according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regencration," etc.; of course then, baptism must be something different from this washing, because by it we are saved. Hence" washing of regeneration" can be referred only to "the renewing of the Holy Ghost."

The Latin Vulgate (Basil, anno 1578,) renders the passage thus: per lavacrum regenerationis Spiritus Sancti, "By the laver of regeneration of the Holy Spirit." Whatever this "laver" therefore may be, it is here referred exclusively to the agency of the Holy Spirit. But it would be preposterous to suppose that the Holy Spirit operates upon the soul by

water.

Here, then, we have in favor of this rendering the approved version of the whole Romish church; which will certainly be considered as of great weight when it is remembered that this church makes water baptism essential to salvation.* It would therefore have been to their interest (as like the Campbellites, they are very much pressed for proof-texts,) to have given this passage a rendering similar to that contended for by Mr. Campbell. Yet with a knowledge of all the advantages that their cause would thereby have gained, we find them without hesitation repudiating such a rendering. To be sure, they have in the margin added the phrase "et renovationis," and renewal, as a marginal gloss or reading; but this only proves that it was not left out of the text by mistake. They must therefore have had solid reasons for thus omitting it, when its insertion would have been of so much advantage to their cause. And as the passage now reads, the "regeneration" spoken of, is referred entirely to the operation of the Holy Ghost. The Rhenish translators of the Vulgate, it is true, have added to the text, the clause "et renovationis," but it is not difficult to determine their motives for doing so. Such an act tends to display their faithfulness as translators in its true colors.

The reader will not understand me as attempting to insinuate that the phrase zaì ávaxαivánzos, is a spurious rendering. The proper inference to be deduced from the fact, that the copyists and correctors of Jerome omitted the words et renovationis would be, not that they regarded the phrase referred to as spu

"The law of baptism as established by our Lord, extends to all, insomuch that, unless they are regenerated by baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery." Douay Catechism, p. 171.

rious, but that they considered per lavacrum regenerationis Spiritus Sancti, a full and complete translation of the whole passage. No one ever thinks it necessary, in order to give a faithful translation of a language, to render it word for word. If the idea can be expressed perfectly in fewer words than are employed for that purpose in the language from which the translation is made, no one would think of objecting to the translation on that ground.* So the author of this translation, believing that the phrases" washing of regeneration," and "renewal of the Holy Ghost," referred to the same thing, viz., spiritual regeneration, saw no impropriety whatever in expressing the idea in fewer words, thus: "The washing of regeneration of the Holy Spirit;" that is, as we have above rendered it, "the washing of regeneration, even the renewing of the Holy Ghost." Since writing the foregoing criticism, I perceive that the learned Dr. Williams of England in his answer to Bishop Tomline, and also Dr. Cleland of our country give the passage the same rendering.

Argument from Acts 22: 16.

This passage is adduced in support of the position that baptism is essential to remission of sins. "And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." The Campbellites produce these words with an air of triumph; and pretend that it is only necessary for them to quote the passage, in order to demonstrate that their doctrine of remitting sins by baptism is true. They are perpetually asserting that "Here is an instance in which sins were actually washed away by water baptism. Of course, therefore, the truth of the doctrine that they are washed away in this manner, cannot be questioned." One of their writers says, "Paul's sins were not forgiven till he was baptized." Another says, "Until a man is baptized, invoking the name of the Lord, he is in his sins." Of course then, agreeably to this doctrine, Paul was not a pardoned sinner until he was baptized! It would be difficult to account for the utter recklessness of such an assertion, on any other supposition than that partiality to a

*The reader will call to mind the precept of Horace :

"Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus

Interpres."-De Arte Poetica, 133.

favorite theory has blinded the minds of these men. How otherwise could they have failed to discern the overwhelming evidence of the fact, that Paul was regenerated and converted, (and, of course, his sins were pardoned,) before Ananias called upon him? One would have thought that the bare perusal of Acts ix. must have satisfied the mind of any one, however prejudiced, of the truth of this. But as the fact is thus disputed, and even denied, we shall briefly exhibit a few of the proofs which support it, after which we shall explain the passage.

T. In Acts 9: 11, he is directly represented as converted : "Behold he prayeth." Paul, as a Pharisee, had undoubtedly constantly prayed before this. What then is the import of this declaration? Why, that he now prayed aright. And praying aright is of course an evidence of conversion. This too is the evidence that the Lord gave to satisfy Ananias that Paul was no longer a persecutor; and it did satisfy him to that degree that he from that moment regarded him as a christian brother.

2. The object for which he was sent is sufficient to convince any one that Paul must have been at that time a sincere believer; and of course a pardoned sinner. "Go-that he may receive his sight, for (yag) behold he prayeth." If the words "behold he prayeth" do not in their connection denote an essential change of character, what words can?

3. Let any one review the actions and words of Ananias towards Paul, and he will find that the same fact is established. The cause for which he was blinded, was now removed. Ananias gives him the strongest evidence of this, by restoring his sight. The same kind of evidence that the sick of the palsy had when Jesus said, "Thy sins be forgiven thee." Moreover Ananias salutes him by the distinguishing christian appellation of "brother;" a term that Paul constantly opposes to unbeliever. See 1 Cor. 7: 12, 13. 5: 11. 6: 8. 8: 11, etc.

4. It is quite unnecessary to enlarge here. But I would just remark, that the same fact is established by the following declaration of the Lord to Ananias: "He is a chosen vessel to bear my name before the Gentiles, to suffer for me," etc. See v. 15, 16.

Now the only reason for maintaining that Saul was not converted until he was baptized, is, it is said, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins ;" and it is argued that, If he were a Christian before his baptism, his sins were of course

washed away before his baptism: But his sins were not washed away until he was baptized; and therefore he was not converted, regenerated, or pardoned until then.

But even admitting that there is an immediate connection between baptism and remission in this passage, (a fact that is by no means clear, as we shall show,) surely it would not require any great stretch of credulity to suppose that Ananias meant by these words no more than, "Receive the external sign of having obtained the remission of sins."

By a little attention to the original the Campbellites might have seen the blunder which they have committed in their argument. For άuagrias oov, translated "thy sins," is not, as they pretend, here used to designate the sins of his whole lifeall his sins; but simply the reproach, or stains that rested on his character as a persecutor of the church. And these stains could be washed away, only in the manner prescribed by Ananias, viz., by calling upon the name of the Lord. For that the connection is (as the passage reads) between washing away sin, and calling upon the name of the Lord, and not between baptism and washing away sin, is clear from the fact that these sins could be removed by calling upon the name of the Lord, much more effectually than by baptism administered privately, as his was. Now the distinguishing appellation of Christians, at this time, was "those that call upon the name of the Lord." See Acts 9: 11, 14, 21. 1 Cor. 1: 1, 2. Acts 2: 21. Rom. 10: 13, etc. Hence the idea is, "Wash away thy sins-remove them, by calling upon the name of the Lord." As if Ananias had said: "Go, call publicly upon that Lord, whose disciples you have persecuted even unto death; associate with them, and those stains which you have contracted as their persecutor will be washed away-will be forgotten." See 2 Cor. 7: 1. Is. 1: 16, 17. Jer. 4: 14.

In support of this rendering, we will produce one authority which must be admitted to be in this controversy completely decisive. We refer to Mr. Campbell himself. In Vol. VII. p. 164 of his Christian Baptist, he thus speaks: "Have you, my dear brother, ever adverted to the import of the participle in the commission, Matt. xxviii.: Disciple, or convert the nations, immersing them. I need not tell you that this is the exact translation. Let me ask you, then, does not the active participle always, when connected with the imperative mood, express the manner in which the thing commanded is to be per

formed? Cleanse the room, washing it; clean the floor, sweeping it; cultivate the field, ploughing it; sustain the hungry, feeding them; furnish the soldiers, arming them; convert the nations, baptizing them; are exactly the same forms of speech. No person I presume will controvert this." Very good, indeed. Now let us try the clause under consideration by this famous and incontrovertible rule; and in order to do Mr. Campbell perfect justice, we shall take his own translation of the passage: "Wash away thy sins, invoking his name." Here then is "the active participle" (invoking) connected with the "imperative mood" (wash away). Of course then, as "the active participle when connected with the imperative mood, always expresses the manner in which the thing commanded is to be performed," Paul was to wash away his sins by invoking the name of the Lord, and not by baptism. How then can this text be adduced to prove that sins are washed away by baptism.

But suppose we allow that "sins" here refers to all the sins of Paul's whole life; the important query arises, How did he wash away his sins? He was commanded to wash them away (ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου); and we are told he obeyed the command. Now how did he obey it? Campbellites say that "it was done by the waters of baptism." But how did he wash away his sins by the waters of baptism?" This phrase is utterly unintelligible. Did he baptize himself? This surely will never be pretended: and yet, if his sins were washed away by baptism, this is the only way in which it could with propriety be said that "he washed away his sins." But this is so preposterous that Campbellites will not admit it; for it would be establishing a precedent with them of rather a singular character, and of disastrous effect; and it is also said in Acts 9: 18, that he was baptized," in the passive voice. How then did Paul wash away his sins by baptism, if he did not baptize himself? There can be no way whatever. And this further proves that the connection is not between baptize and wash away, as Campbellites pretend, without the shadow of reason; but between wash away and invoking. For thus it is perfectly plain how Paul obeyed the injunction; and did actually "wash away his sins."

If it were of any use we could pursue this subject still further, and show that the most ridiculous consequences follow to the Campbellite scheme from their own exposition of this passage; but we prefer to pass on to their