of baptism. The abuse was great over all this land. In the greatest parish of London, scarce one child in a year was brought to the church for baptism. Also we have carried the parents' presenting of his child, and not the midwives, as was their universal custom." It thus appears from the statements of Principal Baillie, that the communion table was a subject of much discussion in the Westminster Assembly for some months; the Independents insisting upon communicating in their pews, as they had been accustomed; whilst our commissioners from the church of Scotland insisted that the communicants should come up in companies to the communion table. After long and serious discussion, it was decided as in the Directory, which states, that "The table being before decently covered, and so conveniently placed, that the communicants may orderly sit about it, or at it, the minister is to begin the action, with sanctifying and blessing the elements of bread and wine set before him," &c. &c.; and after the blessing the directory proceeds, "That the minister being at the table, is to take the bread," &c. The directory thus states the necessity of a table, not a table from which the great body of the communicants are excluded, according to the late corrupt innovation, but a" table that the communicants may orderly sit about it, or at it," in opposition to the communicants sitting in their pews, as had been argued by the Independents. The directory for worship, agreed on by the Assembly at Westminster, was examined, approved, and establish ed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, by an act, dated Feb. 3, 1645. This act was passed unanimously, and "requires, decerns, and ordains, that according to the plain tenor and meaning there of, and intent of the preface, it be carefully, and uniformly observed, and practised by all the ministers, and others within this kingdom, whom it doth concern ;"-thus preventing every minister from introducing any innovation, or making any deviation from the form of worship established in the Directory, "according to the plain tenor and meaning thereof," and which is to be "carefully and uniformly observed and practised by all the ministers, and others within this kingdom." So that no discretionary power is left for any minister to make innovations according to his own pleasure on the established form of public worship. But as several things in the directory are, in the language of Principal Baillie, stated in "general expressions, which, by a benign interpretation would infer our church practices ;" and as the communion table had been a matter of so much debate between the Independents in the Westminster Assembly and our Scotish commissioners, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in their act 1645, approving and establishing the Directory for Worship, have inserted a special clause of exception or explanation respecting the communion table. The words of the clause are: " Provided always that the clause in the directory of the administration of the Lord's supper, which mentioneth the communicants sitting about the table, or at it, be not interpreted, as if, in the judgment of this kirk, it were indifferent and free for any of the communicants not to come to, and receive at the table ;" thus prohibiting all communicants from receiving in any other way, than at the "communion table," and, as the act respecting the whole Directory bears," according to the plain tenor and meaning thereof." This clause is evidently directed against the practice of the Independents, and intended to guard against all such innovations as that lately introduced. Say In a letter from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to the Assembly at Westminster, dated Feb. 13, 1645, they plainly and decidedly state their reasons for introducing this clause. they, "We have thought necessary to declare and make known, that the clause in the directory for the administration of the Lord's supper, which appointeth the table to be so placed, that the communicants may orderly sit about it, or at it, is not to be interpreted, as if in the judgment of this kirk, it were indifferent for any of the communicants not to come to, and receive at the table; in which particulars we still conceive and believe the or der and practice of our own kirk to be most agreeable and suitable to the word of God, the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the nature of that heavenly feast and table." They farther add, "Nevertheless, in other particulars we have resolved, and do agree, and we do most willingly part with such practices and customs of our own, as may be parted with safely, and without the violation of any of Christ's ordinances, or trespassing against Scriptural rules, or our so lemn covenants." It thus appears that the reasons of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in 1645, for introducing this clause of explanation respecting the communion table, were at once wise, pious, and conscientious. They were willing to part with such of their own practices and customs as did not violate any of Christ's ordinances, or trespass against Scripture rules; but in this particular they declare their adherence to the order and practice of their own kirk, which at that time was that of Geneva, as appointed by acts of Assembly, 1562, and 1564; according to which "every man and woman take their place at the table as occasion best serveth ;" and this they consider as "most agreeable and suitable to the word of God, the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the nature of that heavenly feast and table." Such then is the law and determination of the church in this matter; and the act of Assembly, 1645, is approved by the fifteenth act of Assembly, 1705. Many are the laws of the church of Scotland, guarding against all innovations contrary to the purity and uniformity of worship authorized and practised in our national church. The thirteenth act of Assembly, 1639, and the fourteenth act of Assembly, 1641, both of which are confirmed by the eleventh act of Assembly, 1695, are all directed to this object, as well as the ninth act of Assembly, 1697, commonly called the Barrier Act. The fifteenth act of Assembly, 1707, is particularly directed to this object; and to this act every probationer at receiving licence, and every minister of the Church of Scotland, at his ordination, in the most solemn manner, promises subjection and obedience. In answer to questions put to them, they are taken bound in the most solemn manner, "to maintain and defend the doctrine and worship of the church as presently authorized and practised, and contained in this fifteenth act of Assembly, 1707, and to follow no divisive courses from said doctrine and worship." By the twenty-second parliament of James VI. chap. 6, it is ordained, "That kirks be provided with basons, and lavers for baptisms, and cups, tables, and table cloths for the holy communion, at the expense of the parishioners; and that the minister keep the same; and he, aud his heirs, and executors, be answerable therefore, in case they be either lost, or used to profane uses." The act of Assembly establishing the Directory, 1645, was confirmed and ratified in all the heads and articles thereof, by an act of parliament, dated Feb. 6, 1645; and, since the Revolution, the worship of the Church of Scotland is secured by the acts of parliament 1690 and 1693, and by the act of security, 1707. This forms an essential article in the union with England, and is secured by the coronation oath of the sovereign; so that the form of worship, authorized and practised in the Established Church of Scotland, is as well secured as any laws, ecclesiastical or civil, can possibly render it. From this statement it is evident that the late innovation of excluding communicants from the communion table, and substituting pews for the table, is a violation of the laws of the Established Church of Scotland, as well as a departure from the constant practice, which ought to be corrected without delay. It is exceeding proper and becoming that the laws of the church on this subject should be carried into effect; that unity and uniformity in the public worship of God may be observed in all parts of our established national church; for if every one is allowed to make alteration as he shall judge agreeable or convenient, nothing but disorder and confusion will follow. J. B. N. M. REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. cred or profane. There are so many interesting recollections connected with the names of Egypt, the Holy Land, Damascus, Jerusa. lem, and Alexandria, that the demand for works which give a view of their recent state is not likely to be soon exhausted. There have been many books written lately on these subjects, and written by distinguished authors, yet we persuade ourselves that the readers of Dr. Richardson's travels will be much gratified with the perusal of this work, and will thank him for having given it publicity. That which chiefly interests the general reader in books of travels is, the traits of human character which they exhibit. The appearances of external nature and the works of art are, to a certain de gree, interesting; but mountains, and rivers, and temples, and pillars, and arches, and hieroglyphics, soon become very wearisome, except to the professed artist or antiquarian. When the traveller has described one set of pillars, or arches, or hieroglyphics, all the others bear so great a resemblance to them, at least in description, that it is impossible to engage the reader's attention very long to matters of this kind without the aid of numerous and accurate plates. But to display human character, as modified by different educations, religions, governments, and climates, is sure to excite an interest which it is scarcely possible to exhaust. In these volumes we have much on both these points; but we propose chiefly to give such extracts, and to make such remarks, as may give our readers a view of the characters and habits of the inhabitants of those countries through which our author travelled. He set out with the Earl and Countess of Belmore, in August, 1816, and visited Malta, Naples, Sieily, the Ionian Isles, Greece, the Troad, Constantinople, and various other places; all of which he has passed with very slight notices, and commences the particular narrative of his travels at Alexandria. On Ithaca he remarks, "that it is as barren and picturesque as in the days of Ulysses, and that the description of Homer, as translated by Mr. Pope, is still applicable to the harbour. Far from the town a spacious fort ap. He remarks that "it is a singular coincidence, that a picturesque and solitary olive on the top of the mountain renders even the two last lines completely applicable." It cannot be the identical tree which was there in the days of Ulysses; and it shows greater enthusiasm for antiquity than we could have expected among the Greeks in their late depressed state to have reserved this tree. In Malta, we are informed that there are 500 priests, 100 of whom can neither read nor write. Under British government, and through British example and influence, we are persuaded it will not long be the case that such ignorance will prevail. Ancient Alexandria lies in ruins. One of the celebrated obelisks called Cleopatra's needle, which had been overturned, our author tells us, was at that time raised on props for the purpose of being conveyed to England. He expresses some surprise, how it had happened that the wellknown pillar had got the name of Pompey. We will hazard the following conjecture on that point. The British officers when in Egypt, by watching the shadow of the sun for a short space daily, were able to make out the inscription which had been considered as illegible; from which it appeared that the pillar had been erected by Pontius, prefect in Egypt, in honour of Dioclesian. We conjecture that, instead of being called Dioclesian's pillar, it got the name of its erector, Pontius; but, as he was a person totally unknown in history, the fact of his having erected it came soon to be forgotten, and, by a slight corruption of the name, it was changed from Pontius' pillar to Pompey's pillar. Dr. Richardson gives the following account of Alexandria : "The modern Alexandria occupies the neck of land that divides the two harbours, a considerable part of which is the artificial mound that was formed in the time of Alexander the Great, to unite the island of Pharos with the continent. It is surrounded by a high stone wall, entered by four gates, and contains 14,000 inhabitants. The streets are narrow, dirty, and irregular; the houses are from two to three stories high, strong and substantial, but of a remarkably dull appearance, from their being few windows to the streets."-P. 23. The following remark will be thought worthy of attention; and, if followed up, may be productive of important discoveries: "In the modern passion for exploring the ruins of ancient cities, the site of Alex andria has been unaccountably neglected. Yet this is the door by which the Egyptian antiquary ought to enter on his researches. Alexandria was the connecting link be twixt the Egyptian and the Grecian world, where the obscure and symbolical writings of the one were interpreted into the wellknown and almost universal language of the other. This is the place to search for the key that will unlock the hidden mysteries of the hieroglyphics. Here, for the first time, as far as we know, the sacred language of the priests was translated into the language of the country, and the language of the conquerors; and, if any corresponding alphabet exists to enable us to know the value of each symbolical character used in the sacred writings of the ancient Egyptians, it is more likely to be found in the ruins of this city of interpreters than in any other place."-Vol. i. p. 27. Of the value of the knowledge which is wrapt up in hieroglyphics there are various opinions. Some rate it very low. The learned Stillingfleet says, "I cannot think any rational man could think that study worth his pains which, at the highest, can amount but to a conjecture; and when it is come to that, with a great deal of pains, it is nothing but some ordinary and trivial observation. As in that famous hieroglyphic of Diospotis, so much spoken of by the ancients, where was a child to express coming into the world; an old man for going out of it; an hawk for God; a hippopotamus for hatred; and a crocodile for impudence; and all to express this venerable maxim: 'O ye that come into the world, and that go out of it, God hates impudence.' And therefore certainly this head of learning deserves the highest form among the difficiles nuga; and all these hieroglyphics put together will make but one good one, and that should be for labour lost."-Origines Sacræ. We differ considerably from this opinion; and though we should expect no addition to be made either to our moral or think there is nothing irrational in philosophical knowledge, yet we wishing to know the opinions of the ancient sages of Egypt on those points where we do not expect any additional information. But as to history, if we were able to decypher the hieroglyphics, we have no doubt that they would greatly add to our knowledge; and that they would also throw light on a good deal of the prophetic imagery of Scripture. Dr. Richardson left Alexandria in one of the country vessels, and mentions that "they expected to reach Rosetta that night, which is the usual course of the voyage." This we think explains what Homer has said about the distance of Pharos from Egypt, being a day's sail with a fair wind. Homer probably did not consider the coast where Alexandria stands as belonging to Egypt, but rather to Libya, and, in saying that Egypt was a day's sail distant, had in view some principal city within the Delta, at which passengers first landed in sailing from the Pharos ; and which, it appears, is still a day's sailing from that station. Cæsar places the Pharos at 900 paces from the continent, and all the ancient writers agree with him except Homer. Instead of adopting the hypothesis, that the land had gained so much on the sea between the |