30 LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF GOD'S WORD THE BEST. "rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal con"struction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly "the worst. There is nothing more dangerous than this licen❝tious and deluding art, which changeth the meaning of words, "as alchemy doth, or would do, the substance of metals, maketh "of any thing what it listeth, and bringeth in the end all truth "to nothing. Or however such voluntary exercise of wit might "be borne with otherwise; yet in places which usually serve, as "this doth, concerning regeneration by water and the Holy "Ghost, to be alleged for grounds and principles, less is permit"ted. To hide the general consent of antiquity, agreeing in the "literal interpretation, they cunningly affirm, that certain have "taken those words as meant of material water, WHEN THEY KNOW 66 66 THAT OF ALL THE ANCIENTS THERE IS NOT ONE TO BE NAMED THAT EVER DID OTHERWISE EITHER EXPOUND OR ALLEGE THE PLACE, 66 THAN AS IMPLYING EXTERNAL BAPTISM." Rather, as the prophecy which these same persons alleged, that CHRIST namely shall "baptize with the HOLY GHOST, and with "fire," received its literal fulfilment at the day of Pentecost, and in this the later Baptism of the Apostles, we find," as well 66 a visible' descent of fire, as a secret miraculous infusion of the "SPIRIT; if on us He accomplish, likewise, the heavenly work, "of our new birth, not with the SPIRIT alone, but with water "thereunto adjoined, sith the faithfullest expounders of His "words are His own deeds, let that, which His hand hath manifestly wrought, declare what his speech did doubtfully utter." To name individuals' in this universal consent is to disguise part them; he that would be born of the Spirit, must be born of water also." -Beveridge's Sermons, vol. i. p. 304. 1 Hooker, 1. c. See Note A. at the end. Vazquez, in 3 Part. S. Thomæ Disp. 13ł. n. 22, refers to Justin Apol. 2. Tertullian de Baptismo, c. 11. n. 89. Cyprian, L. 3. ad Quirin. c. 25. “Ambrose, L. 3. de Spiritu Sancto, c. 11. Jerome, in c. 16. Ezek. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa de Baptismo. Gregory Nazianzen. Orat. 40. in S. Bapt. and he adds "all the commentators, whom he omits as superfluous." Such are, to name the older, not only St. Chrysostome, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Nonnus, but Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Apollinarius, Ammonius, Severus, (ap. Corderius Caten. in Joann. Evangel.) To these may be added, AGREEMENT OF THE WHOLE CHURCH ON JOHN III. 5. 31 the extent of the evidence; it is to point to a few single luminaries in the nightly sky, when the whole heavens are lighted and thickly set with the "stars which He has ordained." For those who, in their extant writings, were not led to explain this text of St. John, yet in their other language bear ample and implicit witness that they understood it in the same sense as the rest of the Christian Church. Every vestige of exposition of Scripture, every statement of Christian doctrine which can bear this way, implies the same. Thus, when one explains' the words, "He shall lead me "to the waters of refreshment," of "the water of regeneration, "whereby whoso is desirous of the Divine Grace, being bap"tized, layeth aside the old age of sin, and whereas he was 66 66 66 decayed, hath his youth renewed;" or again, when David speaketh of the "blessedness of him to whom the Lord imputeth no sin," saith, foreseeing with prophetic eyes the grace of the "New Testament, and that remission which through the all-holy Baptism is bestowed upon believers, he pronounceth them bless"ed, inasmuch as they received free remission of sin," no one could doubt how he would explain the words of St. John. No one could doubt that they who so expounded, had their minds filled with the benefits of Baptism, so that the very mention of Recognit. Clem. vi. 9. (Hom. xi. c. 26. Epit. c. 17, 18.) Origen in Ep. ad Rom. L. v. c. 8. p. 561, ed. de la Rue. Nemesianus in Concil. Carthag. ap. Cyprian. p. 338. (ed. Bened.) Auctor Lib. de rebaptismate, apud eund. p. 355. Eusebius, ad Is. 3, 2. (Montfaucon Coll. Nov. t. ii. p. 368.) St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. xi. c. 9. Constitt. Apostol. L. vi. c. 15. Hilary of Arles, (Combefis. Bibl. Patr. v. 22.) Leo the Great, Ep. ad Demetriad. c. 11. Quæst. ad. Antioch. c. v. Hesychius in Ps. 103, (Catena Corderii.) A late writer in the "Record" (I am told) ventured the assertion that St. Chrysostome was the first who interpreted the text of Baptism! Of the witnesses here quoted he is the twentieth; and this without taking into account the manifest allusions to the text in S. Hermas, (L. iii. c. 16.) S. Irenæus, (iii. 17. 2.) S. Dionysius of Alex. (c. Samosaten. L. iv. p. 230.) S. Optatus, (de Schism. Donatist. v. 5.) Let any one disposed to disparage this evidence, think how he would appreciate it, if it supported any point in the system which he has made his own. 1 Theodoret, in Ps. xxii. 23, with whom St. Athanasius agrees, although not speaking quite so strongly. These are two, in whose extant works we happen to have no interpretation of the text of St. John. 2 Theodoret and St. Athanasius, in Ps. xli. 42, both alike positively. 6 32 JOHN III. 5. A KEY TO OTHER SCRIPTURE. forgiveness brought to their thoughts that full remission, whereby they were admitted into the kingdom of heaven; the very name of "waters of refreshment" recalled that health-giving stream, the Baptism of water and the Spirit, which had cleansed them of all sins, and given them a fresh life, the life from above. All such expositions are an à fortiori evidence that such writers must have understood, in like manner, the words of their Lord. Not only did they understand the words "water and the Spirit" of Baptism, but they regarded them as a sort of key to the rest of Holy Scripture, which any way bore upon the same subjects. Thence they inferred, that wherever, under the law, free remission of sins was set forth, there was an intimation of that gift of Christ in the Gospel, without which a man could not "enter into "the kingdom of Heaven;" thence, also, that when water was spoken of as cheering, cleansing, refreshing, there was a secret reference to that great mystery, wherein our Lord, by condescending to be baptized, should "sanctify water to the mystical "washing away of sin," and to the imparting of His holiness. And so, of those words, (St. John i. 12, 13.) "As many as re"ceived Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of "God, to them that believe on His name, which were born, not of 66 blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of "God;" whoso should explain them of the gift of God in Baptism, could not hesitate so to understand the words of our Lord. For this exposition is founded on the very notion, that the partaking of the Incarnation and the Christian relation of Sonship to God, is imparted through Baptism, and is not imparted without it. Yet even Pelagius' understood the gift here spoken of to be realized through Baptism; and among the Christian fathers, allusions to this text are frequent, even where our Lord's words are not quoted; because this declares more positively the Christian's privilege of the birth of God: our Lord's words are spoken negatively, that no one shall see the kingdom of Heaven without that birth. 1 His comment is, "Through Faith they are born of Him, through the re"newal of Baptism and grace of the Holy Spirit."-App. ad Hieron. t. xi. p. 774. RECOGNIZED GROUND OF BAPTISM. 33 Controversy and error have driven us into narrower bounds, where our forefathers used to "feed freely in a large pasture." The force of the appeal to this text is much disguised again by mere reference to those who allege it. For beyond the simple fact of the unity of the whole Church, by whom one and one only sense is found in it, there is something very impressive in the very way in which it is quoted. It is impressive, from very contrast, amid our strifes of words, to see the undoubtingness with which the whole Church embraced one meaning, alluded to, drew inferences from it, as having the nature of an axiom in religious truth. There is, however, yet another test. The very first author who names it, Justin Martyr, in a public document, written not forty years after the death of St. John, speaks of it as a recognized ground of Christian Baptism. He speaks not in his own name, but in that of the whole Church1. "Whoever are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to live accordingly, are taught, with "prayer and fasting, to beg of God the remission of their former sins, we also praying and fasting with them. Then they are 66 "led by us to a place where is water, and after the manner of 66 66 new birth, that we also were new born, are they new born. For they are bathed in the water in the name of GOD, the FATHER " and Lord of all, and of our Saviour JESUS CHRIST, and of the "HOLY GHOST. For CHRIST Ssaid, 'Except ye be born again, ye "shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.' But that it is 'impossible for those who have once been born to enter into "the wombs of those who bare them is manifest to all." 66 And not less Tertullian2, arguing the very point, whether, because faith sufficed to Abraham without Baptism, therefore it sufficed now. "Be it that in past times, before the Passion and Resurrection " of the Lord, salvation was through bare faith. But when faith "was enlarged by the belief in His Nativity, Passion, and Resur"rection, there was added the sealing of Baptism, a clothing, as "it were, of faith, which heretofore was bare, but which now "avails not without the law annexed to it. For a law of Bap2 De Baptismo, c. 13. No. 67. 'Apol. 1. D 34 AGREEMENT OF HERETICS WITH THE CHURCH. "tism has been prescribed, and its form ordained. 6 Go,' He "saith, teach all nations, baptizing them, &c.' And that strict "rule, Except a man, &c.' blended with this law, obliged faith "to Baptism as a thing essential; so thenceforth all who believed 66 were baptized." In both these writers alike it is spoken of as a known fact, that Christians had ever been baptized, in obedience to these words of our Lord; and so it is assumed, as having been undoubted by the whole Church, from the Apostles downwards, that our Lord in those words spoke of His Baptism, that Faith, without the Baptism of Faith, did not regenerate. In St. Basil's clear and eloquent words1, "Faith and Baptism are two modes of salvation, akin and "indivisible, for Faith is perfected by Baptism, and Baptism is "founded by Faith, and both are accomplished through the same "Names. For as we believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so are we also baptized into the Name of the Father, and the Son, " and the Holy Spirit." 66 Thus, then, we have not only the universal consent of the early Church, but we have, in the very earliest writers, an appeal to the then practice, as resting upon the plain meaning of these words of Scripture, and implying an Apostolic tradition. 66 Again, if we must have recourse to the admissions of heretics, (since people will trust them rather than the Church,) there was no text by which the Pelagians were more pressed than this. Nothing but sin could exclude any from the kingdom of Heaven; but infants were baptized, because our Lord had said, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the "kingdom of heaven." This shewed (the Catholics argued) that infants had sin, and since not actual, original sin. The Pelagians answered not, (as moderns would,) by cutting short the question, denying that the text had anything to do with Baptism, or that infants could need baptism; but they answered (also in a modern way), by keeping close to the letter of Scripture, and disregarding its spirit, that "they did enter into life eternal, although "not into the kingdom of Heaven"." Here, then, we have a heresy 1 De Spiritu S., c. 12. fin. 2" These [the Pelagians] are alarmed at the words of the LORD, Unless a |