With this effort on the part of the noble-minded Seabury for peace and comprehension, the matter was for a time suffered to rest. Letters from Mr. Parker allude to the unchanged illfeeling, on the part of Bishop Provoost, as being the chief obstacle in the way of a consolidation of the Churches, and it was only an unwillingness, on the part of Bishop Seabury, in any way to perpetuate the cause of difference, that kept still in abeyance the plan for additional Consecrations in the Scottish line. No notice seems to have been taken by Provoost of Bishop Seabury's letter. Bishop White appears to have responded vaguely, and even with coldness. And there seemed little prospect, that the American Church would ever re-unite its scattered fragments, and, with unbroken front, maintain the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

It was from Massachusetts, that the proposition tending to unite the divergent lines of Episcopacy finally came. To this quarter Bishop Seabury had long looked, for some such step as this. There is reason to believe, that it was taken with his full knowledge and concurrence: and that it was at length taken by Dr. Parker, when there was a slight and temporary alienation of feeling between the Bishop of Connecticut and himself, caused by misrepresentations, and removed during the course of these very negociations, is highly creditable to Dr. Parker's amiability, as well as to his eminent devotion to the Church. In the same direction, Bishop White had also been looking for the proposition for union. In letters, one under date of July 5, 1787, and the other, written the following year, stronger in its language and plainer in its indications of a wish, that Dr. Parker should be the one chosen to go to England for Consecration in the English line, that the triple Succession might be thus obtained, hints were thrown out, and wishes earnestly expressed, that finally induced action in Massachusetts, which, through the characteristic modesty of Dr. Parker, placed, at length, the Rev. Edward Bass, of Newburyport, in the Episcopal chair, and formed the hinge of union between the Northern and the Southern Churches. This step was the application of the

*Still preserved in the autograph collection of the writer.

Clergy of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, to the General Convention of 1789, requesting the Consecration of Mr. Bass, by the union of the three Bishops, Seabury, Provoost and White, in the act of conferring the Episcopate. In connection with this application it was further suggested, that in the event of an unwillingness of the Bishops in the English line thus to unite with the Bishop of Connecticut, the General Convention should apply to the English Prelates for the expression of their opinion, as to the justice or expediency of this union. This measure we owe to Dr. Parker. It was an expedient suggested by himself, in a letter to Bishop White, in 1787, and its success in introducing into the first Session of the General Convention of 1789 measures accomplishing the union ere that year expired, should fill us with grateful appreciation of his merits, to whose pains-taking exertions and striking self-denial, we must attribute so much.

Strange is it, but true, that even at this late day, Bishop Provoost was still implacable. His own Convention had taken measures looking for a union. He himself had declined acting on the absurd proposition of the Virginia Convention, that, in connection with Bishop White, he should consecrate Dr. Griffith to the Episcopate of Virginia, without waiting the completion of the Canonical number of Consecrators. But, with that long-cherished and vindictive dislike of Bishop Seabury, which had strengthened with his years,-even in the midst of the presages of the coming union, he thus wrote the last sad letter of this series.

"An invitation to the Church in Connecticut to meet us in General Convention, I conceive to be neither necessary nor proper-not necessary, because I am informed that they have already appointed two persons to attend, without any invitation-not proper, because it is publicly known, that they have adopted a form of Church Government, which renders them inadmissible as members of the Convention or Union."

The rest of our story may be briefly told. The General Convention of 1789, in the absence of Bishop Provoost, disavowed the offensive declarations of their earlier meetings, and fully attested their reception of the Orders of the Bishop of Connecticut. A kind and courteous correspondence followed,

quite unlike that which it has been our task to bring to light, and, at the adjourned Session of the Convention of the same year, Bishop Seabury, with two of his Clergy, in company with Dr. Parker of Massachusetts, attended, and ratified the plan for union. Concessions were made on both sides, and, beginning by throwing overboard that wretched compilation known as the "Proposed Book," of which all parties were now heartily sick, there was not only a return to unity, but also to uniformity, on the part of ALL the American Church.

Bishop Provoost never lost his animosity towards his Episcopal brother of Connecticut. The story of their subsequent meeting, in which the Christian forbearance of Seabury shows strongly forth in contrast with the positive incivility of Provoost, is told in White's "Memoirs," with a tenderness towards the Bishop of New York hardly fair to the object of his resentment. Death soon after translated the first Mitred American to Paradise. His unworthy brother in the Episcopate lived long enough to be a troubler in Israel, by a strange opposition to Hobart's Consecration, and, by a subsequent course of laxity in morals and belief, proved, most incontrovertibly, that political opinions are hardly the best grounds to influence us in the choice of a Bishop for the Church of GOD!

ART. VI.-BAPTISM AND REGENERATION.

1. Goode on Baptism. New York, 1852.

Philadelphia, 1850.

2. Archdeacon Wilberforce on Baptism. 3. McIlvaine on Spiritual Regeneration. New York, 1851. 4. Sacrament of Responsibility. London and New York, 1852. 5. Faber on Regeneration. London, 1816; Philadelphia, 1853. 6. Praelectiones Theologicae, Quas in Collegio Romano, S. J. Habebat JOANNES PERRONE. Romae, 1843.

[The substance of the following Article appeared in this Review nine years since. Before it was printed, the MS. was submitted to the criticism of three gentlemen, than whom none stand higher in the confidence of the Church for learning, critical acumen and doctrinal soundness, by whom the Article was carefully examined. The teaching of the Article has been widely approved, and by those regarded as differing in Theological and Ecclesiastical opinions. Among others, the late Rt. Rev. Bishop Cobbs wrote as follows:

To the Editor, &c.:

MONTGOMERY, ALA., Sept. 7, 1853.

REV. AND DEAR SIR:-Ever since the receipt of the July Number of the Church Review, I have been intending to trouble you with a line, to thank you for the most excellent Article on Baptism and Regeneration. I have never yet read an Article on that subject so satisfactory to my mind; nor one that more fully expressed -in my view-the real animus of the Church on that controverted subject. I am persuaded that the view presented will be endorsed by a large majority of the Churchmen in the United States. * With my prayers for the continued success of the Review, I remain your Friend and Brother in Christ,

*

*

*

*

*

N. H. COBBS.

A reprint of the Article having been frequently suggested, it is now given, after thorough revision; irrelevant matter is omitted, the argument is more fully illustrated and strengthened, several Notes are added, but in its doctrinal tone and teaching, there is not the slightest alteration.-ED. AM. QU. CH. REV.]

It is not without hesitancy that we enter upon the discussion of this subject. There are phases of it on which it is difficult, even dangerous, to speak with technical precision. It trenches on some themes, and involves some subjective realities, concerning which nothing has been revealed; and on which we really know, and can know, absolutely nothing. And there

are also, at this late day, other difficulties on the subject besides those which are inherent. For fifteen hundred years men of keenest wit, and profoundest learning, and habits of deepest introspection, have grappled with the points here at issue. Philosophy and metaphysics, the dialectics of the Schoolmen, and modern Rationalism and Infidelity, have met in open opposi tion. Men of every shade and cast of doctrine and thought, from Augustine and Thomas Aquinas down to the most open and avowed Pelagians of our own day, have entered the lists, to test the temper and strength of their weapons in this theological tournament.

We speak of this controversy as protracted. And yet this is true, only qualifiedly. There are points in the modern controversy on Regeneration, which were never raised until within later years. And there are points in it, contested, for and against, ever since minds, of different moulds, have been occupied with such subjects. Thus, some of the most eminent of the Fathers in the ancient Church, agree with certain modern writers in holding extreme views on the Sovereignty and Decrees of God; yet the former do not agree with the latter at all, on this question of Regeneration. To anticipate a little, St. Augustine says: "We say that the Holy Spirit dwells in baptized infants, although they know it not. For they are ignorant of it, although it is in them, as they are ignorant of their own mind. For it lies in them, as yet unable to be used, like some buried spark, to be quickened by increasing years.' And again, "It is matter of the utmost wonder, that to some of His sons, whom He has regenerated in Christ, to whom He has given faith, hope and charity, God does not give perseverance."†

Regeneration, in some one or other of its features, is, so far as the Church is concerned, the great doctrinal question of our times. No one can read the Sermons, Charges, and controversial writings of the last few years, without perceiving that here is the precise point where most doctrinal differences among us begin to diverge. The doctrine itself is so primal and fun

Ep. clxxvvii, 8.

De Cor. et Grat. Sec. viii.