preacher of peculiar opinions, on his introduction to a new flock, to be held forth as an example of a notorious converted sinner. If it can be satisfactorily proved that such is the true sense of scripture, be it so ; if not, it is high time that this particular case should cease to be abused to the support of party doctrines.

I venture, then, to ask, whether any weight, or what, may be considered justly due to the considerations which follow; premising that it gave me much pleasure the other day to find so earnest, yet dispassionate, a writer as Mr. Ogilvie, in his Bampton Lectures, (p. 158,) advocating the construction favourable to Zaccheus. Remembering your wish for brevity, I will only observe, respecting the general narrative, that there is no expression in it absolutely irreconcileable with either theory as to the individual's previous character; but that the whole strength of the Calvinistic view (if I may call it so without offence) lies in the tenth verse of St. Luke's record.

1. In the way of protest against that view, then, let me ask, first, whether the language attributed to Zaccheus, in the eighth verse-"If I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation" [ei Tivós TI jovkopávnoα-must not be admitted, according to general principles of human nature, to be the language of conscious honesty? It is no reply to say to this that "the heart is deceitful above all things." Grant its deceitfulness, and that a man may have wronged others, in instances ever so many, without being sufficiently aware of it. That is unquestionably possible; but could it have so happened by the particular process of false accusation? Is not that an offence of which any man, committing it, must necessarily be conscious? But Zaccheus plainly was not conscious of any such depravity. Men, even in their better moods, are not apt to bind themselves upon the instant to such a consequence as that of fourfold restitution, unless it be upon a point on which they feel themselves strong. By leaving this consideration to the reader at this stage, for brevity's sake, I hope it will not bring on me the censure of becoming obscure.

2. What is the just inference from our Saviour's own expression, in the 5th verse,-"to-day I must abide at thy house"-compared with his instructions to the twelve, in Matthew x. 11-18? Are we to suppose that by such a direction as this-" Into whatever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till ye go thence," our Lord could possibly have meant that his apostles should inquire for sinners ripe for conversion? Of whom was such inquiry to be made? Who could have answered it? Consider it to mean, in substance," ask who is of religious disposition, or known for kindness, or for goodness, in the place?" and there is no difficulty; but the other construction seems altogether extravagant. If, then, our Lord instructed his apostles to look out for, and to abide with, the best characters, is it not reasonable to conclude that he would make a like choice for his own tarryings?

3. But far the strongest argument, as it appears to me, is this: If we are to interpret Zaccheus' words, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor” [τὰ ἡμιση τῶν ὑπαρχόντων μου], entirely of the future, (and, let it be observed, the expression is very specific,) VOL. XI.-Jan. 1837.

F

how are we to get rid of a certain air of bargain and of compromise which then is thrown upon this portion of the narrative? I hope such words, used only for explicitness, will not be thought irreverent. Bring the transaction, thus regarded, to a comparison with the case of the rich young ruler, in Matt. xix. 21, "Go, and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven;" [σou Tà ὑπάρχοντα—ὅσα ἔχεις, Mark; πάντα ὅσα ἔχεις, Luke;] and what shall we say then? Would half a sacrifice suffice in the instance of Zaccheus, and nothing short of an entire one on the part of the young ruler? I cannot bring myself to handle freely the reasoning which seems to follow unavoidably from this suggestion; and therefore gladly now retreat upon the stronghold of "brevity."

If it shall seem that these considerations on the side favourable to Zaccheus' previous character are not without weight, I beg respectfully to point out, as the moral of them, the danger of overlooking scriptural facts, and blindly superseding lenient, and much more natural, constructions, in a too unreflecting zeal for the establishment of exclusive doctrines. I remain, dear Sir, yours truly, R. B.

TURNING TO THE EAST.

SIR,I lately happened, as a traveller, to be attending divine worship (in, I fancy, one of the churches alluded to by your correspondent "A. O. V.") where the priest turned towards the altar during the prayers. I was much impressed by the solemn effect thus produced, and recollecting two or three scriptural allusions to the East, and some of the customs of the Jews in their worship, and also that some of us turn our faces to the same point on repeating the apostles' creed, and that we place our brethren in their graves with their faces so set, I flattered myself that this might have been the primitive practice of prayer among Christians; and I hailed it as the dawn of better days, and as a presage of the adoption into our church again of some of the ancient discipline. To satisfy myself I referred to Bingham-that treasury of Christian antiquities-from whom I make the following extract, from Book xiii. c. viii. s. 15:-"There was one observation more, which must not be omitted, because it was a ceremony almost of general use and practice; and this was the custom of their turning their faces to the East in their solemn adorations. The original of this custom seems to be derived from the ceremonies of baptism, in which it was usual to renounce the devil with their faces to the West, and then turn about to the East, and make their covenant with Christ; from whence it became their common custom to worship God after the same way that they had first entered into covenant with him. The ancients give several reasons for this custom; but they all seem to glance at this one." Bingham then gives very interesting reasons from the fathers for all this; but I fear the extract would be too long for admittance in your pages; however, it may be well to say that he quotes Tertullian, Clemens, Alexandrinus, St. Austin, St. Basil, Gregory, Nyssen, and others, as all bearing testimony to the practice. He continues "The author, under the name of Athanasius, of the questions to Antiochus, says, "If a Christian asks the question, he is to be told they looked toward paradise, beseeching God to restore

them to their ancient country and region, from whence they were expelled. If an heathen put the question, the answer should be, because God is the true light; for which reason, when they looked upon the created light, they did not worship it, but the Creator of it. If the question were proposed by a Jew, he should be told they did it be. cause the Holy Ghost had said to David, We will worship toward the place where thy feet stood, O Lord,'" (Psalm, cxxxii. 7,) meaning the place where Christ was born, and lived, and was crucified, and rose again, and ascended into heaven. "All the reasons given," says Bingham, "have a peculiar reference to Christ; and therefore as Christians first used the ceremony of turning to the East, when they. entered into covenant with Christ in baptism, so it is probable that from thence they derived this custom of turning to the East in all their solemn adorations. But whether this were so or not, we are sure there was such a general custom among them."

So much for the practice of the primitive church; and that the. fathers of ours approved of it appears from the notes at pages lxx.. 32, 33, and 336, of Bishop Mant's edition of our Book of Common Prayer. Dr. Bisse says, "It was the custom of the ancient church to turn to the altar, or East, not only at the confessions of faith, but in all the public prayers. And therefore Epiphanius, speaking of the madness of the impostor Elzæus, counts this as one instance of it, among other things, that he forbade praying towards the East. Now that this is the most honourable place in the house of God, and is therefore separated from the lower and inferior part of the church, answering to the holy of holies in the Jewish tabernacle, which was severed by a veil from the sanctuary; and the holy table, or altar, in the one, answers to the mercy seat in the other. As then, the Jews worshipped, lifting up their hands towards the mercy seat,' (Psalm xxviii. 2;) and even the cherubim were formed with their faces looking toward it, (Exod. xxv. 19;) so the primitive Christians did, in their worship, look towards the altar, of which the mercy seat was a type And therefore the altar was usually called 'the tabernacle of God's glory,' 'his chair of state,' 'the throne of God,' the type of heaven, 'heaven itself;' for these reasons did they always, in praying, look to it." The arrangement of the sittings in some churches, by which part of the congregation have their backs turned altogether to the holiest place, has always appeared to me an indecorous one. In my own parish church, the pews in the chancel are all made with their backs to the altar; and, in the transepts and aisle, they are in every possible position, and of all sizes and forms, as each person is allowed to follow his own plan in the erection of his pew; and it happens that, sit where you may, some neighbour's eye meets, if it does not divert, yours. There is to me something pleasing in the idea, that, although in the midst of a congregation, one is praying as if seen only by him whom we worship-by him "to whom all hearts be open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid." Now this privacy, if I may so call it, in public prayer-this communion between God and manis best kept up, in my humble judgment, by all turning their faces, when they worship, one way; and the voice of antiquity tells us how the saints thought God was best served at their devotions. I am, Sir, with great respect, your humble servant, MILES.

WE come now to a greater and more intricate consideration; for, say the objectors, if you ascribe the gift of the Spirit to confirmation, and not to the ministration of water, you "make baptism nothing." But what says the wise man? "Blame not before thou hast examined the matter; understand first, and then rebuke." One thing is clear, that the scripture cannot destroy itself, nor one divine ordination be injurious to another. If the ministration of the Spirit, as a rite distinct from the ministration of the water, be a scriptural and divine ordinance, -as by this time, I venture to think, we have pretty clearly shewn it to be, it is certain, that the upholding its importance cannot derogate from the just value due to baptism: and therefore, if we were unable to throw any farther light upon the subject, we might content ourselves with meek obedience and humble confidence. But I think the scriptures (though they profess not to bring down these things to the level of our human understandings, nor to make, the sons of men able, on this side the grave, to penetrate into the mysteries of the Spirit) do

Notes to the paper "ON CONFIRMATION," in the November and December Numbers. 1. The deficiency of our ritual, in that the only office for confirmation which it contains is inapplicable to those who have received adult baptism, or have been baptized among any of the schismatics, who do not use sponsors, is the result of the alteration at the last review, in the reign of Charles II. At that time the present exhortation was formed out of part of the old rubric; and the question and answer inserted, which are only applicable to those who have received infant baptism with

sponsors.

2. The work ascribed to St. Ambrose, from which an extract has been given, has been placed by the learned among the supposititious, though thought to be of the same date. Perhaps it may be satisfactory to the readers to receive another extract, from an undoubted work of Theodoret's, on the same subject. In his commentary on Hebrews, vi. 2, he says, "They who have believed, abhorring the foul odour of dead works of sin, and availing themselves of repentance, approach to the divine baptism, and receive the grace of the Spirit by the sacerdotal hands.'

3. There are two points connected with this subject very difficult to be ascertained; first, the period when infant confirmation began to be disused; secondly, the exact age which the church of England contemplates for receiving this rite. As to the first, Martene (De Antiqu. Eccles. Rit., lib. i. c. 2, art. i. s. 3,) is of opinion that it was nearly obsolete at the commencement of the thirteenth century; but the ground of his opinion is slender. He forms it chiefly from a rubric (Martene, lib. i. c. 1, art. 18, ordo 14,) of the church of Apamea, in Syria (one of the Latin churches which the crusaders uncanonically planted in the patriarchate of Antioch.) See Le Quien. Oriens Christianus, iii. p. 785-1187); which rubric, immediately after baptism, says, 66 Then, if the bishop is present, it is right that he (the child) should immediately be confirmed with christening, and be communicated according to the custom of some churches." Whence Martene concludes, that with most it had been discontinued. But another rubric, in the same office, speaks of the Bishop of Rome being in the habit of confirming infants; and it does not seem probable that the western churches generally would discontinue customs which the pope felt it right to retain. We find rubrics in very many churches in the west long after that period directing infant confirmation. The latest is one of the church of Vienne, in France, by no means an unimportant place, about the year 1500. There is another of the Cordeliers, of the same date. In our own country we find, from Archbishop Edmund, (whom Lestrange cites,) a. ». 1230, that the custom was to confirm at five years old. But even this delay was not sanctioned long, for Archbishop Reynolds,

yet furnish hints by means of which we may very clearly understand that sufficient importance will still belong to baptism to satisfy even those who must needs inquire into the benefit of God's ordinances before complying with them. When Cornelius and his friends had received the earnest of their inheritance, the gift of the Spirit of promise before baptism, and his presence in them was established to the conviction of the hesitating Peter, by outward signs, St Peter did not think that this made baptism nothing, but asked, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?" If God has thought these Gentiles fit for the ministration of the Spirit, shall not we think them fit to receive the ministration of water? From other passages of scripture we learn that remission of sins, sanctification, new birth, are all ascribed to water; and all these, which thus are sufficient to shew the indispensable value of baptism, are yet distinct from the gift of the Holy Ghost, which cannot be anywhere shewn to be conveyed by water. "Be baptized for the remission of sins," said St. Peter. "Be baptized, and wash away your sins," said Ananias. "Christ gave himself for the church,"

in 1322, directs, that " Parents be often admonished to carry their baptized children to the bishop for confirmation, and not to stay long for the coming of the bishop, but to carry them to him when he is in the neighbourhood, as soon as may be after baptism." From the character of this prelate, who was a strict disciplinarian, and from the circumstance of the custom being retained so long at Rome, I am inclined to suspect that the innovation of delaying it was jealously looked upon in the west as well as in the east. About the year 1400 we have a rubric of the church of Lyons speaking of seven years as the time; but in the same office other rubrics which contemplate that the child will not be taught the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Ave Maria, till after confirmation.

As to the second question, namely, the age contemplated by the church of England, since the Reformation, for receiving it, it is also difficult to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion; for the directions seem somewhat at variance. At least, according to our common notions of " 'years of discretion," we should hardly consider a child to have attained them at five years old; and yet many children, long before that time, can do all that elsewhere seems to be required to qualify them, according to our rules, for receiving confirmation. In the office for the public baptism of infants it

is thus-" Ye are to take care that this child be brought to the bishop, to be confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, (in the vulgar tongue,) and be further instructed in the church catechism, set forth for that purpose."

In one of the rubrics, at the end of the catechism, it is thus: "So soon as children are come to a competent age, and can say (in their mother tongue) the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and also answer to the other questions of this short catechism, they shall be brought to the bishop, and every one shall have a godfather or a godmother, as a witness of their confirmation."

In the order of confirmation it is thus: "The church hath thought good to order, that none hereafter shall be confirmed, but such as can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and can also answer to such other questions as in the short catechism are contained; which order is very convenient to be observed, to the end that children, being now come to years of discretion, and having learned what their godfathers and godmothers promised for them, &c."

What is a competent age? What are years of discretion? It should seem that the English bishops have adopted different standards at different times. Lestrange, in the middle of the seventeenth century, says, "The practice of late hath been, as soon as they could say their catechism, which (he continues) seemeth to be the discretion of our church, and so varieth according to the docibility of the children." Now it is not usual till fourteen or fifteen years.