Where two subjects, that stand to each other in the relation of
_antithesis_ or contradistinction, are connected by a middle term
common to _both_, the sense of this middle term is indifferently
determinable by _either_; the preferability of the one or the other in
any given case being decided by the circumstance of our more frequent
experience of, or greater familiarity with, the Term, in _this_
connexion. Thus, if I put hydrogen and oxygen gas, as opposite poles,
the term _gas_ is common to both; and it is a matter of indifference,
by which of the two bodies I ascertain the sense of the term. But if
for the conjoint purposes of connexion and contrast, I oppose
transparent crystallized alumen to opaque derb, or uncrystallized
alumen;--it may easily happen to be far more _convenient_ for me to
show the sense of the middle term, that is, alumen, by a piece of
pipe-clay than by a sapphire or ruby; especially if I should be
describing the beauty and preciousness of the latter to a peasant
woman, or in a district where a ruby was a rarity which the fewest
only had an opportunity of seeing. This is a plain rule of common
logic directed in its application by common sense.
Now let us apply this to the case in hand. The two opposites _here_
are Flesh and Spirit, _this_ in relation to _Christ_, _that_ in
relation to the _World_; and these two opposites are connected by the
middle term, _Birth_, which is of course common to both. But for the
same reason, as in the instance last mentioned, the interpretation of
the common term is to be ascertained from its known sense, in the
more familiar connexion--birth, namely, in relation to our natural
life and to the organized body, by which we belong to the present
world.--Whatever the word signifies in this connexion, the same
_essentially_ (in _kind_ though not in dignity and value) must be its
signification in the other. How else could it be (what yet in this
text it undeniably _is_), the _punctum indifferens_, or _nota
communis_, of the _thesis_, Flesh; or the World, and the _antithesis_
Spirit; or Christ? We might therefore, upon the supposition of a
writer having been speaking of river-water in distinction from
rain-water, as rationally pretend that in the latter phrase the term,
water, was to be understood metaphorically, as that the word, birth,
is a metaphor, and means only so and so, in the Gospel according to
St. John.
There is, I am aware, a numerous and powerful party in our Church, so
numerous and powerful as not seldom to be entitled _the_ Church, who
hold and publicly teach, that "Regeneration is only Baptism." Nay, the
writer of the article on the Lives of Scott and Newton in our ablest
and most respectable Review[134] is but one among many who do not
hesitate to brand the contrary opinion as heterodoxy, and schismatical
superstition. I trust, that I think as seriously as most men, of the
evil of schism; but with every disposition to pay the utmost deference
to an acknowledged majority including, it is said, a very large
proportion of the present dignitaries of our Church, I cannot but
think it a sufficient reply, that if Regeneration means Baptism,
Baptism must mean Regeneration; and this too, as Christ himself has
declared, a Regeneration in the Spirit. Now I would ask these divines
this simple question: Do they believingly suppose a spiritual
regenerative power and agency inhering in or accompanying the
sprinkling a few drops of water on an infant's face? They cannot evade
the question by saying that Baptism is a _type_ or _sign_. For this
would be to supplant their own assertion, that Regeneration means
Baptism, by the contradictory admission, that Regeneration is the
_significatum_, of which Baptism is the significant. Unless, indeed,
they would incur the absurdity of saying, that Regeneration is a type
of Regeneration, and Baptism a type of itself--or that Baptism only
means Baptism! And this indeed is the plain consequence to which they
might be driven, should they answer the above question in the
negative.
But if their answer be, "Yes! we do suppose and believe this
efficiency in the Baptismal act"--I have not another word to say.
Only, perhaps, I might be permitted to express a hope, that for
consistency's sake they would speak less slightingly of the
_insufflation_, and _extreme unction_, used in the Romish Church;
notwithstanding the not easily to be answered arguments of our
Christian Mercury, the all-eloquent Jeremy Taylor, respecting the
latter, which, "since it is used when the man is above half dead, when
he can exercise no act of understanding, it must needs be nothing; for
no rational man can think that any ceremony can make a spiritual
change without a spiritual act of him that is to be changed; nor work
by way of nature, or by charm, but morally and after the manner of
reasonable creatures."[135]
It is too obvious to require suggestion, that these words here quoted
apply with yet greater force and propriety to the point in question:
as the babe is an unconscious subject, which the dying man need not be
supposed to be. My avowed convictions respecting Regeneration with the
spiritual Baptism, as its condition and initiative (Luke iii. 16;
Matt. i. 7; Matt. iii. 11), and of which the sacramental rite, the
Baptism of John, was appointed by Christ to remain as the sign and
figure; and still more, perhaps, my belief respecting the Mystery of
the Eucharist, (concerning which I hold the same opinions as
Bucer,[136] Peter Martyr, and presumably Cranmer himself)--these
convictions and this belief will, I doubt not, be deemed by the
Orthodox _de more Grotii_, who improve the _letter_ of Arminius with
the _spirit_ of Socinus, sufficient data to bring me in guilty of
irrational and Superstitious Mysticism. But I abide by a maxim, which
I learnt at an early period of my theological studies, from Benedict
Spinoza:--Where the alternative lies between the Absurd and the
Incomprehensible, no wise man can be at a loss which of the two to
prefer. To be _called_ irrational, is a trifle; to _be_ so, and in
matters of religion, is far otherwise: and whether the irrationality
consists in men's believing (that is, in having persuaded themselves
that they believe) _against_ reason, or _without_ reason, I have been
early instructed to consider it as a sad and serious evil, pregnant
with mischiefs, political and moral. And by none of my numerous
instructors so impressively, as by that great and shining light of our
Church in the æra of our intellectual splendour, Bishop Jeremy Taylor:
from one of whose works, and that of especial authority for the safety
as well as for the importance of the principle, inasmuch as it was
written expressly _ad populum_, I will now, both for its own intrinsic
worth, and to relieve the attention, wearied, perhaps, by the length
and argumentative character of the preceding _discussion_, interpose
the following Aphorism.[137]
[132] Dr. Richard Field's "Of the Church," folio ed., Oxford, 1628, p.
58.--ED.
[133] This word occurs but once in the New Testament, Romans v. 11,
the marginal rendering being _reconciliation_. The personal noun,
καταλλακτης, is still in use with the modern Greeks for a
money-changer, or one who takes the debased currency, so general in
countries under a despotic or other dishonest government, in exchange
for sterling coin or bullion; the purchaser paying the _catallage_,
that is, the difference. In the elder Greek writers, the verb means
_to exchange for an opposite_, as, κατακκασσετο την εχθρην τοις
στασιωταις.--He exchanged within himself enmity for friendship, (that
is, he reconciled himself) with his party;--or, as we say, _made it
up_ with them, an idiom which (with whatever loss of dignity) gives
the exact force of the word. He made _up the difference_. The Hebrew
word of very frequent occurrence in the Pentateuch, which we render by
the substantive, _atonement_, has its radical or visual image, in
_copher_, pitch. Gen. vi. 14: _Thou shalt pitch it within and without
with pitch_. Hence to unite, to fill up a breach, or leak, the word
expressing both the _act_, namely, the bringing together what had been
previously separated, and the _means_, or material, by which the
re-union is effected, as in our English verbs, _to caulk_, _to
solder_, _to poy_ or _pay_ (from _poix_, pitch), and the French
_suiver_. Thence, metaphorically, _expiation_, the _piacula_ having
the same root, and being grounded on another property or use of gums
and resins, the supposed _cleansing_ powers of their fumigation.
Numbers viii. 21: _made atonement for the Levites to cleanse
them_.--Lastly (or if we are to believe the Hebrew Lexicons,
_properly_ and most _frequently_) it means _ransom_. But if by
_proper_ the Interpreters mean _primary_ and _radical_, the assertion
does not need a confutation: all radicals belonging to one or other of
three classes. 1. Interjections, or sounds expressing sensations or
passions. 2. Imitations of sounds, as splash, roar, whiz, &c. 3. and
principally, visual images, objects of sight. But as to _frequency_,
in all the numerous (fifty, I believe,) instances of the word in the
Old Testament, I have not found one in which it can, or at least need,
be rendered by _ransom_: though beyond all doubt _ransom_ is used in
the Epistle to Timothy, as an _equivalent_ term.
[134] Review of the Memoirs of the Rev. J. Scott and Rev. J. Newton,
'Quarterly Review,' April, 1824.--ED.
[135] Dedication to Taylor's 'Holy Dying,' p. 295, Bohn's Standard
Library edition.--ED.
[136] Appendix to Strype's 'Life of Cranmer.'--ED.
[137] Slightly altered from the 'Worthy Communicant,' chap. iii. sect.
v.; p. 523, vol. xv. of Heber's edition of Jeremy Taylor's works.--ED.