“Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, _he shall not enter therein_.” (Mark x. 15.) And if not real members of His Kingdom on earth, we shall certainly not enter into His Kingdom of glory. But to be _recognised_ as well as _real_ members of His Church, or subjects of His kingdom, we must be “born of water,” or baptized. This is Christ’s appointed Ordinance. He ordained the use of it in His Church, while He was present with His disciples, and He subsequently enjoined the same in the case of all who should believe His gospel. Baptism with water, therefore, is not to be omitted, wherever it may be had. And, surely, the reason which Jesus Himself gave to John for seeking this Ordinance, ought to influence those who desire to be numbered among His friends and followers: “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness!” But while these two things, baptism and the birth of the Spirit, are declared by Christ to be necessary to a certain end,—namely, an entrance into the Kingdom of God, or Visible Church of Christ upon earth,—there is not the slightest intimation given by Him that they are _necessarily_ connected with each other. Not a word is said by Him from which we can deduce this. Two things are often required for a definite purpose;—two witnesses, for instance, to prove a fact;—an invitation and a wedding-garment to entitle any one to be a guest at a marriage-feast;—but these may be quite independent of one another. It cannot be pretended that _one thing only_ is spoken of by Christ. The birth of the Spirit is twice mentioned by itself, and once in connection with baptism by water. Baptism, then, and the birth of Spirit are clearly not identical,—not one and the same thing. And _their necessary connection_ is neither here, nor any where else in Scripture, asserted. It is a statement, not supported by a tittle of evidence; but, on the other hand, contradicted by express testimonies of Scripture, and by very general experience. The putting of these two things together in one sentence is surely no proof of their necessary connection. Had the two been necessarily connected,—had baptism been the appointed channel for the conveyance of the Spirit, Christ would undoubtedly have said so. Or rather, it would have been sufficient for Him to have said, “Except a man _be baptized_, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;” and He certainly would not have omitted the mention of baptism, as He did omit it, in His first solemn asseveration to Nicodemus. The necessity of _the birth of the Spirit_ was evidently what Jesus wished to enforce upon His inquirer. This therefore was the _first_ thing spoken of by Him. In His second address He introduces water-baptism; as this would serve to make the spiritual subject clearer, and because He would show that baptism was henceforth to be the token of the Covenant: but how Nicodemus was to conclude from the