible evidence for believing that there once existed in the Registrar's Office, London, a copy of the Articles, bearing date, 1562, duly engrossed upon parchment, and containing the disputed clause. This MS. was, unhappily, consumed in the great fire of London; but that there was such a document, we have the express testimony of Archbishop Laud, Dr. Heylyn, Mr. Smith, and a notary public-all of whom collated it, at different times, with our present copies. In addition to which, we have the negative testimony of Fuller, the church historian. The Corpus MS. was, therefore, in all probability, as Burnet suggests, at the end of his Introduction, nothing more than a rough draft of the Articles, previously to their being engrossed upon parchment. Sir, your obedient servant,

R. HART.

ECONOMY OF CHARITY.

SIR,-I know of no country in the world, where charity, in the sense of alms-giving, is more diffusive than in our own; nor of any where the benevolent feelings of its inhabitants are more imposed upon. A plan to relieve sickness, infirmity, or distress, whether substantial or imaginary, a tale of woe, whether real or fictitious,-opens immediately the hearts and the purses of Englishmen. It is an amiable but hurtful frailty; as indiscriminate alms-giving encourages imposture, and frequently deprives the deserving of relief.

I take for granted that every Christian feels it an incumbent duty to devote a certain portion of his income, "according as God hath prospered him," to charitable purposes. A judicious classification of his charities would enable them to extend farther, and to be bestowed to greater advantage.

Our charities should always aim at the honour of God, and the welfare, spiritual and temporal, of our fellow-creatures. We best display our zeal for the honour of God by our support of His ministers; our diffusion of his word, and our furtherance of His service.

The late parliamentary returns of the revenues of the clergy have shewn that, if the "exorbitant wealth" of the "pampered" church were to be brought into one mass, and then divided equally among the clergy, no clergyman would possess 3007. per annum. At present, there are many, very many, benefices, if indeed they deserve the name, where the income does not amount to half that sum. Surely then, where the sacrifices of the altar are insufficient to maintain the ministers of the altar, the piety of the worshippers ought to excite them

* Bennet's Essay, &c., ch. viii. p. 217.

to supply the deficiency, and to give again unto God "of his own." When we consider that a clergyman is, by his profession, entitled to the rank of a gentleman, and is expected to maintain the appearance of one, it is evident that few indeed can contrive to lay up any thing for their families. With the father generally perish all the expectations of the widow and orphans; their only resource is a reliance on Divine Providence, and the bounty of those charitable institutions which are formed particularly for their relief; viz. "The Society for maintaining the Orphans of poor Clergymen," which receives them under its. protection at an early age, clothes them, and give them a good education; and when they are of age to be put apprentice, they are adopted by "The Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy," who place them out respectably in the world. Here then are two societies which may be said to have a claim on the bounty of those who wish to honour God with their substance, and so support his authorized ministers.

Another mode in which he who is anxious to contribute to the honour of God may effect his wish, is by the diffusion of His word, In this labour of love our two venerable societies, that "for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts," and the "Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge," have been successfully engaged for more than a century and a quarter. On these the bounty of all those who set apart a portion of their income may be bestowed in full confidence that it will be judiciously applied. Indeed the former of these societies has, at present, a stronger claim to the notice of every sincere Christian than ever; since, by an ill-judged parsimony, the annual grant from Parliament has been, first, curtailed, and soon is to be entirely withdrawn.

The glory of God may be promoted by furthering his worship. The deficiency of churches, compared with the population of our empire, is notorious. It affords a specious, though invalid, pretext for schism. The legislature did much, for some years, to remedy the evil; but of late all assistance has been withheld, and private munificence now attempts to supply what is wanting. The "Society for Building Churches" may claim the attention of all those who are desirous that their fellow-countrymen should "worship the Lord with holy worship." The care that is taken by this society to provide a certain number of "free sittings" must recommend it to all who wish to co-operate in one of the leading designs of Christianity, that "the poor have the gospel preached to them." By calculation, it appears that, for less than a sovereign, a benevolent Christian may secure for a poorer brother a free sitting, as long as the building shall continue.

In consulting the welfare of our fellow-creatures, our attention should primarily be directed to their spiritual concerns. And the greatest kindness we can shew them is, by laying the foundation of their happiness here and hereafter, by providing for them a moral and religious education. In these days of "liberalism" an adherence to creeds and systems of religion is ridiculed "as narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and superstition." The sincere Christian will bear up under the imputation, knowing in whom he has believed, and calling to others, This is the way; walk ye in it. "The Central" and "AuxVOL. V.-March, 1834.

2 R