classified the grounds of Infidelity, and said, as we trust, enough of the general character of these grounds in each class, to show their value. In the first class, as we have said, the Department of Natural Science, nothing has been discovered, or is likely to be, that will shake our faith, if we recognize the fact, that the Bible was not designed-as all the other early systems claim to be-to teach any thing that falls within the domain of Natural Science-while yet its authors, in speaking of such things, (and they could not avoid speaking of, and alluding to them individually and by way of illustration,) must needs use the terms and phrases of the theories which were prevalent in their day. From recent investigations in Ancient History and Antiquities, all that has been discerned is confirmatory of our faith in the Holy Scriptures. And of the discrepancies in the verbal statements, to be found in several places, the most that can be said is, that they may affect, very essentially, our theory of inspiration, but not at all, unfavorably, our confidence in the good faith and the miraculous inspiration of the several writers, or our earnestness in the pursuit of that way of salvation through Christ, which they so luminously point out for our anxious hearts. The new grounds of Infidelity, then, if there are any, must be found in those fundamental principles of knowledge and assumed, first premises, under which all facts are to be examined and adjudged, and from which, in conjunction with those facts, the conclusions are to be drawn.

Now, these first principles may be all briefly referred to two classes, and characterized accordingly.

In the first place, many of them, as we have endeavored to show in this and two or three preceding Articles, on "Theodore Parker," and "Philosophy and a Knowledge of God," are derived directly from the philosophical systems that have been taught and received by the critics. In this we may suppose the critic to have been perfectly honest and conscientious. He accepted, as a truth of philosophy, that which had been last taught, received by many, confuted by none, though distrusted by persons, who, however deploring the results to which it might lead, could give no satisfactory philosophical reason for not accepting it. He that believes that God is material-or an incognizable substance the one substance of all

things-or a mere aggregate of laws and principles, without personality, as well as he who believes that he has "inquired into the causes of things," and can say, that "all events are connected into a series of intermediate causes," so that the hand of God is not to be seen among them, and cannot be acknowledged to be there even the mention of His Name being a mere "superfluous expletive," in speaking of what transpires among men, none of these men, we say, can accept the Bible as it is, or as the great mass of believers have understood and accepted it. Their false philosophy is the corner-stone of their Infidelity, and may, not unlikely, in many cases prove the ignis fatuus, that lures and deludes them on to ruin.

But, in the second place, there is an "evil heart of unbelief," full of, and always ready to suggest, these first principles of unbelief. We most heartily and firmly believe in the certain depravity of the human heart. We as freely believe, that many of its instinctive principles and sentiments are shaped and determined by that depravity. Hence, multitudes, withany study of philosophy, and without any knowledge of the systems that have been taught, are led by the inborn instincts of their own hearts to be more of philosophers, as that word is understood among men, than they are aware, and they are often found agreeing and coinciding exactly with those in whom they would have least expected to find any sympathy or agreement with themselves.

And for these reasons, and we assure our readers that there are no others--the teachings of a false philosophy, and the suggestions of a corrupt heart,-we are called upon to renounce the Bible, the anchor of our hopes, add one more to the incomprehensible mysteries of the universe, make the darkness of nature still darker, confusion worse confounded, and erect the very evil which God's word was given us to cure, into a bulwark of defence against its reception! The teachings of philosophy, if false, must be met and counteracted by its own weapons. But a corrupt heart, the Spirit of God is powerful to convert that. And as we wade through the huge volumes which German scepticism has produced, we are astonished, at every page, to see how a little leaven-and how little of it-can leaven the whole lump, convert the whole mass of historic

fact and legitimate criticism-if we will but admit the few slyly insinuated principles-into an inexhaustible magazine of unbelief. It makes everything look as though the Bible is but the boldest of impostures, and none but fools could ever have regarded it as in any important sense the word of God. But it is something to know, that the whole difficulty lies in "the subjective notions" which these critics themselves bring to their task. In the omniscience of this critical infallibility, they have no hesitation in repudiating what they cannot see any use for, and in declaring to be spurious, whatever is not as they had expected to find it. Believing their own Reason to be nothing else than God Himself, they very naturally enter upon their work with the impression, that they, through this means, know more of God than they have any right to expect to learn from the books they have to examine; they go to them, not for information, but to inform their authors; not to learn, but to teach; not to receive light, but to give it. And we really believe, that what both the critics and those who are led away by them need, is not so much argument and instruction, as exhortation to repentance. A little humility and self-distrust would do them an immense deal of good. But for the rest, for us who are set for the defence of the Gospel, we shall lose all fears and anxieties, we trust, when we consider, as we have attempted to show in this Article, that their unbelief has no other or better foundation, in reality, than the mere presumptive sentiments of human depravity, or the utterances of a philosophy which is at war with all the clearest dictates of common sense, as well as all the experience of actual life. With this we feel content to dismiss the subject to such as have time and leisure to amuse or delude themselves with it, as the case may be, and go on in our work of preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ to a world perishing in sin—a world that cares very little for philosophy and vain theists-but which is most painfully in earnest to know what to do, that they may be saved. Faith, Repentance, Obedience-these will cure and quiet the heart here: philosophy may be learned and mysteries comprehended, if need be, in another world.

ART. II.-INTERESTING AND CURIOUS FACTS ABOUT BISHOPS; BEING “DOTTINGS OF DESULTORY READING."

"I entered a memorandum in my pocket-book."-Guardian.

"Old fashioned economists will tell you never to pass an old nail, or an old horseshoe, or buckle, or even a pin, without taking it up; because, although you may not want it now, you will find a use for it sometime or other. I say the same thing to you with regard to knowledge. However useless it may appear to you, at the moment, seize upon all that is fairly within your reach. For there is not a fact, within the whole circle of human observation, nor even a fugitive anecdote, that you read in a newspaper, or hear in conversation, that will not come into play sometime or other: and occasions will arise when they will, involuntarily, present their dim shadows in the train of your thinking and reasoning, as belonging to that train, and you will regret that you cannot recall them more distinctly."

WILLIAM WIRT.

The interesting coincidence of the intrusting, for a second time, of the two most important and influential of our Dioceses, to the Episcopal oversight of two brothers, first the Onderdonks and then the Potters, for which office also, two other brothers, the Vintons, were candidates, will render acceptable to our readers the following "desultory dottings" concerning like facts in other times, all of which may be added, in some sort, to our "Curiosities in Literature." A small portion of this Article appeared in the "Banner of the Cross,' some years ago, from the pen of the present writer, with the addition of a contribution of the same kind, with which he was honored by one of our present Bishops.

I.-BROTHERS IN THE EPISCOPATE.

We need not here mention the relationships in the original Apostolate, being better known than the like among the Successors of the Twelve.

1. Gregory Nyssen, of Cappadocia, was the younger brother of the famous St. Basil, Archbishop of Cesarea, A. D., 372.

*The Rev. Dr. Hawks, brother of the Bishop of Missouri, has been elected Bishop once or twice, but declined.

He is said to have made that recension of the Nicene Creed, in the General Council of Constantinople, afterwards universally adopted, and now used.

2. St. Chad, Bishop of Lichfield, (A. D. 667,) the Saxon Saint, whose memory is duly honored by the beautiful Cathedral at Lichfield, was a brother of Cedd, or Ceadda, Bishop (A.D., 658,) of London, or the East Angles. On occasion of St. Chad's consecration by Wina, Bishop of Wessex, we find the first act of communion between the British and AngloSaxon Churches, two Welsh Bishops having assisted in the consecration. Beside a brother in the Episcopate, St. Chad had also two other brothers, celebrated Priests.

3. St. Melus, a nephew of St. Patrick, and Bishop of Ardagh, (A. D., 454,) had a brother, Senach, or Secundin, Bishop of Dunshaghlin, now Meath. This was formerly an ArchiEpiscopal See, in token of which the Bishops of Meath have always been accorded the title, "Most Reverend," to this day.

4. St. Melucho, or Melchus, another brother of the preceding, was his successor in the See of Ardagh, (A. D., 488.)

5. Seffridius, of Chichester, (A, D., 1125,) had the happiness of seeing a brother in the Episcopate, and of consecrating him with his own hands; that brother afterwards becoming Archbishop of Canterbury.

er,

6. Gilbert Foliot, (A. D., 1148,) Bishop of Hereford, and afterwards of London, who made an attempt to recover to his See of London its ancient metropolitical dignity, had a brothRobert Foliot, who succeeded him in the See of Hereford, in A. D., 1174, and afterwards had a nephew in the same See. 7. Christian O'Morgair, Bishop of Clogher, (A. D., 1126,) was brother of Malachi O'Morgair, Archbishop of Armagh, (A. D., 1134,) “vir literatus et discretus."

8. Isidore Hispalensis succeeded his brother Leander, as Bishop of Seville, (A. D., 595,) and had another brother, Fulgentius, Bishop of Carthagena. This Isidore must be distinguished from Isidore, Bishop of Corduba, (A. D., 425,) and from Isidore, of Pelusium, (A. D., 412,) with whom he is often confounded; and this Fulgentius must be distinguished from another of the same name, who was born at Carthage, and was Bishop of Ruspe, in Africa, not long before the other flourish