et montes boni: Levavi oculor meos in montes, unde veniet auxilium mihi. Et vide quia non tibi in montibus spes est: Auxilium, inquit, meum a Domino, qui fecit cælum et terram, Ps. cxx. 1, 2. Noli putare injuriam te facere montibus sanctis, quando dixeris, auxilium meum non montibus, sed a Domino, qui fecit cœlum et terram. Ipsi montes hoc tibi clamant. Mons erat qui clamabat, audio in vobis schismata fieri, et unusquisque vestrum dicit, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego Cepha, ego autem Christi. Leva oculos in istum montem, audi quid dicat; et nec in ipso monte remaneas. Audi enim quid sequatur: Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis ? Ergo posteaquam levaveris oculos in montes, unde veniet auxilium tibi, id est in auctores Scripturarum divinarum, attende omnibus medullis suis, omnibus viribus clamantem, Domine quis similis tibi? (Ps. xxxiv. 10,) ut securus sine ullâ injuriâ montium dicas, Auxilium meum a Domino, qui fecit cœlum et terram. Non solum tunc tibi non succensebunt montes; sed tunc amabunt tunc magis favebunt: SI IN IPSIS SBEM TUAM PONERIS CONTRISTABUNTUR. Angelus multa divina et mira ostendens bomini, ab homine adorabatur, tanquam levante oculos in montem. At ille a se revocans ad Dominum: Noli, inquit, facere; illum adora: nam ego conservus tuus sum, et fratrum tuorum, Apoc. xxii. 19."

It is ungracious work criticising books of devotion; but what is done without a view to controversy sometimes has a bad effect when it comes in contact with conflicting opinions. There is no need to accuse editors of forgery, because they call books by names once given them, but now proved incorrect. Such things may be done in ignorance, or under a mistaken notion that, after all, the books may belong to the authors to whom they are assigned. Any one, however, may satisfy himself, by reading the prefatory notices of the Benedictines, that they had good grounds for their judgment in these cases. I say this with a view to a little book, otherwise of great merit, and much of it in the spirit, some parts in the very words of St. Augustine, which contains some invocations of a questionable character, though I do not think any such as that quoted above. Three tracts in it are attri. buted to St. Augustine-the Meditationes, Soliloquia, and Manuale. All these are found in the appendix to Vol. VI. of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine, with notices and proofs to shew that they are spurious, and of a date much later than his times. I do not scruple to mention this, because I think that such books, however good they may be, can be more freely and profitably used when we know whose they are, and what to expect in them, than when we are liable to be offended or misled, as the case may be, by the authority they are supposed to have.

Your obedient servant,

C. M.

ON CLERGYMEN SELLING THEIR SERMONS.

SIR,-Perhaps you, or some one of your numerous correspondents, will have the kindness to answer a question which was suggested to me this day by the perusal of the enclosed paragraph from the "Times," viz.

"A practice has recently arisen of taking down in short-hand the sermons of firstrate preachers, and of forthwith printing and publishing them for the pecuniary benefit of the person by whom the short-hand writer is employed. We are asked whether the preacher can check such a practice by any proceedings in the courts of law or equity? In other words, whether such an act as we bave mentioned amounts VOL. XX.-July, 1841.

I

to an act of piracy? The two main principles upon which copyright depends are these-1st, that it is originally a species of property; 2nd, that it does not pass to other hands by the act of publication. There can be no doubt that a sermon, like a poem, a treatise, a history, or any other manuscript, is the fruit of a man's own labour; that, up to the time of delivery, it his own property; and that until that time it is subject to his exclusive disposal. Thus there can be no doubt that the first of the two principles of copyright is applicable to a sermon. The difficulty of the question, such as it is, will be found to arise upon the second of these principles. The delivery of a sermon from a pulpit amounts to a publication. The hearer listens for his own instruction, pleasure, and improvement. For the same objects he may reduce the whole into writing; but it does not therefore follow that he may print and publish it for his pecuniary benefit. We see nothing in the relation of the preacher to his congregation which can sanction such a step. His duty is to teach and to instruct, to point out religious duty, to persuade his congregation to be zealous in discharge of it ; but not to make them a present of an essay which they may publish with a profit."-Law Magazine.

Is not the sale of a sermon equivalent to the sale of any other good? and if so, can a clergyman be justified in improving his private income by the profits resulting from the publication of his sermons? I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

ALAY AUTHOR.

JOURNEYS OF ST. PAUL.

Acts, xv. 1—35'; Gal. ii. 1—10.

،،

SIR,-Do these two passages relate to one and the same journey of St. Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem? I think not. Dr. Paley, in his original and admirable work, the Hora Paulina, p. 100, observes, “ In the Epistle, Paul tells us that, "he went up by revelation;" (ii. 2.) In the Acts we read, that he was sent by the church of Antioch, (xv.2,) and received publicly by the whole church at Jerusalem-that is, by the apostles, and elders, and all the multitude. In the Epistle, St. Paul writes that, when he came to Jerusalem, "he communicated that Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation," (ii. 2.) Dr. Paley adds, that in the Epistle, no notice is taken of the deliberation and decree which are recorded in the Acts, and according to that history formed the business, for the sake of which the journey was undertaken."

Mr. Tate, in his continuous History of St. Paul, framed in illustration of the Horæ Paulinæ, has added some arguments in favour of Paley's suggestion, and with regard to the omission of all mention of the decree in the Epistle, justly observes, "When St. Paul came, as he did into Galatia, to preach the gospel for the first time in a new place, it is not probable that he would make mention of the decree, or rather letter, of the church of Jerusalem, which presupposed Christianity to be known, and which related to certain doubts that had arisen in some established Christian communities," p. 104, note.

Again; "In the Epistle, Barnabas and Titus are both mentioned as the companions of Paul, (ii. 1;) and those are his only companions. In the Acts, Paul, and Barnabas, and certain others, (more than three,) are sent on that mission, (xv. 2.) No Titus is mentioned.

"The apostles with whom Paul had his conference were expressly James the Less, Cephas or Peter, and (John, ii. 9.) In the Acts, St. John does not appear.

"The objects of the two journeys were not less dissimilar. In the Epistle, the direct object was to have Paul's apostleship to the Gentiles, as a peculiar and separate commission, duly recognised; and that end, as we read in verses 7-12, was accomplished. In the Acts, the ques tion to be settled was this: Whether it should be accounted essential to the profession of Christianity, that Gentile converts must conform themselves to the law of Moses. A wise and temperate arrangement was the result, (ver. 20—29.)

"If the journeys were identical, then the rebuke given by Paul to Peter, (Gal. ii. 11-14,) in the affair of Antioch, must have taken place after the Council of Jerusalem. Thus Peter would appear in practice to disallow the lawfulness of Jewish believers eating with Gentile Christians, the very point which at Jerusalem he had been a principal party in deciding to be lawful, (xv. 7 ;) and what is hardly, perhaps, less remarkable, Barnabas also, one of the very persons delegated to carry the decree of the Council to Antioch, would be represented (ver. 13) in that same city, either as not understanding the decree, or as absolutely in his conduct running counter to it.

"The rationality of making the rebuke precede the Council has been clearly seen by some eminent persons, as St. Augustine and Basnage. "If we consider that the journey related by Paul to the Galatians was prior, say by a year, as it easily might be, to the Council of Jerusalem, the order of events is natural, and consistent, and unembarrassed. The Judaizing Christians, who gave so much trouble to the apostle, (Gal. ii. 3,) on his private journey, were ready as soon as ever he appeared upon the public occasion, (Acts, xv. 5,) to raise the same. angry controversy on a larger scale again. Providentially, Peter (having profited by the rebuke at Antioch) and St. James had learned, on mature reflection, to entertain firmer sentiments; and under divine guidance, by inspired authority, now gave a decisive ratification to articles of peace, for the harmony of the church," (p. 145.)

Mr. Tate's is a clever design; a valuable addition to the Horæ Paulinæ. The style is lively and forcible, and what is a great and rare praise in commentaries, concise. But it might be of advantage if the learned author would re-cast his materials. There is the text of scripture, both the Acts and Epistles, with a running commentary, and constant references to the Hora Paulina. Besides these claims on the reader's attention, he is perpetually directed to three other distinct sets of observations, called, Notes, Appendix, and Index; and sometimes backwards and forwards, from one to the other.* If all

Upon the question here considered, Mr. Tate gives the private journey, from the text of Galatians, and his own commentary, at p. 23, and three references in that page: one to the Hora Paulinæ, a second to Appendix A, a third, "vide Titus in the Index." You turn to the H. P. and find a reference to the Appendix, and also a long note by Mr. Tate upon the omission of all mention of the decree in the Epistle to the Galatians. You turn to the Appendix A, and find three distinct paragaphs of observations, to which is appended a note, and to the note a notice referring you to H. P.,101, and to the Continuous Hist. p. 29 and 35. The ingenious arguments would appear stronger in a compact form.

the matter of one subject were collected into one clear composition, it would surely be more readily understood, and make a stronger impression; at the same time, in tracing the events of St. Paul's life in chronological order, (as far as it can reasonably be made out,) the mind of the reader might be perpetually directed to the grand argument of "undesigned coincidences" between passages in the History of the Acts. of the Apostles and in St. Paul's Epistles. Dr. Paley never allows his reader to forget this argument for a single page, as the reader of the Iliad is for ever reminded of the hero of the poem.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.,

B.

ON FEES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF SACRAMENTS. SIR, AS I am an humble country curate who happens to coincide with "T. K. L." in the opinion, which opinion I still hold, "That no fee is payable for the administration of a sacrament," I am, of course, sorry to learn, on the authority of " Meleager," in the March Number of the British Magazine, that I am "entirely mistaken."

There is one expression in "Meleager's" letter which would appear to some persons to need explanation. He says, "that no fee is payable at any other time than at the administration of a sacrament," and I, remembering the fee for marriage, said, mentally, "habet;" but was surprised to find, on continuing the perusal of his letter, that he had appropriated my weapon to his own use. He says, 66 Again, at the solemnization of the sacrament of matrimony." "Besides," he says, "they must receive the sacrament"-of the Lord's supper, he means, though it is curious that he did not say so-as according to him the newly-married had just received the sacrament" of matrimony. By what compulsion must they? The rubric does not say they must. Custom does not say they must. Even, however, if it were so, this additional sentence, "Besides, &c.," seems to furnish no additional weight to "Meleager's" argument.

I do not know what " Meleager" means by the fee for the administration of the sacrament of baptism-it is unknown in this diocese, (Hereford ;) but we may possibly be all " entirely mistaken."

Believe me, Sir, your faithful servant,

SILAS.

ON THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS, AND THE DUTIES PAYABLE AT THE TIME OF THEIR ADMINISTRATION.

SIR,-It appears that my observations on the number of sacraments, and the accustomed duties payable at the time of their administration, have excited the displeasure of two of your correspondents. In answer to them, I assert

I. That there are more than two sacraments.

There are only two sacraments "generally necessary to salvation," as the catechism teaches us; there are only two sacraments" ordained

of Christ our Lord in the gospel," as the twenty-fifth article asserts; there are only two sacraments "whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sin, and of our holiness and joining in Christ," as the homily on common prayer and sacraments teaches us. Nevertheless, there are many other sacraments not "necessary to salvation," not "ordained of Christ our Lord in the gospel," and which "do not join us to Christ," as the same homily informs us. It says "absolution is no such sacrament as baptism and the communion are ;" and "neither the ordering of ministers, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as baptism and the communion are." The homily against swearing says, "by like holy promise the sacrament of matrimony knitteth man and wife in perpetual love." The fathers were well aware that there were more than two sacraments. St. Bernard says, "the washing of feet is the sacrament of daily sins." (Serm. de Coena Domini.) St. Leo says, "The cross of Christ is both a sacrament and also an example." (De Resur. S. ii.) Tertullian called the whole state of Christian faith "the sacrament of the Christian religion." (Contra Marcion. L. iv.) St. Hilary in many places says, "the sacrament of prayer, the sacrament of fasting, the sacrament of thirst, the sacrament of weeping, the sacrament of the Scriptures." Our best divines, since the Reformation, are of the same opinion. Archbishop Cranmer, in his catechism, calls absolution a sacrament. Bishop Taylor says, "It is none of the doctrine of the church of England that there are two sacraments only; but that of those rituals commanded in Scripture, which the ecclesiastical use calls sacraments, (by a word of art,) two only are generally necessary to salvation." Archbishop Secker says, in his Lectures on the Catechism, "As the word sacrament is not a scripture one, and hath at different times been differently understood, our catechism doth not require it to be said absolutely that the sacraments are two only, but two only necessary to salvation,' leaving persons at liberty to comprehend more things under the name if they please, provided they insist not on the necessity of them, and of dignifying them with this title." Bishop Jewel says, "Now, for the number of sacraments, how many there be, it may seem somewhat hard to say, and that it cannot be spoken without offence; for men's judgments herein have swerved very much; some have said there are two, others three, others four, and others that there are seven sacraments. This difference of opinions standeth rather in terms than in the matter." I hope therefore that for the future I may be allowed to call matrimony a sacrament without giving offence to "T. K. L." and "H. A."

II. I assert that money may be "demanded" for the administration of sacraments after such sacraments are administered; that is, the accustomed offering may be "exacted."

"We do firmly enjoin that no sacrament of the church shall be denied to any one upon the account of any sum of money; because, if anything hath been accustomed to be given by the pious devotion of th faithful, we will that justice be done thereupon to the churches by the ordinary of the place afterwards."-Langton.

Upon account of any sum of money] that is, used to be paid or taken in the administration of any of the sacraments.-Lind. 278.