We admit that the evidence is abundant “that pouring and sprinkling were used” from the beginning of the fourth century not only to the rise of the Anabaptists, but till now; but that pouring and sprinkling were held in doubt, in general, and utterly repudiated by many, is equally abundantly proved. The discovery that _baptizo_ means _immerse_, and nothing else, could not have been made by any of the fathers, for at that time no one denied that such was its meaning. In the few instances where sprinkling or pouring was used, it was not on the ground that _baptizo_ meant pour or sprinkle, but on the ground that pouring or sprinkling would do in extreme cases of weakness where they deemed the persons unable to endure immersion. No man can produce one scrap of authority to show that any man at that early period, or for many long centuries after, ever attempted to defend pouring or sprinkling on the ground that _baptizo_ meant pour or sprinkle. Those who practiced sprinkling or pouring generally in the early ages, did not think they were doing what the Lord commanded, or what the apostles practiced, but something else that _would do_. Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Clarke, admitted that the ancient practice was immersion, but they thought sprinkling or pouring _would do_. This was the ground of argument for many long centuries. The idea of trying to prove that any person was ever sprinkled or poured upon, for baptism, in the time of the apostles, is a mere modern invention, and the idea that _baptizo_ means sprinkle or pour, is of equal modern date. These are new grounds altogether, taken by modern men, who have been driven from the old ground. It will not do in our time to admit—as all the ancients did—that the apostles immersed—that immersion was the ancient practice—that _baptizo_ means _immerse_, and nothing else, but that “this rite has been _changed somewhat_,” and that _something else will do as well_. This is too barefaced for our time, and the opposition have changed their ground, and are now trying to make us believe that their practice is sustained by the meaning of _baptizo_ and the ancient practice. SHORTER CATECHISM FOR UNIVERSALIANS. During our discussion in Decatur, Ill., we presented the following, substantially, as the “Shorter Catechism” for Universalians to test their pretences to a belief in the Scriptures: 1. Phil. iii. 18, 19, Paul, speaking of the enemies of the cross of Christ, says, “Whose end is destruction.” Can a man of sense believe that the end of a man is destruction, and at the same time believe that his salvation? The _end_ of a man will certainly be his last state, and if that is destruction, his end can not be salvation. 2. Mark iii. 29, the Lord says, he who shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, “hath never forgiveness.” Can a man of sense believe that a man who “hath _never forgiveness_,” shall be saved? To save a man without forgiveness, would be to save him _in his sins_.