Church uniformly, for fourteen centuries, interpreted this text of Baptism; that on the ground of this text alone, they urged the necessity of Baptism; that upon it, mainly, they identified[1] regeneration with Baptism. If, then, this be an error, would our Saviour have used words which (since water was already used in the Jews' and John's baptism) must inevitably, and did lead His Church into error? and which He, who knew all things, must, at the time, have known, would lead His Church into error? and that, when, according to Calvin's interpretation, His meaning had been as fully expressed, had it stood, "born of the Spirit," only. Rather, if one may argue from the result, one should think, that our Saviour added the words, "of water," (upon which, in His immediate converse with Nicodemus, He does not dwell,) with the very view, that His Church should thence learn the truth, which she has transmitted,—that "regeneration" is the gift of God, bestowed by Him, ordinarily, in Baptism only. Indeed, the opposite exposition was so manifestly a mere weapon, by which to demolish a Papal argument for the absolute necessity of Baptism, that it had hardly been worth commenting upon, but that no error ever stops at its first stage; mere repetition hardens, as well as emboldens; what is first adopted as an expedient, is afterwards justified as being alone the truth—the mantle, which was assumed to cover shame, cleaves to us, like that in the fable, until it have sucked out the very life and marrow of our whole system. One text, misquoted in order to disprove the absolute necessity of Baptism, has ended in the scarcely disguised indifference or contempt of an ordinance of our Saviour.
- ↑ I say, identified, because, so convinced were they of the connection of "regeneration" with Baptism, that they use it, unexplained, where the ordinary sense of "regeneration" were manifestly incorrect. Thus Jerome uses it of the Baptism of our Saviour (L. l. c. Jovinian circa med. quoted by Wall, Infant Baptism, p. 19.); as also do others, where, if it have any sense but that of "being baptized," it can only mean, was "declared to be the Son of God" (as Ps. ii. 7, is sometimes applied to His Baptism); but they never could have used "re-natus" in this sense, had they not been accustomed to use it as identical with Baptism. In like manner, in our own Articles "renatis," in the Latin copy (Art. 9), is Englished by "baptized."
