Such as deny baptism to be a means of regeneration, also deny that the term water, as it is used in this passage by our Saviour, means water. Many of them, therefore, say the word water, in the holy scriptures, is frequently used figuratively, to denote the spirit, or spiritual gifts ; hence conclude that it must also be the case in this passage. They know if the term water in this passage signifies that element which is generally so called, that it could not be otherwise than that baptism would be the ordinary means of regeneration. Against this, they entertain such an inveterate aversion, that they take every method of explaining such passages away which prove baptism to be the means of regeneration. It is admitted that water, in some passages, is used figuratively ; but this is far from proving that it is used in the same manner in this passage. The nature of the case itself shews, that water in this passage must signify natural water. Christ saith, ' Except a man be born of water, and of the spirit,' &c. Now if water is to mean spirit, why then would he add the word spirit ? If the word water is to signify spirit, then it would be the same as if Christ had said, ' Except a man be born of the spirit, and of the spirit'–which would be ridiculous. For what need would there have been to mention one thing twice, in one and the same sentence ? If Christ had said, ' Except a man be born of water,' and not mentioned spirit at all, then there would be more reason to believe that the word water should signify spirit; but since both water and the spirit are mentioned in one and the same sentence, water must mean water, and spirit mean spirit. To force the expression water to mean spirit, when spirit is already mentioned, is so unnatural and ungrammatical, that it is astonishing that men of common sense should vindicate such an absurdity.

Back: Section IV.

Next: It is also manifest...