water and being born of the Spirit are one and the same thing, the one expression being figurative, and the other literal, precisely as in Matthew iii. 11, where the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire are spoken of.
Again, if " born of water " means baptism, and " born of the Spirit," spiritual regeneration, then the two things are distinct. Accordingly Liicke says that being " born of water " is a figura- tive expression for repentance, which must precede regeneration by the Spirit. " The spirit of wisdom flees the sinful soul," as is said in the Book of Wisdom. Only the pure in heart can see God, our Lord himself teaches, and therefore Liicke argues only those who truly repent are susceptible of regeneration.1 This disjoining the two things as distinct is natural, if the one refers to baptism and the other to inward regeneration, and therefore would indicate that regeneration is not by baptism, contrary to the doc- trine of the advocates of baptismal regeneration. Hengstenberg also makes the two things distinct. Water, he says, signifies the remission of sins ; this is effected in baptism ; the new-birth by the Spirit follows after, which, in his view, is a slow process.2
All the arguments against the doctrine in question drawn from the general teachings of the Bible are, of course, arguments against the traditionary interpretation of this particular passage.
Another passage on which special reliance is placed as a sup- port of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is Titus, iii. 5. The Apostle there says, God saves us " by the washing of regen- eration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." By u the washing of regeneration " is understood baptism ; and the Apostle is under- stood to assert two things, first, that baptism is necessary to sal- vation ; and second, that baptism is, or is the means of, regenera- tion. It is, as the commentators say, the causa medians of an inward change of heart ; or, as Bishop Ellicott says : " The gen- itive -n-aXLyyeveaLas apparently marks the attribute or inseparable accompaniments of the AovrpoV, thus falling under the general head of the possessive genitive." 3 On this interpretation it may be remarked, —
1. That, taking the words Xovrpbv iraXiyyevevtas by themselves,
1 Commentar uber das Evangelium des Johannes, von Dr. Friedrich Liicke, Professor der Theologie zu Gottingen, 3d edit. Bonn, 1840; part i. p. 522.
2 Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes erldutert, von E. W. Hengstenberg: Berlin, 1861, vol. i. pp. 186-189.
8 A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, with a revised Translation. By Rt. Rev. Charles J. Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. Andover, 1865, p. 213.
596 PART HI. Ch. XX. —THE MEANS OF GRACE.
they may have the meaning attached to them. They may mean that baptism is the cause or means of regeneration ; or, that re- generation is its inseparable accompaniment. But this is very far from proving that they either have or can have that sense in this connection.
2. Admitting that these words are to be understood of bap- tismal regeneration, they do not teach that regeneration is insep arably connected with baptism. When Paul speaks of the " gos- pel of your salvation," he does not mean to say that salvation is inseparable from the mere hearing of the Gospel. When he says, " Faith cometh by hearing," he does not mean that all who hear believe. When our Lord says, We are sanctified by the truth, He does not teach that the truth always has this sanctifying efficacy. The Bible teaches that the Word does not profit unless " mixed with faith in them that " hear it. So St. Paul teaches that baptism does not effect our union with Christ, or secure the remission of sins, or the gift of the Spirit, unless it be, and be- cause it is an act of faith. This Bishop Ellicott admits. He says we must remember u that St. Paul speaks of baptism on the supposition that it was no mere observance, but that it was a sacrament in which all that was inward properly and completely accompanied all that was outward."
3. Still, admitting that the words refer to baptism, they may just as fairly be explained 4 Baptism which is the sign and seal of regeneration,' as * Baptism which is the means or invariable antecedent of regeneration. ' The construction indicates the in- timate relation between the two nouns, without determining what that relation is, whether it be that of cause and effect, or of a sign and the thing signified. Calvin's comment, " partam a Christo salutem baptismus nobis obsignat," x is therefore fully justified.
4. There are, however, strong reasons for denying that there is uny reference to baptism as an external rite in this passage.
First, the genitive TraA-iyyevccnas may be the simple genitive of apposition ; ' the washing which is regeneration.' There are two kinds of washing, the outward and the inward. We are saved by that washing which is regeneration, namely, the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The latter clause being exegetical of the former. This interpretation is simple and natural. It does no violence to the meaning of the words or to the construction of the passage.
Secondly, if the latter clause be not exegetical, it must be acces- sary. It must express something new, something not expressed
1 In Novum Testamentum Commentarii, edit. Berlin, 1831, vol. vi. p. 360.