them for the information. John was immersed in Enon. What a discovery! The exact spot of John's baptism had been long unknown to the world, but the fact is now before us, if we believe immersionists-Enon. This is decidedly a rich thought in its own way. John was also immersed in Enon. Reader, forget not this!

In this work, page 8, we read: "The first instance on record, of pouring or sprinkling. is that of Novatian, in the year 251." Another untruth, plain, and positive. We find in Pond's work, p. 45, that Walker, a writer of great caution and research, gives us to understand that some 60 years. after the death of the apostles a man was traveling in the desert-took sick--desired baptism-was baptized by having sand thrice sprinkled on him, there being no water at hand. Now, when this case was reported to the bishop, after he had recovered, the bishop decided he would have been baptized, "If only water were poured on him." Irenæus, 67 years after the age of the apostles, mentions the fact, that Christians baptized by affusion. We could here show the priority of affusion before any positive record of immersion, but this would not be in accordance with our present design, which is to convict immersionists of misrepresentation, and to show that they cannot be relied on when the cause of water is at stake. In a future chapter we shall attend to this. We think we are succeeding so well with our charge, that it would be exceedingly wrong to turn for a moment from it. Don't facts begin so to speak?

In this work, page 13, we read: "Among such a people lived Fidus, the first on record who proposed the baptism of infants." How ridiculous a falsehood this is! If a house mouse were to get a fair trial for its life, on a supposed misdemeanor, the testimony of such a writer ought not to be re

ceived. The truth is, Fidus, an African Bishop, applied to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, to know, not whether infants ought to be baptized, but whether their baptism might take place before the eighth day after their birth, this being the day on which circumcision was performed. This question was considered in an African Synod, held A. D. 254, at which sixty-six bishops were present; and "it was unanimously decreed, that it was not necessary to defer baptism to that day; and that the grace of God, or baptism, should be given to all, and especially to infants." This decision was communicated in a letter from Cyprian to Fidus, and is made a portion of the history of the church. An immersionist, however, in the face of these indisputable records, asserts that "Fidus was the first on record that proposed infant baptism." Fidus proposed no such thing. He simply inquired as to the time of the baptism of infants-some thinking it ought to take place on the eighth day of their life, answering to the time of circumcision. If a man were trying to frame an untruth, he could not transcend the one before us concerning Fidus. Perhaps we ought to use the term ignorance, instead of falsehood or untruth. Immersionists may take their choice. The matter will be equally the same to us, and to our cause, which is that of truth, and of history. How light makes manifest the works of error!

But these are only samples from this book-a "standard Baptist work," which is destined to hand down to their children falsehoods to believe, assert, and practice.

Let us now notice a statement of A. Campbell, the guiding star of a baptized system of infidelity, palmed off on the public for ancient Christianity restored. Here it is, as found in his debate with Rice, page 260: "Clinics, or unimmersed persons, were inhibited holy orders, by the twelfth canon of

the council of Neocæsarea, and consequently, were ineligible to sacerdotal functions." Now let us have the decision of the council of Neocæsarea, and we shall see that it is a happy circumstance that water can wash away sins. This is the language of that council: "He that is baptized when he is sick, ought not to be made a priest, for his coming to the faith is not voluntary but from necessity, unless his diligence and faith do prove commendable, or the scarcity of men fit for the office do require it." The reader will at once perceive that the baptism by affusion, when sick, was not made the ground of the action of the council, but the coming to the faith from the necessity of circumstances, which occasioned doubt as it regarded the genuineness of his piety; yet, A. Campbell would impress the hearer or reader with the thought, that being baptized by affusion was the great point at issue. What a pity that the advocates of immersion do not try to tell the truth! This may be taken as a fair sample of Campbell's writings and sayings, as we have not time nor space to present other statements of a similar character.

แ

We shall now pay our respects to Jones, the Baptist Historian. In speaking of the Waldenses he says: "On their return "--that is, those who went to inspect matters among the Waldenses"they reported that they had visited all the parishes where they dwelt, had inspected their places of worship, but that they had found there no images, nor signs of the ornaments belonging to the mass, nor any of the ceremonies of the Romish Church; much less could they discover any traces of those crimes with which they were charged. On the contrary they had kept the Sabbath day, observed the ordinance of baptism according to the primitive church, instructed their children in the articles of the Christian faith, and commandments of God."

We shall now hear their own historian Perrin, who speaks thus, in Book 1, chap. 6, pp. 30, 31: " King Lewis XII. having been informed by the enemies of the Waldenses, dwelling in Provence, of many grievous crimes which were imposed [charged] upon them, sent to make inquisition in those places, the Lord Adam Fumee, Maister of requests, and a doctor of Sorbon, called Parne, who was his confessor. They visited all the parishes and temples, and found neither images, nor so much as the least show of any ornaments belonging to their masses and ceremonies of the Church of Rome, much less any such crimes as were imposed [charged] upon them; but rather that they kept their Sabbaths duly, causing their children to BE BAPTIZED according to the order of the primitive church, teaching them the articles of the Christian faith and the commandments of God."

The attention of the reader is particularly invited to that portion of the account given by Jones concerning the children of the Waldenses; and then to Perrin's account. We do not recollect ever meeting with so deliberate a misrepresentation of a fact in the whole course of our life.

Jones entirely omits the baptism of their children according to the usage of the primitive church— the very thing that Perrin, their own historian, labors to establish. Ought not men of honor and truth to be ashamed of a cause that has to be bolstered up by slandering the very ashes of the dead? If Jones intended to convey the idea that the Waldenses observed in their acts towards their children the usage of the primitive church, he then admitted all we contend for, the baptism of infants in primitive times; but, if he did not, he intended to palm off a positive, and deliberate misrepresentation on his readers. Is not this evident?

Our readers, in looking over this chapter of ex

posure, will please notice the propensity of immersionists to take from, and to add to, when the cause of dipping can be subserved thereby. We have read their works, and carefully noted their statements, and compared them with facts in the face of impartial history, and have been compelled, when baptism is at issue with their views, to doubt every thing that comes from their pens. Have we not sufficient ground for this?

From the examples before us, and these are but items out of countless numbers to us, we think we have not only sustained the charge we made at the outset, but are justified in doubting all their statements, apart from other and better authority. Facts respond yes, both loud and long, and fully uphold our views!

CHAPTER II.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

In our last we made it appear that immersionists are very much addicted to walk in the path of misrepresentation, and on this point we are not done with them yet.

Dr. Gill, in his Dissertation on Jewish Proselyte Baptism, asserts that "there is no mention made of any rite or custom of admitting Jewish proselytes by baptism, in any writings or records before the time of John the Baptist, Christ, and his Apostles; nor in any age after them, for the first three or four hundred years; or, however, before the writing of the Talmuds."

Now, let us see if we cannot prove this statement totally at war with truth in every particular. Maimonides says: "In all ages, when a heathen,