water," our Lord meant to defend both John's baptism and Hig own, and to show their value. This is the view of the text which is maintained by some few of the best Roman Cathohc writers, such as Rupertus and Ferus, — by almost all the English Reformers, and by many excellent commentators down to the present day. It is a view, which to my own mind seems not much more satisfactory than the former one. already described, on account of the strange consequences which it involves.
The third, and much the least common interpretation, is to refer the text entirely to the regeneration of man's heart, and to exclude baptism altogether from any place in it. — According to this vie-w, our Lord explains to Nicodemus, by the use of a figure, what He had meant when he spoke of bemg " born again." He would have Nicodemus know that a man must have his heart as thoroughly cleansed and renewed by the Spirit as the body is cleansed and purified by water. He must be born of the Spirit working on his inward nature, as water works on the material body. In short, he must have a " clean heart" created in him if he would belong to Messiah's kingdom. Most of those who take this view, consider that baptism was certainly meant to point to the change of heart described in the text, but that this text was meant to point out something distinct from baptism, and even more important than baptism. This is the view which I believe to be the true one, and to which I unhesitatingly adhere.
Those who hold that baptism is not referred to in this text, are undoubtedly a small minority among theologians, but their names are weighty. Among them will be found Calvin, Zwingle, Bullinger, Gualter, Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Prideaux, Whitaker, Fulke, Poole, Hutcheson, Charnock, G-ill, Cartwright, Grotius, Cocceius, Gomarus, Piscator, Rivetus, Chamier, Witsius, Mastricht, Turretin, Lampe, Barkitt, A. Clarke, and, according to Lampe, Wycliffe, Daille and Parous, — I do not assert this on second-hand information. I have verified the assertion by examin- ing with my own eyes the works of all the authors above named, excepting the tliree referred to by Lampe. On the precise mean- ing of the word " water" they are not agreed. But they aU hold that our Lord did not mean baptism when He spoke of being " born of water and the Spirit." — Dean Alford, I observe, says that the expression " refers to the token, or outward si<in of baptism, on any honest interpretation." How far it is justifiable to use such language about an opinion supportei by so many great names, I leave to the reader to decide ! Those who wish to see the view of the text which I advocate more fully defended, will find what they want in Lampe's Dissertations and Chamier'a Panstratia,
In adhering to a view of this text which is adopted by so few