TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN DEAR CHRISTIAN LADY, WITH all deference to your reply to Janette, in your January number, I feel that there is no scriptural warrant for bowing at the name of Jesus, in the creed or elsewhere. The practice is a relic of the inventions of popery, by which outward worship is substituted for inward, and the worshipper is self-deluded into reliance on meritorious observances. And we cannot be too watchful, in these days, against even the appearance of popish evil. But I grieve especially over that beautiful passage in Philip. ii. being brought to bear upon the practice. The practice is for men to bow the head, and women the knee, or head. The passage is, if brought out literally (and it is only by the literalness of the passage that the practice is justified), not that the head, but that the knee should bow; neither is it that the head of the man should bow, and the knee or head of the woman, but that " at (or properly, in) the name of Jesus every knee should bow ;' not of man or woman, but "of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth." So that the literal interpretation does not justify the literal practice. If it be replied, ‘True, but some outward act of reverence at the name of Jesus, befitting each sex, according to the observances of society, is intended.' Then the literal interpretation is given up, and the literal practice has no warrant from this passage. comes. But the fact is, my dear Lady, that the passage has nothing to do with the practice at all, literally or figuratively. It forms part of a statement by St. Paul of the glorification of Jesus, when the day of his glory Jesus, though equal with God, humbled himself into the fashion of a man, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore God hath highly exalted him, so that he shall receive in the day of his glory the adoration which is due to him from all created things, whether in heaven, or in earth, or under the earth; and every tongue shall everywhere confess that Jesus is LORD, has the power and the lordship over them, to the glory of God the Father. This is the mind of God in the passage. Pardon one, who is jealous over every word of his Lord; and could not but rescue a passage which has been sealed to his own spirit, as giving out a pledge of his Lord's future glorification, from the dishonour of seeming to sanction a papal and fleshly superstition. And he would observe, in parting, that it is of the highest importance to understand each passage of the word rightly; for whenever we miss the truth of it, we must fall into error; and that this is never more painfully exemplified than in the perversion of the thousand passages which speak of the Lord's glory to come. Yours in all Christian fellowship, ONE OF THE LORD'S WATCHMEN. WE readily insert the foregoing, because the writer has given us his name; and we honour him as being a truly pious minister of the gospel. We also desire to have the matter fairly argued out, within reasonable bounds. For ourselves, we continue of the same mind, as regards the propriety of the observance; even apart from all direct scriptural authority. The Holy Ghost has left many things to the judgment of the church. We use the expression in its utmost latitude, including every congregation of spiritual worshippers. Now the question arises, how far we are to pursue the work of innovation: whether all that the godly reformers of our national faith, the Protestant fathers of our national church, is to be swept away or how much, or how little of it? Some object to the sign of the cross in baptism: we consider the rite as equally perfect without it, yet would be very sorry to see that expressive part of the ceremony omitted. In like manner, many things that now are done decently and in order, must become a mass of confusion and contradiction, if individual ministers, or single congregations, still professing to adhere to the ritual of the established church, are to prune away whatsoever does not exactly fall in with their respective prepossessions. The monstrous abuses, we will say the abominations, introduced into the worship of some churches, particularly in Oxford, we utterly repudiate and abhor: they amount to external idolatry, whatever the secret intention may be: but we hope that some clerical friend may be induced to give us a few paragraphs on the subject of bowing at the name of Jesus, calculated to place it in a less objectionable light than our excellent correspondent has done. We honour his conscientious scruples: and he will not chide us for so far retaining our own.-ED.] BISHOP RAVENSCROFT. I DOUBT not that amongst the readers of the Christian Lady's Magazine, many, like myself, are readers of the Church of England Magazine also. In a recent number of the latter a very interesting paper, entitled,‘The Lay Reader,' contained an anecdote connected with the late excellent Bishop Ravenscroft, of South Carolina. This allusion to him brought to my mind some of the circumstances of his remarkable history, which were once related to me by one who had been his personal friend. I wish I could recount them in the very words in which they were told to me but I remember the facts, and they are very striking in themselves. Mr. Ravenscroft's family was of Scottish origin, and he was sent to study at Edinburgh, from whence he returned to take possession of a large property which he inherited in one of the southern states. He had imbibed infidel principles, and was dreadfully profane; so that it was a common saying, of any one remarkable for profligate character and profáne language, that he was as bad as Mr. Ravenscroft.' But in him-as in the case of one who was also once a blasphemer"-the Lord "showed forth all long-suffering;" and to him also "the word of reconcilation" was to be afterwards committed, although to human eyes he appeared hardened beyond hope in obstinate rebellion. 66 In this state he continued till he was about forty years of age. At this time one of the negroes on his plantation, who had equalled his master in his habitual profaneness of speaking, became a truly religious character, and in consequence was heard to swear no more. Mr. Ravenscroft ridiculed the idea of this change having been produced by religious principle, and said that he could do the same as his slave had done, by force of his own resolution. Accordingly he several times resolved, and as often broke his resolution. At length being enraged at his own want of power over himself, he made a vow, with the most horrid imprecations upon himself, if he should fail to keep it. In three weeks his vow was broken, something having occurred to excite his passionate feelings. As soon as he remembered what he had done, he went into what might be called a frenzy of rage and despair, enraged at discovering his own weakness, and despairing of escaping the punishments he had imprecated upon himself. Then at once his pride seemed to be subdued; he thought there might even yet be hope from the mercy of God, and felt that there was no other hope for him; and now, for the first time in his life, as he said, he knelt down in prayer. From that time "old things passed away and all things became new;" " cursing and bitterness" no longer proceeded from his lips, but "contrariwise blessing; " and the friend I before mentioned thought his character one of the most saintly she had ever known. As soon as he became a Christian he devoted himself to the instruction of his negroes. His words and his example had hitherto been the means of leading them in every evil way; but now he spoke to them "the word of life," with that "sweetness" |