in the process by which they are raised. The believer will rise by a quickening resurrection principle infused into him in this life, at the vivifying period of regeneration or birth from above. He possesses an inherent vitality, and he can never truly die; like Lazarus, he is Christ's friend, and “he sleepeth." The trumpet sounds a note of jubilee; he hears it and he awakes. I sleep, but my heart waketh: it is the voice of MY BELOVED (777, my David), (Sol. Song v. 2.)

Christ the glorious head has risen, and the humblest, the feeblest, the least honourable members of his mystical body (1 Cor. xii. 22), rise, by virtue of their union with that exalted head. But oh, not so the unbeliever! He will be dragged forth from the grave, whither he was driven away in his wickedness, without hope in his death. (Prov. xiv. 32.) Fain would he rot and slumber there for ever; but no-he is dragged forth as a felon, to be bound hand and foot, and cast into outer darkness. "He shall also see Him, but not nigh."

4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Nicodemus evidently understood our Lord's words in an outward physical sense, and could not perceive their depth of spiritual meaning. His answer, however proves that our judicious translators were right in rendering the anothen in the preceding verse "again," and to remedy the poverty of the English word, they added in the margin the other signification, "from above; "both readings must be blended together in the mind. To have translated it "born from above," in the body of the text, would have en

tirely destroyed the pertinency of the objection raised with an ingenuous but carnally-minded simplicity by this inquiring master of Israel.

5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

As a layman, I do not feel myself authorized to enter largely on a point of doctrinal divinity, so nice and delicate as that contained in this verse, further than to record my firm conviction that no ground is here afforded for the theory of Baptismal Regeneration.

There seems little doubt that the water of baptism is signified in the "outward and visible" sense of these words, consistently with which "entering into the kingdom of God" must then also be understood in its "outward and visible" sense, as admission into the visible church of Christ. But to appreciate their full meaning, let us turn again to the words of St. James, already quoted, Every good and perfect gift is from above; and let us compare it with chapter iv. of this gospel, verse 10, where our Lord says to the woman of Samaria, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh (σáp§, sarx), and that which is born of the spirit is spirit (πvêvμa, pneuma.)

7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again (anothen).

These verses require no verbal comment..

8. The wind (πvêvμa, pneuma) bloweth (πvêl, pnei) where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound (pwvv,

phonen) thereof, but canst not tell (oùê didas, ouk oidas) whence it cometh and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the spirit (pneuma.)

This verse offers a very remarkable and instructive instance of the double meaning to which I have alluded. The word πvêvμa (pneuma) is here translated wind and spirit in the same sentence. It is derived from πvew (pneo), 'to breathe,' which verb occurs immediately after it in this verse, and is rendered "bloweth." That pneuma signifies "wind" is proved by the authority of Aristotle-Ανεμος ουδεν εστι πλην αηρ πολυς ρεων όστις αμα ΠΝΕΥΜΑ λεγεται— Wind is nothing else but a large quantity of air flowing, which is also called PNEUMA.' And that our Lord so intended it to be understood by Nicodemus is evident from verse 12. "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?"

The word pwn (phone) also claims our attention. It is derived from an obsolete verb, paw (phao), ' to speak,' and in its primary sense means an articulate sound, a voice.'

Now, combining these facts together, the verse, in addition to its plain and palpable signification, may bear a deep and spiritual meaning. "The spirit breatheth where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice thereof," &c.

The voice of the Spirit is heard in the prayer of the believer, and in the sermon of the faithful preacher, but to the natural man it is unintelligible. He cannot tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth. (See Rom. viii. 26, 27.)

Since noting the above remarkable passage, I find that the same view of it is taken in the Latin Vul

gate:-" Spiritus ubi vult spirat: et vocem ejus audis, sed nescis unde veniat aut quo vadat: sic est omnis qui natus est ex Spiritu.” (Vulgate, in loco.)

Theodore Beza however agrees with our version. "Ventus quo vult spirat, et sonum ejus audis, &c. ita est quisquis genitus est e Spiritu." (Beza, in loco.)

I hope these views of this deeply interesting dialogue will not appear strained or fanciful. At all events it is useful to be acquainted with the words of the original; the deductions I have drawn can be modified or rejected at pleasure.

TRUE, if we reject that false creed, we must expect no less than to encounter every kind of danger-even to the loss of life. But far better is it to expose ourselves to all the perils that this present world can assail us with, than to hold our peace! So long as my life is spared, I, for my part, will never cease to warn my brethren of the wound and plague of Babylon, lest any of those who now walk with us should slide back like the rest into the pit of hell.-Luther.

THINGS OF OLD.

No. V.

BABEL.

MANY have been the opinions of the learned concerning the event commonly called the confusion of tongues at Babel. Some have maintained that it was a literal confusion of languages; one man speaking Hebrew, and another answering him in Greek, and so on. A second party suppose that a difference of dialect and grammatical construction was all that then occurred.

A third body contend, more conformably to the Hebrew scriptures and to philological experience, that language suffered no alteration, but that the words or creeds of the Babel builders were confounded.

It is now rather a desperate enterprise to support the first of these theories, the researches of philological students have carried back the mutual relations of languages so clearly to a remote period, and, have traced their origins, one from another, so undeniably. The utmost allowance that could be given to the hypothesis would divide the languages of Babel into Hebrew, Sanscrit, Chinese, and one or two others; and it is very doubtful whether even these primary divisions existed at so early a date.