Order of the Prayer Book somewhat too stiff and inflexible for Missionary work; though he did not approve of any capricious curtailment of the Service when used in established congregations. In his later years, he became a warm advocate of the "Memorial Movement" inaugurated by Dr. Muhlenburg, and ably advocated by him for some years in the 'Evangelical Catholic.' In a very able Sermon before the Convention of Pennsylvania, in 1855, he undertook to show what modifications of our practice were needful, in order to enable the Church to act upon the masses. That Sermon was published by request, and rightly added much to Dr. Bowman's reputation. From that time, more than ever, he ceased to be regarded as a party man. His votes in Convention were always cast without regard to any thing thing else than the merits of the case as he understood them.

In one respect Bishop Bowman's character was little understood. His modesty and gentleness conveyed the impression to some that he lacked energy and strength of will. Indeed, a striking anecdote is told to that effect. After his election to the Episcopate in Pennsylvania, some gentlemen happened to be discussing his fitness for the office. One person rather sneeringly remarked, that Dr. Bowman was not at all the man for the position, as he would be only a tool for party purposes in the hands of a certain clique of the clergy in Philadelphia. This was quite too much for an old fellow-townsman and schoolmate, who was also of the company. He had not, it seems, on theological grounds, voted for his friend; but, in reply to the charge just made, he almost indignantly replied, "Sam Bowman a tool! You don't know Sam Bowman, or you would well know that he never could be any body's tool!" The truth is, that the Bishop's character by nature was one of Roman firmness. Had it not been mellowed and subdued by the influence of Grace, a downwright obstinacy might have been one of his characteristics. And even to the last, had any one so far mistaken the man as to try to carry a point with him, either by brow-beating or by flattery, he would doubtless have incurred a calm rebuke, of most withering severity.

The election of Dr. Bowman to serve as his assistant, had

the complete and cordial approval of Bishop Potter. During the three years in which these two prelates, of equal age, were associated in the delicate relation which they bore to each other, it was refreshing to see how admirably they worked together. Instead of there being anything like rivalry or petty jealousy on either side, such as their peculiar position might in less noble natures have easily engendered, these two Bishops worked together with delightful harmony, and the loss now felt by the whole Diocese of Pennsylvania falls perhaps most crushingly on its chief mourner, Bishop Potter, the first Diocesan in all our history who has lived to see his Assistant pass away before him.

During the last few months of his life, Bishop Bowman was exceedingly pained by the dreadful condition of our country. More in sorrow than in anger, he stood aghast at the attempted disruption of the Union. His whole soul was running over with patriotism, and his constant prayer was, that the God of Peace might soon restore us, in some way, to unity and love; although at times a sense of painful apprehension almost bowed him to the dust.

His Episcopate was brief, and seems to have been brought to an untimely end. But let us remember that God does not count life by human measurement. Our Lord's whole Ministry was not longer than Bishop Bowman's short service in his higher Office. Having done his work faithfully and well, God called him quickly to his rest. He leaves very many weeping for his loss. His family, his congregation, his Diocese, his poor clergy, may we not add, the whole Church in America, have suffered indeed a sore bereavement. But we must confidently believe that God has some wise purpose in removing in these trying times such a Patriot, such a Christian, and such a Bishop. He fell, unexpectedly, in the performance of his duty. But his death was not "sudden" in that sense which we continually deprecate in the Litany. No death is sudden for which there is sufficient preparation. Instead, therefore, of lamenting the circumstances attending the departure of this man of God, let us rather be thankful that, as it were "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye," he was translated from the toils of earth to that unending rest which God hath prepared for them that love Him.

ART. VIII. THE TWO REGENERATIONS.

1.-MISS CATHARINE E. BEECHER'S Common-Sense, applied to Religion. New York: 1857. 12mo.

2. REV. DR. PARK'S Sermon on "the Theology of the Intellect and the Feelings."

WE set out with it, as a plain fact, that the doctrine of Regeneration in Baptism is taught in the Prayer Book. Pleased with it or not, believing it or not, every Clergyman thanks God, "that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant." Whether he takes the words to mean what they say, or what they do not say, is all the same; he still says, "this child is regenerate," and calls on the congregation to give thanks. Whatever gloss he puts upon plain English, and in whatever way he manipulates our mother tongue, he is still bound, by his vows, to instruct every baptized child to say,-"In Baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven."

It seems a hard thing to deal with plain statements like these, so often, so solemnly repeated, crystalized into the very prayers and thanksgivings of the Church, and addressed to the God of Truth, and so to deal with them, as to make them mean the direct contrary. If the plain meaning is not the true meaning; if we must check, and balance, and quibble, to get at the sense, there is true meaning nowhere, and the Church that allows, even requires such dangerous expressions, is certainly a very dishonest Church. Yet, we are all aware that the attempt is made. Those statements in the Baptismal Service, and in the Catechism, are explained to mean, half the time, at least, perhaps oftener, just exactly the reverse of what they say," the child is not regenerate, the young Catechumen was not made, in Baptism," a member of Christ, the child of God. How they reconcile it to their consciences, who, beside the Font, or from God's Altar, announce in solemn prayers,

VOL. XIV.-NO. III.

44*

thanksgivings, or official teachings, plain statements which they believe utterly false, and dangerous, and soul destroying; how they stand before conscience, we leave it to themselves to explain. It is enough for us to say, that before reason, and ordinary, common, honest sense, they occupy a position no way enviable for its consistency.

That the Church teaches Regeneration in Baptism, is no clearer, however, than that the "Evangelical Denominations" flatly deny and abhor it. To be sure, their own Formulas often contain it. "The Assembly's Catechisms," clearly do. But we are speaking, not of the dead teachings of these bodies, embalmed and laid away in dusty books, but of the living teachings of living men. Universally, then, they abhor the very words, "Baptismal Regeneration." They consider the doctrine as destructive of all vital religion, as lying at the very base of dead formalism, and vain superstition. It is to them one of the "rags of Popery," left yet in our Prayer Book, a soul-destroying delusion. Now, these men are honest. There can be no doubt of that. From their light and knowledge, with their theories, with their notion of Regeneration, they are perfectly honest. To them, there is no greater stumbling-block in the "Common Prayer," than its expressions about Baptism. And men in the Church, with the same light and knowledge, and the same theories, find those expressions there, and of course they stumble at them too. Those without, use them as an overpowering argument against the Church. They take them to mean what they say, and denounce the Church that uses them. Those within, try to show, that they do not mean what they say; that the Church is not really so wicked as to hold such a doctrine; that when she says, "the child is regenerate," she only means to say, she hopes it will sometime be regenerate; that these expressions are not so bad, and that she is still "Evangelical." They are concerned for her honor. They try to vindicate her at any cost.

Meanwhile, the obstinate words remain there, in the Prayer Book, still. They cannot be removed. Those who believe them, those who do not, are both alike required to use them. Did it never occur to those who so universally hold those words

to be, in their plain sense, utterly false,-did it never occur to them, both within and without the Church, to ask whether their own doctrine of "Regeneration" might not be a mistake,a purely human invention? For, whatever blame may result from those expressions about Baptism, is not to be laid upon the Prayer Book, or the Church. They seem to have forgotten that. The expressions are purely Scriptural. The Prayer Book contains nothing about Baptism, that the New Testament does not contain first. It is not the Church, but the Lord, Who says,-"except a man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." It is not the Church, but an Apostle, who writes,-"The like figure whereunto, even Baptism, doth also now save us," and "according to His mercy he saved us, by the washing of Regeneration." The Church simply cites the Word. If she teaches what is termed Baptismal Regeneration, then, it is her misfortune and not her fault, for she teaches it by using the words of Scripture, and cannot well help herself. Men might pity her for her faithfulness, but we do not well see how they can blame her. In her Baptismal Formulas, she cites the words of Christ and His Apostles, establishing and practising, and teaching Baptism, and the result of it all is, that she teaches Baptismal Regeneration! We accept the term. We do not here attempt to explain it. There are the well-known Services. A man can judge for himself. If there is quarrel, then, it is not with the Church. If there is denunciation against false doctrine, it is not merely, that the Prayer Book contains it. The quarrel and the denunciation are against the words of Inspiration, which the Church quotes in administering Baptism. It would be well for all to remember that.

The case, then, stands thus. The Church teaches a certain doctrine of Regeneration. She teaches it in the words of Christ and His Apostles. She adds nothing, she takes nothing away. Plain words are taken in their plain sense. With her doctrine the Divine Word is taken as it reads. There is no place in the New Testament in which Regeneration or Baptism is mentioned, where her doctrine on either subject will require a gloss. The Denominations teach a doctrine of Regeneration too.