were come to him, he said to them, -Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops.' What proof can be more substantial than this, that elders and bishops were identical ? But the passage is replete with other instruction on this subject. A Church of England bishop is a governor of the church, in whom are vested the ecclesiastical functions of ordaining and confirming. The office of the primitive bishops was to take heed to the flock, to be an overseer of the flock, to feed the church. His constant presence with the flock is unquestionably imported in these expressions, and it were the extreme of absurdity to consider the term 'flock' as denoting any other object than a community, one body of Christian believers. Now, every pastor of a Christian church is a bishop, and no individual is a bishop, in the Scriptural and proper use of the expression, but a pastor of a Christian church. A Church of England bishop bears no resemblance to a primitive bishop. He is by far too great a personage to be recognised in this relation. He is, not only in his secularities, but in his publick office and employments, most unlike such bishops as Paul met at Miletus, or addressed at Philippi."

**

*

*

*

"The worst part of the Catechism has not yet been brought under the observation of our readers. We proceed now, to notice it, and to comment in such manner upon it, as our sense of the truth and value of the saving doctrine of Christ, and our regard for the verities of the gospel require. We should be sorry to offer a single remark on the passage which we shall immediately lay before our readers, that would not receive its ample justification in the letter and spirit of the following extract.

Q. What do you conclude from the form, character, and privileges of the Church of Christ?

'A. I conclude, first, that as there is an holy Catholick Church, for which Chrst died, we have no hope of salvation, but as being faithful members of it;

6

Secondly, That all true churches are parts of the one holy Catholick Church: and

Thirdly, That Sects, which are so divided from any true church, as to have no communion with it, it is to be feared cannot be parts of the one Catholick Church for which Christ died.'

"To what influence shall we attribute the language and the spirit of this passage? Does it indicate the perversion of the understanding of its author, or that unchristian feelings have obtained a place within him? Is Dr. Burgess at last to be numbered with the Mants and the Daubeneys? Is he to be henceforth added to the persons who, as partizans of a secular church, have put themselves forward as examples of a zeal which the word of God neither inculcates nor commands, and of a spirit altogether inconsistent with the imitation of Christ, and utterly unknown to the Apostles? Is he to be classed with the prejudiced and bigoted? We had hoped not to see him so dishonoured. We had expected other representations of the doctrine of Christ from one whom we have been accustomed to consider as not unacquainted with it. But either with unhallowed knowledge, or with the most offensive bigotry, it is but too evident that he is chargeable. Let our readers reflect on the case which he has taken so much pains to construct and exhibit in the pages of this Catechism, and on the exclusion which he has so presumptuously intimated, and then decide whether the expression of our severe censure is not demanded. A true church is a church in which the word of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly administered by persons ordained by bishops, and which is governed and

served by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; and 'sects' not in communion with such a church are excluded from salvation! This is the doctrine of the Catechism. For what purpose, we should be glad to learn, has the Right Reverend Catechist inserted the words 'it is to be feared? Had he any misgivings that he had been falsifying the Christian doctrine, and teaching his catechumens another way of seeking acceptance with God than that to which the promise of salvation belongs? Or was it in the moment of his compassionate feeling for the perishing, that the expression of his alarm escaped? What impression was he intending to produce on the minds of his docile scholars by this interjected 'it is to be feared? We hold in utter abhorrence the doctrine of the Catechism, though a Bishop is its Author. We hold it up to the gaze and reprobation of all Christians. It is not from the pure sources of religious knowledge that such tenets have been derived; and he who can attempt to give them currency, forfeits all just claim to be respected as a Protestant teacher. They are among the rankest errors of popery; and he who is voluntary in abetting them, is prepared to be a genuine minister of the Romish faith. John Howard, the philanthropist, belonged to a 'sect' which had no communion with a church governed by 'Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,' but he professed the faith of Christ, and illustrated its principles and tendencies by the sanctity and beneficence of his actions; and of such a man, divided' from such a church, shall a question be agitated that he is not a partaker in the felicities of those for whom Christ died? The late Sir Henry Moncrieff Welwood was a member and minister of the legal' church of Scotland, which, not having Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,' is not a true church-but to him neither the primitive churches of Christ, VOL. VI.-Ch. Adv.

nor the Apostles and Teachers, who were their light and their glory, would have refused their fellowship, though neither Bishops, nor Priests, nor Deacons, of the legal and true church' of England, would admit him to ecclesiastical communion, and of such a man, exalted by all the ennobling qualities of a divine faith, shall it be presumed that he had no part in the benefits of Christ's salvation? Bishop Burgess can read such names, he can think of such men, and of others like them, who reposed their trust on the grace and promise of the Saviour, and denying all ungodliness, lived soberly, righteously, and piously in the world, and he can give utterance to sentiments which aver their peril of salvation! We are utterly shocked and revolted at the bigotry and impiety of such averments. They are so entirely in opposition to all that is taught in the New Testament, as the doctrine of Christ, that every reader of its pages must perceive their differ

ence.

Where the variation is SO obvious, it might seem to be an unnecessary labour, to employ a single argument in refutation of the error. It might seem more proper to rebuke the arrogance and to expose the bigotry of such assumptions as are industriously circulated in the tract. We shall, we believe, best fulfil the duty which we owe, first to truth, and then to the publick, by confronting the evidence of the New Testament on the most important of all subjects which can be interesting to human creatures, with the doctrine unblushingly pub lished by the present Catechist.

"On what grounds and in what manner does any individual to whom the Gospel is published, become a partaker of the hope of Christians, and obtain an interest in its blessings? In the solution of this inquiry, every person is alike concerned, and all to whom the New Testament is open and accessible, are bound to satisfy them

K

selves in respect to its doctrines and inculcations, because its pretensions and its appeals are individual in their relation. No class, nor any number of men, is empowered to judge for others what are the requirements or the benefits comprised in the Christian verities. Every one's judgment has here its personal uncontrolled exercise, and the addresses of the New Testament are as directly personal, and possess equally the character of in dividuality to the examiner, as if he alone existed, and was the only person for whose use they were intend ed. Now, let a man take up the New Testament, and read it, and examine it. Is there a syllable in it, from the beginning to the end, which teaches him that his salvation depends upon any external relation, that his obtaining forgiveness, and being admitted into the Divine favour, are inseparable from his relation to some visible community? That he must necessarily be united with a particular society of men, before he can be a partaker of spiritual blessings? In those passages of Scripture which answer the question, What must I do to be saved?' is there a single syllable which limits salvation by any external regulations and provisions? No. Assuredly not. There were persons in the Apostolick age, who taught that it was necessary to a man's salvation, that he should observe the external rights of Judaism: Except ye be circumcised, and observe the law of Moses, ye cannot be saved.' In what manner this inculcation was repelled by the true teachers of the Christian doctrine, we well know: "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' It matters little, if men are led aside from Christian truth, and the Gospel be perverted, to what object their attention and devotedness are solicited. The external rites of Juda

ism are just as good and valuable as bishops, priests, and deacons. And if a man's salvation be allowed only as he belongs to a legal and true church' duly furnished with ecclesiasticks thus entitled, there is as gross a perversion of the gospel of Christ in this case, as there was in the other; and though we are not Apostles, and dare not therefore pronounce the awful sentence of excision, we can have no scruple in asserting, that the perversion or obscuring of the method of man's acceptance with God, and the attributing of it to associations and circumstances, from which, in the indelible records of inspired truth, it stands apart and unconnected, must incur for him on whom it is chargeable, a heavy responsibility. Who is the Bishop of Salisbury, that these arrogant assumptions and exclusions should come from him? We would oppose to his monstrous dogmas, the plain asseverations of the New Testamentthe words of Him who will preside at the solemnities of the last day, and to whom is infallibly known the reason of men's admittance into heaven. In all the declarations of Jesus Christ respecting salvation, it is character, and not relation, that is exhibited. Our connexion with persons and with churches he never adverts to. He uniformly speaks of man apart from all association with his kind, and fixes our regard on our individuality of character and state. He that believeth shall be saved.' 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' The pure in heart shall see God.' 'If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Joy shall be over one sinner that repenteth.' What, we ask, is repentance-what faith-what purity of heart? Are they not internal personal exercises and qualities? And where is the individual. when he is the subject of these? In his retirement-in his Maker's presence, confessing his sins, repent

་

ing of his transgressions, imploring mercy-and obtaining it through the grace of his Redeemer. To unite himself with other believers in Christian communion, may subsequently be his duty, and he may by such a measure fulfil the obligations which his conscience admits; but his salvation is altogether a distinct consideration, and is not dependent on any external relations. Jesus Christ has given every believer the assurance that he shall not perish, but have everlasting life. And in the face of this declaration of the Saviour of the world, shall the Author of this Catechism be permitted to utter the effusions of bigotry, and exclude from the assurance of salvation the humble and obedient believer, who worships apart from the offices and ministers of the church to which he himself belongs? To what rebukes does not an ecclesiastick of such a spirit subject himself? Is salvation a monopoly in his hands, or circumscribed by the laws of his community? Sects cannot be parts of the one Catholick Church for which Christ died.' As the Bishop of Salisbury has chosen to speak of sects, we would remind him that his own community is but a sect, one of the parties in separation from the Church of Rome, the great, but not the only pretended monopolist of salvation. He is but an humble imitator of her doctors and her bishops, whose language in respect to all Protestants he has but repeated. That language, whether used by Papists or by Protestants, we hold in utter contempt. It cannot be less scandalously offensive in the Bishop of Salisbury, than in the bishops of the Romish church; and if he choose to symbolize with them in the publication of this antichristian dogma, we cannot perceive that he has entitled himself to the respect of intelligent and Christian men. Not only the temerity, but the impiety of such pretensions, must surprise and

shock every person who has learned from the New Testament the doctrine of Christ.

"In this Short Catechism,' written by a Bishop, and adopted and circulated by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge,' there is more of error and of sophistry, more of the perversion and abuse of sacred Scripture, more violations of Christian truth and charity, more numerous proofs of mental imbecility or delusion, and more pernicious inculcation, than in any tract or book which we have for a long time seen. An object was to be accomplished by its Author, and he has not been very scrupulous in respect to the means by which he has attempted it. If he had been careful of these, we should not have found such ill-assorted questions and answers in this tract, and such gaping chasms between his premises and the conclusions which follow them. An Episcopalian remarked on the Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving' ordered to be used on the recovery of his present Majesty in 1820, which we suppose was composed by one or more bishops, that it seems as if there were a fatality in our modern state prayers;' and he adds, If the framer of it had wished to expose the Church to the derision of her enemies, he could not have done it more effectually than by such a form.' The framer of this Short Catechism' has been labouring in the service of the Church, much after such a fashion. Mankind are not to be influenced by such representations as he has put forth, to forego their inalienable right of examining and determining for themselves, as the subjects of religion, the claims and evidences of truth, and the manner of their professing it. The whole of religious obligation is very evident and very plain. Every man is, as the subject of religion, accountable only to God, for his religious principles and conduct; and this being the case, his association with others for

religious objects, must be voluntary. If Bishop Burgess could refute this statement of the grounds of religious profession, he might achieve something in favour of his priestly claims, and we might possibly be conformists to his Church. But this refutation neither he, nor his

episcopal brethren can furnish. And we, in the full confidence of the truth and security of these grounds, reject his claims as arrogant and vain, and despise the disingenuous methods by which he has attempted to support them,"

Fascinating Power of Snakes.--The following remarks by a correspondent in the last number of Silliman's Journal, are calculated to set this curious subject in its true light.

Sir-I was rather surprised to observe an article, in the last number of the American Journal of Science and Arts, (Vol. xii, page 368,) which speaks of the supposed fascinating power of Snakes, as though it were an established fact. The writer professes to be "convinced by ocular demonstration;" and yet, so differently do men view occurrences of a similar character,-I have witnessed cases fully as much in point, and I think even stronger than the one there related, which "convinced" me, that the notion of a fascinating power, in those animals, is an utter fallacy and delusion. I had supposed, indeed, that the doctrine, (so far as intelligent, cautious observers of the phenomena of natural history were concerned,) had long since descended to the "tomb of the Capulets," together with the kindred belief, that certain aged and ill-favoured females, of our own species, were also endowed with the power of incantation. At all events, I think those who undertake, at this time of day, to demonstrate the existence of such a power, in serpents, ought at least to furnish cases in which the process was consummated; and not content themselves, as they almost invariably do, with relating instances in which the operation was interrupted by some accident, or interference. Such evidence I consider very inadequate to the establishment of so extraordinary a process as that which is understood by fascination.

In the numerous cases which I have heard related, something always occurred to break the charm, and the excited feel ings of the observer enabled him to imagine the catastrophe that was about to happen! Testimony of this description can never satisfy a mind that is not strongly predisposed to an implicit faith in the marvellous.

What is there in the eyes of a snake, more than in those of a cat, by which birds may be fascinated? Birds will flutter and hover round both these relentless enemies, at certain seasons, and do often fall victims to the wiles and dexterity of both; but to assert that there is a magic influence by which they are attracted into the jaws of a known enemy, is an attempt to tax our credulity rather too severely, for the present condition of science. The artifices of birds, to decoy unwelcome visiters from their nests, are oftentimes very remarkable, I have seen them simulate lameness, and flutter about as though they were much crippled, evidently for the purpose of attracting attention, and drawing the visiter in pursuit of themselves, in order to save their tender young. Indeed, their extraordinary manœuvres, on such occasions, might readily be mistaken, by a believer in fascination, for the effect of some such imaginary power. That the same artifices are employed by the feathered tribes to divert snakes, cats, and all other intruders, known, or supposed to be dangerous, from the neighbourhood of their nests, there can be little doubt.

The grave tales, however, which are related of snakes charming birds, drawing squirrels down from tree tops, and even subjecting human beings to their incantations, are so entirely foreign to all my ideas of rationality, and so inconsistent with all my own observations, that I am fully prepared to reply to such representations, in the language of the Roman Poet:

"Quodcunque ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi."

I do not deem it necessary to detail my reasons, in extenso, for disbelieving what I am convinced is a vulgar error. I should as soon think of troubling you with a series of arguments against the doctrines of water smelling or witchcraft. It is for those who contend for the facts, to furnish conclusive evidence for their exist.