scientious; (2) that in this obedience the law be supreme over her who commands as well as her who obeys; (3,) that it be possible to withdraw from the obedience. And these are our principles.

"2. No vows or engagements.' You allege that the engagements taken by the Deaconesses are anti-Christian vows. But the difference is immense between the vow and the engagement. The latter is, in fact, simply like that which takes place in ordinary life, as in the case of servants, teachers, apprentices, &c. As in those instances, so in this: there is a term at which the engagements can be renewed or broken. . . They are taken freely, not as before God or in His name, but simply with regard to an administration which receives the Deaconesses on their own application, instructs them during eighteen months at least, supplies them with the means of support, tends them in their sicknesses, and assures them of a home in old age. It is expressly stated, also, that the engagement can be broken, not only for urgent reasons,' but by mutual agreement,' seeing that 'the work claims no devotion but that which is willingly rendered.' If we ought to avoid illusions of words, surely we ought to avoid confusion of ideas." (VERMEIL, pp. 12-16.)

In the same Report a further answer is given to M. Coquerel by another writer:

"No obedience, you say; but observing rules which you know beforehand, is no servitude. Following the direction of the person who is judged most capable, is not servitude. ... If the law of Christ is perfect liberty, the bond of marriage is contrary to that law." And then he adds:

"No obedience is equivalent to anarchy. What is any administration, without some chief to give direction and impulse? A body without a head or a mind, is a corpse.'

I add no comment on these extracts. These are questions which must be considered by those who contemplate the establishment of any analogous institutions in England; and I think it is not without advantage to present the controversy exactly as it has already occurred in France.

I will only say, in conclusion, concerning this Paris DeaconessInstitution, that it would be quite a mistake to conclude, from the preceding remarks, that it is a failure. If it was good policy to begin a series of papers on the Female Diaconate by understating my argument, it is due to the cause which is advocated to leave the reader in no doubt as to the success of this practical illustration of it. No doubt the Paris Institution has still to contend with difficulties. It is in a less favourable position now, with regard to Government, than when the late Duchess of Orléans could extend to it a powerful help. But even in public recognition it has been gaining ground of late. The municipality of Paris received so favourable a report of the establishment, from a commission appointed to examine *Pages 30, 31, from "l'Echo de la Reforme." 4 T

Vol. 60.-No. 285.

it, that it has pledged itself to a large annual contribution; and within the last two years it has received from the central government that public authorisation which is only given to philan thropic institutions of acknowledged utility. As regards internal statistics, whereas in 1854 there were only fourteen Deaconesses, there are now twenty-one, exclusive of probationers.* As regards the successful maintenance of a principle under discouragements, this Paris Institution is peculiarly valuable and important. It is a firm outpost in an enemy's country. Its very struggles make it a most instructive sample of a system, which is growing and spreading, and which, in fact, has so grown and spread as to have become a feature of the best Continental Protestantism.-Your obedient servant,

J. S. H.

RICHARD BAXTER ON THE USE OF THE WORDS
PRIEST AND ALTAR.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR,-You have well and seasonably called our attention to the use of the term Altar, rather than that of the Lord's table. The former has been excluded from the Communion service of our church as inappropriate, and in the consciousness of the evil use made of it by Romanists.

The question is not now one of bare names, but of scriptural truth; and these are times when those faithful to that truth should feel it especially imperative to restrict themselves to our church's language in this matter. It were indeed happy if no cause of just suspicion had been thrown upon the use of the term altar, either by some of the clergy or others; and well if we might now regard each other as at liberty to use either that term, or the Lord's table, as each might please. But since some express such cordial abhorrence of the Reformation, and some avow the Popish views of the Scottish Episcopal Communion service as the true faith, and seek also to introduce it amongst us, this scandal renders an exclusive compliance with the language of Scripture and our Church, in this particular, the more incumbent on us.

It is well, therefore, that the public be awakened to the effects of admitting a term excluded from our service, and led to consider, that existing circumstances should now render its exclusion, as a scandal and word of ill design, permanent.

If you think fit to give admission in your next number to the subjoined 122nd question, as found in Baxter's Cases of Con

* There has been an increase also in the out-stations.

One Deaconess conducts

a home for convalescents at Passy; one is at Rouen. Six, in all, are now labouring beyond the limits of the parent-house.

science about Matters Ecclesiastical, we may hope that the more sober and consistent members of our church will see that times and doings are such as to forbid that latitude of expression which purer days and more single purposes allowed.

According to Baxter's calm and moderate view of the question, the exception must now be the rule; whilst our church's service may well be our example, if we would maintain the purity of her teaching.

By the exclusion of that which is now an offence and instrument of evil, we shall avoid the condemnation, not of those who used the term altar, not foreseeing the advantage they would give the Papists, but the heavy culpability of those who, with their eyes open, have long seen why Romanists make use of it, and now see why Romanizers adopt it, seeking thereby to bring in an ill sense of it into our church, and to engraft on our Communion service their unscriptural and popish doctrine. I am, Sir, yours faithfully,

H. J. D.

QUESTION 122. May the name priests, sacrifices, and altars be lawfully now used instead of Christ's ministers, worship, and the holy table?

"Answer 1. He that useth them in design to bring in the popish transubstantiation and real sacrifice of the Mass, doth heinously sin in such a design and use.

"2. In a time and place where they may not be used without scandal, or tempting or encouraging any to their errors, the scandal will be a grievous sin.

"3. The New Testament useth all the Greek names which we translate priests, sacrifice, and altars, therefore we may use the same in Greek; and our translation and English names are not intolerable. If priest come from presbyter, I need not prove that; if it do not, yet all ministers are subordinate to Christ in his priestly office as essentially as in the rest. And Rev. i. 6, and v. 10, and xx. 6, it is said, that we are or shall be made priests of God, and unto God. And 1 Peter ii. 5, we are an holy priesthood, and ver. 9, a 'royal priesthood.' If this be said of all, then especially of ministers.

"And the word sacrifice is used of us and our offered worship, 1 Pet. ii. 5, Heb. xiii. 15, 16, Phil. iv. 18, Ephes. v. 2, Romans xii. 1. And Heb. xiii. 10 saith, We have an altar whereof they partake not, &c. And the word is frequently used in the Revelations vi. 9, and viii. 3, 5, and xvi. 7, &c. in relation to gospel times. We must not, therefore, be quarrelsome about the bare names, unless they be abused to some ill use.

"4. The ancient fathers and churches did ever use all these words so familiarly, without any question or scruple raised about them, either by the orthodox or any heretics that at present I can remember to have ever read of, that we should be the more wary how we condemn the bare words, lest thence we give advantage to the Papists to make them tell their followers, that all antiquity was on their side. Which were very easy for them to prove, if the controversy were about the

names alone. Extreames and passionate imprudence do give the adversaries great advantages.

"5. The names of sacrifice and altar were used by the ancient churches, not properly, but merely in allusion to the Jewish and heathen sacrifices and altars, together with a tropical use from the Christian reasons of the name.

"As the Lord's Supper is truly the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, and therefore called by Protestants a commemorative sacrifice; so that our controversies with the Papists is not, whether it be called a sacrifice, but whether it be only the sacrament of a sacrifice, or a sacramental commemorative sacrifice, or also a real proper sacrifice of the very body and blood itself of Christ. For we acknowledge that this is a sacrifice' is no more tropical a speech than 'this is my body and blood.'

"6. Yet it must be noted, that the Scripture useth the word 'sacrifice' about ourselves, and our thanksgivings and praises, and works of charity, rather than of the Lord's Supper; and 'priests' of all men, lay or clergy, that offer these foresaid sacrifices to God. Though the ancient doctors used them familiarly, by way of allusion, of the sacrament and its administrators.

"7. In a word, as no Christian must use these or any words, to false ends or senses, or deceiving purposes, nor yet to scandal; so out of these cases, the words are lawful: and as the fathers are not to be any further condemned for using them, that as the words (which they foresaw not) have given advantage to the Papists to bring in an ill sense and doctrine; so those that now live in churches and countries where the public professed doctrine doth free them from the suspicion of a Popish ill sense, should not be quarrelled with for the terms; but all sober Christians should allow each other the liberty of such phrases without censoriousness or breach of charity or peace.'

THE BIBLE AND ITS CRITICS.

The Bible and its Critics: an Enquiry into the Objective Reality of Revealed Truths. Being the Boyle Lectures for MDCCCLXI. By the Rev. Edward Garbett, M.A., Incumbent of St. Bartholomew's, Gray's Inn Road; Author of "The Soul's Life," &c. London: Seeley and Griffiths, 2 Hanover Street, Regent Street. 1861.

THE Boyle Lectureship has not enriched the stores of theological literature to the extent which might have been anticipated; and which was doubtless hoped for by its illustrious founder. Bentley was the first lecturer. Appointed within two years of his ordination, his lectures at once established his reputation as a preacher, and in 1694 he was again nominated by the trustees, one of whom was Evelyn. His first Series was devoted to the refutation of the systems of Hobbes and Spinoza, and to the

popular exposition and recommendation of the discoveries with which Newton had just startled the world. These lectures went through several editions, and were translated into Latin by the profound oriental scholar Jablonski, author of the "Pantheon Ægyptiorum." Their author was speedily rewarded with a Worcester canonry. The second series was never published, nor is it known that the author's manuscript is in existence, Bishop Van Mildert preached the Boyle as well as the Bampton Lectures. In later years, we believe that Canon Wordsworth and the Rev. W. G. Humphrey have held the office. But we must own to ignorance even of their subjects. The series of the Rev. F. D. Maurice, "The Religions of the World," was delivered in 1845-6, and has reached at least a third edition. In his preface Mr. Maurice intimates that they were delivered "to the eight or ten persons, who in the present times compose an ordinary week-day congregation." Hitherto they have been preached on the first Monday in the month, from September to May-an_arrangement singularly infelicitous for securing listeners. The present bishop of London has sanctioned a new scheme, under which the lecturer shall submit his plan of subject, time, and place, each year to his lordship. In the present instance, the lectures were delivered, on consecutive Sunday afternoons, in Trinity church, Marylebone; and it speaks well both for lecturer and congregations, that Mr. Garbett is enabled to report in his preface that an "unexpected" measure of "success accompanied their oral delivery, ""evidenced by the large and attentive congregations who listened to them.'

But if the bishop of London is to be congratulated on his practical sagacity in the remodelling of the arrangements for the delivery of these lectures, still more so on his choice of a lecturer. Mr. Garbett was already advantageously known as the author of a volume of sermons of far more than average merit. And we learned with great satisfaction that an admirable sermon preached by him before the University of Oxford had been followed by his nomination to the office of Select Preacher. We have no hesitation in at once affirming that in his "Bible and its Critics" he has produced a great work. We use the term advisedly. It is a work worthy to usher in a new series of Boyle Lectures which shall take permanent rank with the noblest defences of our "most holy faith." Philosophical, but not dry; logical, but not dull; calm, without frigidity; controversial, without bitterness; enriched with the results of wide and well-digested learning-in style animated and, in more than one passage, thrillingly eloquent, but without declamation or bombast-above all, glowing throughout with the evidence that with the author "the gospel of the grace of God," and the inspired Book in which that gospel is revealed to us, are not subject matters for polemical contention and