magistrate can make a lawful Christian marriage. They do not go to the bishop, as Ignatius directs, nor to the public service of the oblation with Tertullian, nor to receive the priest's benediction, as Basil, Ambrose, Siricius, Chrysostom, and Augustin tell us is essential, nor are they brought to the priest by their father and mother, as the 73 bishops at Carthage commanded. Moreover, Mr. Editor, these men blame all churches who do as the primitive churches did. Now can you tell me how, for shame sake, these men call themselves practisers of the primitive worship? If you can you'll oblige

Yours very truly, PHILOPATER.

ORDINATION SERVICES.

SIR,-The question relative to the Ordination Services mentioned in your answers to correspondents in the Number for January last, has led me to offer you a few remarks on that subject, not so much in the hope of giving a satisfactory answer to the inquiry, as with the view of exciting among your readers and correspondents an interest on the point in question.

There can be no doubt in a legal and historical point of view that those offices form a part of our "Book of Common Prayer," as it is usually termed, although in strictness those words only apply to the Morning and Evening service, as will be seen by reference to the Act of Uniformity, where every other part of the Prayer Book is separately specified. The history of the Ordination services is curious, and may not be generally known. They were composed in 1549, and in 1551 were declared, by Act of Parliament, to form a part of the Book of Common Prayer. On the accession of Queen Mary this Act was repealed, and the whole Book of Common Prayer condemned; but in the first year of her sister's reign, its authority and use were restored, by Act of Parliament, and an express declaration was made that the ordination services should be deemed a part of the public Ritual of the kingdom.

In the Act of Uniformity, the title of the Prayer Book stands thus, "The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, printed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the form and manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."

It is not very easy to see why one part of "the Book intituled" thus, should be omitted rather than another. The various offices and forms usually printed in the Prayer Book are here separately mentioned, and the Ordination services as specifically as any. The Prayer Book and Homily Society usually, I believe, inserts them, and that for Promoting Christian Knowledge sometimes, though more rarely, prints them in its Prayer Books.

It is much to be wished that a matter of such importance as the correctness, even in minor points, of our public Liturgy, could be bet

ter secured than it is. From what authorized copy the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge prints its Prayer Books I know not, but in one of their octavo editions which was shewn me by the kindness of a friend, who had collated it with the cathedral copy at Canterbury, and marked the variations, the errata were incredibly numerous. One very common error, is to print the Collect called, “A Prayer that may be said after any of the former," at the end of the whole collection, whereas its proper place is before that for the Parliament; the intention being that it should not be used unless some one of the eight first is read: many clergymen, probably from this mistake in the book used by them, read it whenever either of the two latter is used. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

CLERICUS HEREFORDIENSIS.

LIBERALITY.

SIR,-The idea which many of our moderns entertain of liberality seems to be a mixture of insincerity, ambiguity, indecision, and false shame. I am led to make this remark from the unjust accusations of illiberality and party spirit made against those of our clergy who conscientiously believe dissent to be sinful, and will not therefore, in their speeches at public meetings for religious purposes, acknowledge dissenters as forming a part of the visible Church of Christ. I am one who agree with that portion of our clergy. I pray against "all false doctrine, heresy, and schism," and I thus pray from my heart. That "schism" necessarily refers to outward disunion seems to me sufficiently shewn by the fact that "false doctrine" and "heresy" are mentioned separately, without having recourse to the ancient view of the church. In expressing this opinion I am actuated by no less charitable a spirit towards dissenters than they who express a contrary one, and am as ready to shew them any personal kindness in my power, but have yet to learn how speaking what he is persuaded is the truth has any thing to do with the liberality of a man's feelings, properly understood. We are told that we thus UNCHRISTIANIZE thousands. This is not true. I condemn quacks, but I do not therefore assert that all sick people die, excepting such as place themselves under an authorized physician, though they thus render themselves, humanly speaking, liable to death; which liability is, in itself, quite a sufficient motive to caution and circumspection with the wise and prudent.

I am, sir, with true respect,

Your faithful humble servant, T. A. A.

CONSECRATION FEES.

[The following letter is inserted with great reluctance, and in consequence of a charge made by the writer, against the Editor of the British Magazine, in consequence of the expression of that reluctance-that he wished to conceal abuses.

The matter is a very simple one. The bishops are annually accused in the dissenting and radical papers of taking enormous fees for consecrations. The answer has been repeatedly given, that, in most cases, these fees are absolutely nothing-in some cases, 21. 2s. ; and in this of Lichfield and Coventry, which is the highest, there VOL. VII.-March, 1835. 20

is an ancient fee of 61. 12s. Thus the charge turns out, like most of the charges made against the church, a pure falsehood. Had it been true, i.e., had the bishops received larger fees, it is also true that they are compelled, so to speak, to subscribe very largely to the erection of churches in all cases where the funds are not forthcoming at once.

But then comes another matter, confounded with this by those who call themselves friends of the church. There are expenses attending a consecration, undoubtedly, though they do not go to the bishops or the church. That is to say, there are certain forms to be gone through, and the lawyers employed in going through these forms make the usual charges for them, larger or smaller according to circumstances, as in all other law charges. The friends of the church call these monstrous abuses, and wish them to be done away, which would be an improvement, like many others of the present day, the effects of which will be rued by those for whose benefit it is demanded. Besides the religious act, consecration sets a place apart irrevocably as a place of worship, and extinguishes all possibility of private claims on it for ever. Consequently common sense says that the first point is to take care to make this act as solemn and public as possible, and to keep the fullest records of it. "Improvement" says, records cost money, and therefore keep none at all. Let us look at this a little closer. Supposing the deeds of conveyance all finished, and the church ready for consecration, nothing can be more true than that the deeds might be kept by the clergyman, and, by a simple interchange of two letters between him and the bishop, the bishop might appoint a day, and come and consecrate the church. No expense would be incurred. The act would be notorious; all which is necessary would be done, and the service might go on regularly. But unfortunately, as the clerical property of clergy does not pass from father to son, there is none so ill taken care of as clerical papers. After two or three vacancies of a living, the chance would be that the deeds would be lost. There would be no record of them or of the consecration. A claim might be set up to the ground and church, and it might be alleged that (what is often done) the church had been opened by licence, and never consecrated. If then it is of consequence that deeds should be safe, or that some record of them should be kept, and that the act of consecration should be one capable of easy proof, there must be persons to record these deeds, and there must be certain forms also put on record, the proof of which must be easy. In other words, there must be, by some name or other, registrars to register the deeds, and to make out the forms. And, considering the great injury which might accrue from ignorance or fraud, it is of the first importance to have these persons of high character and skill. For high character and skill we must pay, after every reform and improvement which the wit of man can devise. In the case of registrars, the payment is made by allowing them to make bills exactly like any other lawyer's bills. If a bill is exorbitant, it ought to be taxed like any other lawyer's bill. But to suppose that, in every consecration, the bill can be the same, is idle. The circumstances of the property, in some cases, are simple, in others complex. These are, of course, to be noticed or recited in part in the petition and other documents. The instructions for drawing these documents, and the actually drawing them, will consequently cost more in some cases and less in others, because the trouble is greater. The charges will, therefore, constantly vary. It may not be very agreeable to pay large bills. But even reformers will see that security is the first thing. And no reform has yet been able to shew how security can be had cheaply. The common argument is, that dissenting chapels are free from all such clogs and bars. It is very true. The writer remembers a building in his own parish which was alternately a malt-house, a dissenting meeting, and a theatre for strolling players. If churchmen are satisfied with contemplating a similar fate for their churches, they may safely do away with all forms, and all registers and registrars, but surely not till then. Mr. Clive says that he has much respect for the registrar of Lichfield, and no wish to attack him. To the Editor it seems that the letter is simply an attack on a particular attorney's bill.-ED.]

Rectory, Solihull, Nov. 7, 1834. SIR,-In your magazine for the present month is an article, containing an extract from the Exeter Gazette, upon the expenses attending consecrations; wherein it is stated, that the total amount for the consecration of a church and church-yard together is £22. Now, in order that your readers, and the friends of the church, may not be led to suppose that such is the case universally, I subjoin the bill which I lately

received from the Registrar of the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, and paid to him, for the consecration of a chapel-of-ease and churchyard in this parish. I trust that you will publish it, and call the attention of our ecclesiastical rulers to this subject, that they may devise speedy measures to remedy so enormous an abuse, as that any expense beyond the necessary legal charges for conveying and securing the site (which, be it observed, are not included in the present bill) should be permitted to stand in the way of those who are disposed to build and endow additional places of worship.

Solihull, St. James's Chapel and Chapel-yard.

It will be observed that the above does not include any of the deeds of exchange, conveyance, or endowment, which were prepared by the respective solicitors of the parties giving the site and endowing, and chiefly at their cost; and that the only item besides the expenses attendant on all other consecrations, is the Registrar's fee for registering one additional deed-viz., the deed of exchange, which was required by the building committee having found a site more convenient than that which had been given by the late Earl of Plymouth, which last they consequently exchanged for it.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

ARCHER CLIVE,

Rector of Solihull, Co. Warwick.

BLAYNEY'S BIBLE.

SIR,-It is by no means my intention to revive the controversy respecting the comparative accuracy of the Bibles printed at the press of our two Universities. That question has been for ever set at rest by Drs. Turton and Cardwell; and the mis-statements (I wish to use the mildest word) of Messrs. Curtis and Offor have floated far and irrecoverably down the stream of oblivion. My design is merely to shew, that the edition of the Bible published at Oxford, in folio and quarto, in the year 1769, has no pretensions to be called the "standard edition," and sells, when it can be procured, at a price much beyond its real merits. There is a copy of the quarto edition in a bookseller's catalogue of the present year, marked at 77. 7s., and I have known twenty guineas given for a copy in folio. If these prices are given on account of the rarity of the work, I have no objection: in such a case the caprice of the book-fancier alone apportions the value. The folio copies are indeed very rare, as a fire consumed the greater part of the impression. But, if these sums are to indicate the real worth of the work, I must say that the estimate is formed very erroneously.

I do not, however, mean to involve Dr. Blayney's edition in one sweeping clause of condemnation. Far from it. Much of what he professed to do he has done well, and much he has done erroneously, or left undone. It is not, then, with any invidious intention that I notice a few points where his edition has been corrected by subsequent editors. 1. Inconsistencies in orthography:-"Yern," Gen. xliii. 30; "yearned," 1 Kings iii. 26; -" floats," 1 Kings v. 9; "flotes," 2 Chron. ii. 16;-" vail," Exod. xxvi. 31; "veil," Mark xv. 38. 2. Want of uniformity in printing LORD or Lord, according as the Hebrew text has or 8. Whenever in the Hebrew the word 66 our English translation always renders it the LORD, in capital, or great letters, and wherever we read the LORD in such letters, it answers to JEHOVAH."-(Bishop Beveridge). But in Blayney's edition, at Gen. xviii. 27, 30-32, we have LORD in capitals, where the Hebrew has TN; and again at Mal. iii. 1, where the

,occurs יהוה

האדון original has

Dr. Blayney professed more than he performed. He tells us, in his letter to the "Vice-chancellor, and the other delegates of the Clarendon press," (See Gentleman's Magazine for November 1769): "when the quarto sheets were printed off, the forms were lengthened out to make up the folio edition; in doing which, the parts were often so jumbled together, and such confusion introduced by misplacing the references, and mistaking the chronology, that nothing else would suffice than "a fresh collation of the whole with the quarto copy, and a repetition of almost the same trouble and care in the revisal- as had been used before." I cannot think this assertion to be correct. In Judges iii. 15, we have in the quarto copy, as a different rendering of "a Benjamite," in the margin," the son of Gemini." The same ludicrous error occurs in the folio. The correct text of Revelation xviii. 22, is:-" And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he