manner in which it was mentioned, that water was to be the means of communicating the new birth, or that the two things were always to be found together, it is not easy to imagine. Especially as in the very same address he was told, that, in giving the new birth, the Holy Spirit acts as “the wind _blowing where it listeth_.” Now baptism must always be administered _at a specific time_; but is this the case with the blowing of the wind? Did Christ then use an inappropriate metaphor? He plainly tells Nicodemus, that as “a master of Israel” he ought to have understood what He was speaking of. But what is there in the Old Testament from which Nicodemus could have learned the necessary connection of the new birth with any outward Ordinance? Was the circumcision of the heart always connected with the circumcision of the flesh? Had not the Lord, in the time of Moses, bidden the people of Israel to “circumcise the foreskin of their hearts”? (Deut. x. 16.) And had He not said of them by Jeremiah, “All the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart”? (ix. 26.) _This_ was the doctrine to which Nicodemus had been accustomed:—_the necessity_ of both the outward and the inward circumcision, but _not_ their necessary connection with each other. So likewise with the new birth and baptism. And as Scripture is, and must be, consistent with Scripture, let the latter part of Christ’s address to Nicodemus be compared with His subsequent directions concerning baptism, and compared also with the writings of His Apostles, and it will be seen, that _faith in Him_, which He so frequently mentions as leading to salvation, _is that with which the birth of the Spirit is connected_, and that _this faith is invariably required before the administration of the Ordinance to any_. How then can baptism with water convey the birth of the Spirit, unless Christ and His Apostles be at issue with each other, and the order of things, which He Himself appointed in His Church, be inverted? St. John expressly declares in his Gospel, (i. 12, 13.) that “as many as received Him, (Jesus Christ) to them _gave He power to become the sons of God_, even _to them that believe on His name_; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” And in his First Epistle, (v. 1.) “_Whosoever believeth_ that Jesus is the Christ _is born of God_.” And the order which Christ intended for the administration of baptism by His Apostles was thus laid down for them;—“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” And they acted accordingly. No statement was ever more capable of proof than this, that the birth of the Spirit may be without baptism, and baptism without the birth of the Spirit. Can any doubt, that the penitent thief on the cross was “born of the Spirit,” who yet was not baptized? Can any venture to affirm, that Simon Magus, though baptized, was “born of the Spirit”? Did