admirable reply. "However great," says he," and honourable the patrons of a mistake may be, they are but men, and the authority of Christ, and the respect and obedience we owe to His commands, should counterbalance all other considerations." Let it, then, be remembered that the mode of citation thus paraded is not founded in argument, but generally the mere, and for the most part, the loose, unconsidered opinion of the authors, and subject to examination and correction equally with the doctrine of immersion itself. Moreover, such concessions can only with justice be adduced against such as make them, or who acknowledge their validity. Few of these quotations, furthermore, are taken from works where the individual authors avowedly treat of baptism, wherein they speak as men upon oath, with caution after careful investigation. If all the careless incidental expressions of wise men, all the unmeasured expressions of rash men, all the foolish expressions of weak men, upon any subject were gathered up as they fell from tongue or pen, and grouped

together, what view, however erroneous or extravagant, might not be supported as well as immersion baptism? A judge of no ordinary competence, declares that "A superficial examination of the case will show, that many of the quotations are exceedingly partial and distorted -the truth is but partly told-extracts are improperly made-and a stress is

laid on words and phrases which the original writers never intended. The impression designed to be made on the reader evidently is, that "immersion was only and always the original practice,— that the word baptise' means only and always to dip, and that in this sense we are constantly to construe it in the present day. For though Mr. Booth has prefaced his citations with a couple of provisionary clauses, which necessity obliged him to write, and which are soon forgotten by, common readers of his numerous extracts,-the design was to make them believe that the authors sanctioned his practice. Indeed, nothing less than this, on the plan of his volumes, would answer his purpose. But where have such concessions been made? Let our opponents produce them if they are able. It is absurd to imagine such to be attainable. Pædobaptists readily admit, that the word baptise is sometimes employed for dipping, sinking, and drowning; but this is consonant with their views of aspersion baptism. They have erroneously conceded, that the Apostles sometimes baptised by dipping the person partially or wholly,-but does this prove that they thought such a method requisite now and in this country? Where is the Protestant Pædobaptist who has deliberately said that pouring or sprinkling of children or adults is not a real or valid baptism? In fact, to suppose that they have intentionally advocated a system in books, which they condemned in practice, is preposterous."-THORN.

The doctrine of concession and the practice of quotation might be turned with equal success against Mr. Booth the Socinian, or by the Antinomian. But it is really a prop of feeble power, which cannot long support error, and can be of no lasting service to truth. We must come to the Scriptures, for no tenable argument in support of immersion can be derived from the ages succeeding that of the Apostles. We must keep to the Apostolic age, for, on this side of it, there is no safety till we reach the era of the Reformation. The death of the Apostles was followed by thick darkness. The concessions of Pædobaptists have more of candour than of truth. Immersion and much beside

originated in that dark and dreary night, according to Mr. Thorn; and we think it impossible to resist his arguments. He well observes: Nor is the case of immersion alone in this predicament. Other notions are equally prevalent in the Christian world, which had no better origin. As we remarked before, antiquity equally remote may be pleaded for baptismal regeneration, three orders of officers in the Church, and various other things which are deemed unscriptural by our opponents, though held by as many writers and people as have ever conceded the Apostolic mode of baptism to have been by dipping."

It has been assumed that dipping or immersion was the original mode, and much labour has been bestowed in attempting to ascertain when sprinkling was introduced as a substitute for immersion, and the reasons which led to the change. Divers dates have been fixed on, and various reasons assigned for this perplexing change; but the assumption ought first to have been proved. Is it credible that immersion could have given place to simple affusion? Dr. Campbell has made a very profound observation on this subject: Things always advance from less to greater." The corruptions of those ages consisted in doing things more largely and ceremoniously than the previous institution required; an examination of primitive manners will place this truth in the clearest light. The transition from pouring to plunging -from once to thrice dipping, and an additional affusion on the head, was quite in keeping with the spirit of the age. It is also easy to conceive how the imagination of the multitude might crave a supply of fresh stimulants, which was furnished by blessing the water, applying salt, oil, and spittle, with the exhibition of flaming torches, crossings, prayers and the like. But to suppose abridgment, diminution, reduction such as the change from immersion to sprinkling implies, is to run counter to reason and to fact. Did it not fare exactly thus with the Lord's Supper? It was even more changed and disfigured than baptism. The change, indeed, from pouring to plunging, and from one dip to three was comparatively moderate, evenwith the additions alreadydescribed.

The advocates of immersion lay great stress

on the example of the still benighted Greek church. It is plausibly

We

contended that they must better understand the meaning of their mother tongue than foreigners; and that since they immerse and have done so since the days of the Apostles, immersion must be the import of baptizo. deny that they have thus and thus only baptised from the times of the Apostles, because it is not true; and we further deny that the Greek of the New Testament is their mother tongue; so far is this from the truth, that the New Testament has had to be translated into modern Greek before they can understand it. Again, if the Greek Church is to settle the question, we must insist upon two points: every baptism must be performed by three immersions and one pouring, and a variety of ceremonies beside, according to the custom, the universal custom of the Greek Church -we insist, secondly, and most strennously, on the baptism also of infants according to the immemorial practice of the same church-nay more, we further insist that infants shall receive the Lord's Supper also, as they do in the Greek community. Is this demanding too much? How can it be so, when one of the ablest advocates of immersion declares the Greek Church to be "an authority for themeaning of the word baptise infinitely preferable to that of European lexicographers-so that a man who is obliged to trust human testimony, and who baptises by immersion, because the Greeks do, understands the Greek word exactly as the Greeks themselves understand it; and in this case, the Greeks are unexceptionable guides, and their practice is, in this instance, safe ground of action." Very well; we solemnly demand that consistency shall be the proof of honesty. Do you really believe the Greeks "unexceptionable guides?" Then we insist that you shall follow them to the very letter! Do you in your conscience believe their practice to be "safe ground of action?" Then we insist that you shall act upon it! They immerse thrice; do you? If not, why not, or how otherwise? They pour water on the head, after the threefold immersion; do you? If not, why not, or how otherwise? They baptize children and admit them to the Supper; do you? If not, why not, or how otherwise ? We put it to the conscience of any man who is a competent judge of language and of facts, and not a partizan, which of us has more widely departed from the " authority," and practice of

66

the Greek Church. As it respects the subjects, we follow the Greek Church to the letter, baptizing both adults and infants; they reject infants who compose the principal portion of the subjects. Is not this a most serious departure from the example of the Greek guides?" As it respects the mode, we reject the three immersions of the Greek "guides," but we retain the pouring; they reject two of the immersions, and also the pouring. How then does the balance stand betwixt us? By whom is the Greek example the more seriously mutilated? We follow the Greek Church wholly as to the subjects; we copy half her example as to the mode ;— they adopt but one third of her example as to the mode, and only one half as to the subjects. We will leave it to the Greeks themselves to say on which side lies the advantage.

The Rubric of the English Church is referred to with triumph in defence of immersion. Very well; grant that it is

evidence upon the mode, we contend that it must be equally so upon the subject. If not, why not, or how otherwise? Then, we refer to the Rubric in proof that infants are the proper subjects of baptism. This argument operates exactly as that taken from the Greek Church. Nor can we stop here; wo demand consistency: we therefore insist upon sponsors, the sign of the cross, and that the baptized shall be considered and held " a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven;"-we further insist upon sprinkling or pouring in behalf of weak and sickly subjects, according to the said Rubric. We further insist on an ascent to the " purer times" of King Edward, whose first book provides that the minister is to "dip the child in the water thrice-first, dipping the right side-secondly, the left-the third time, dipping the face towards the font."Encyc. Brit. on Baptism.

It

AMONG the worthies who were ejected from their pulpits and livings by the Act of Uniformity, the Rev. William Bayshawe, who from his subsequent itinerating labours in the High Peak of Derbyshire, was called the Apostle of the Peak, held a distinguished_place. William Bayshawe was born at Litton, near Tideswell, in the county of Derby, on the 17th day of January, 1628. He bore the name of his father, who being left an orphan, fell into the hands of relatives, who defrauded him of an estate to which he was entitled, and attempted to take away his life. pleased God, however, the Father of the fatherless, to incline the hearts of others to show pity towards him, and in His good providence, by success in the lead mines, abundantly to repair the losses which he had sustained. The remembrance of his early afflictions, and a thankful sense of the goodness of God towards him, filled his soul with such a tenderness for the fatherless and the widows, that he always heartily espoused and asserted their righteous but oppressed cause. He had many children, of whom the subject of this memoir was

He

the eldest, who lived to years of maturity, and who at several country schools made greater proficiency in learning than most of his equals. Under the ministry of Mr. Rowlandson of Bakewell, and Mr. Bourne of Ashover, he received a deep tincture of religion. He had an early inclination to the ministry, and was sent to Cambridge, where he was admitted into Corpus Christi College, under the tuition of Mr. Boise, a learned, but not very active man. profited much under the labours of Dr. Hill, Dr. Arrowsmith, Dr. Whichcot; and other learned men, of whom he always spoke with the greatest veneration and respect. After his return from the University, he preached his first sermon in the Chapel of Wormhill, in the parish of Tideswell, where he remained about a quarter of a year. He removed from Wormhill to Attercliffe, near Sheffield, and was employed as one of the assistants to the Rev. James Fisher, minister of Sheffield. Before he left that place he was ordained at Chesterfield, by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, before a very numerous congregation, January 1st,

1651. Not long afterwards he accepted an invitation to Glossop, in the county of Derby, where he laboured about eleven years. He went among the people doing good, and God was with him. He was very dilligent and faithful in fulfilling all the parts of his ministry, and his conversation was with such meekness, inoffensiveness, and undissembled affection, as gained him universal esteem. He had a natural care for their state, and no offer of greater preferment could draw him away from them. He proceeded vigorously in his work, and had many seals of his ministry. But in the midst of his days and usefulness, the fatal Bartholomew day, 1662, that settled uniformity by breaches and rendings of ministers and people, put a stop to his public labours. He was put out of a handsome living, and separated from a loving and beloved flock, because he would not violate the peace of his own mind. The tears of his auditors at his farewell sermon, were a clear indication of their esteem for him. While his place was unsupplied, a gentleman who had influence with the patron, offered him his assistance to procure him the presentation of it; but though he had a grateful sense of his friend's kindness in the offer, he durst not accept it. From Glossop he removed to Ford, near Chapel-en-le Frith, and with his family attended public worship in the parish church. But being satisfied that ministers consecrated to the service of the sanctuary are indispensably obliged to preach the saving truths of the gospel as they have opportunity, he preached privately in his own house and elsewhere, on the evenings of the Lord's-day, and on Thursday evenings. He also assisted at conferences and private days of prayer. This was his constant practice, until King Charles' declaration for liberty of conscience, in 1672. He then concurred with the generality of his ejected brethren, in preaching more publicly. His labours were not confined to the parish where he resided. He preached a monthly lecture to his ancient people at Glossop, and also on one Lord's-day in each month. The people flocked to his sermons as doves to their windows, and his successor was frequently among his hearers. He preached lectures in several other places, and particularly once a fortnight at Ashford. The declaration of indulgence being called in at the request of the Parliament, he still kept up his

meetings, though privately, and with great care, prudently changing his place almost every Lord's-day, that he might not expose his hearers to the lash of the severe laws then in force. Upon the discovery of the Popish plot, his liberty was enlarged, and though some caution was used, it was without much fear. But towards the close of King Charles's reign, the prosecution of Protestant dissenters being renewed with great violence, he was again driven into a corner. He received the news of the King's death with deep concern, and had great fears upon his spirit, when he saw a Popish successor on the throne. Though he was far from owning the dispensing power on which King James's indulgence was founded, and could not but discern his design in it, he nevertheless embraced the opportunity it gave him to show his zeal in his heavenly Master's work. Besides his larger sermons, he now began a custom of making a short discourse after the reading of the Scriptures,which all this tended to confirm his hearers in the Protestant

religion, and to arm them against Popery. When the liberty which Dissenters so precariously enjoyed under James,was in the next reign established by law, he rejoiced greatly, and was very solicitous to improve it. He was constantly at work at home or abroad, until his growing infirmities constrained him to shorten his journeys, and lessen his labours. He was confined first to his own public meeting place, which he built at Malcolf, near to Chinley, and then to his dwelling-house, yet he desisted not wholly from his delightful work more than the Lord's day before his death. He preached his last sermon, March 22, 1700, on Romans viii. 31. “If God be for us, who can be against us." This sermon was delivered with so much life and spirit that a stranger would have thought him in perfect health; but when it was ended he was sensible his preaching work was over, and judged it would be a tempting of God to make another essay. After this he grew every day weaker, and the next Lord's-day he was confined to his bed. He said that his silence was a sermon. He intimated that he had preached the doctrine of imputed righteousness, and that that righteousness was his support in his languishing state. He declared his satisfaction in his Nonconformity, and blessed God, who had kept him from acting against his conscience in that

affair. On Wednesday, April 1st, 1702, he quietly fell asleep in Jesus. His remains were interred in the chancel of Chapel-en-le-Frith church, on Saturday, April 4th. Very many persons attended his funeral and made great lamentation over him. He was a very laborious man,and founded several Nonconformist places of worship in the High Peak of Derbyshire. Some of these places are now in the hands of the Unitarians. The congregation raised by him at Malcolf, erected Chinley Chapel, and removed to it in the year 1710, at which time the Rev. Dr. Clegg was minister. The doctrines preached by Mr. Bayshawe, have continued to be preached in Chinley Chapel unto this day. Of this eminent man it was said, he had many thoughts about his own soul and its everlasting concerns, before he took the charge of others. He was a sound and laborious preacher-his style was concise- his delivery showed that he had digested his sermons, and was effected by them-he excelled in prayer-he was mighty in the scriptures- he was a dilligent cathechist-he administered the sacraments with great solemnityhe visited from house to house, and sympathised with his people-his_love to God and Christ was a constant flame -his zeal against error and wickedness was great-he had loved the sabbath day-he was public-spirited-he was tolerant to all who differed from himhe forgave his enemies-he was a man of profound humility, and patient under trials-he did not entangle himself with the affairs of this life-his behaviour in his domestic circle was that of a true Christian-he published a few minor works characteristic of his piety, and zeal, meekness and love.

REV. GEORGE GREATBACH. THE venerable Mr. Greatbatch, the much loved and honoured ex-pastor of the Independent Chapel, Southport, has finished his earthly course, and now rests from his labours.

For many years he was unable to preach; but the lines had fallen to him in pleasant places the cessation of the duties he discharged so long and so faithfully brought him needful repose without dreary solitude. He spent his days in the midst of his children, and children's children, the object of fervent affection to all; and, to crown his felicity, his successor, the Rev. J. E. Millson,

became his son-in-law, and when his period of service was ended, celebrated the interesting facts of his history in as complete, pleasing, and impressive a record as could be desired.

The rev. preacher took his text from the Gospel by St. John, the 12th chapter, and the middle clause of the 26th verse -"And where I am, there shall also my servant be." He said-We meet this morning under peculiarly solemn circumstances, and for a most important purpose. It is not to scatter the incense of our praise upon the ashes of the dead that we meet; but so to think and speak about the dead, for the benefit of the living, that his Master may be glorified thereby. An aged, a faithful, an honoured servant of God has been taken away from us, his Master having called him, and we are this morning to attempt to recall some of his works of faith and labours of love, that, as servants of Christ, we may, by this remembrance, be quickened in our zeal, and have our own love to that Master inflamed. The most honourable, the most useful, the most happy position that any creature on earth can occupy, is that of being a servant of Christ. We might establish this position by reference to the declarations of inspired men, to the experience of Christian men, to the convictions of godless men, and to the declarations and promises of the Saviour Master himself. But it will be enough for our purpose to take up the decisive and satisfactory language of the Redeemer himself, as shown in our text; and by the help of the Holy Spirit of God we wish to fix your attention this morning on the great truths there plainly expressed and necessarily implied in the brief sentence, "And where I am, there shall also my servant be." We are, therefore, led to inquire, who is the Master, and who is the servantwhat are the distinguishing marks of the servant of Christ ?-and then to glance at the happy meeting which must ultimately take place between the Master and servant. On these different heads the rev. preacher dwelt at some length, describing how the Master alluded to was none but Christ himself, the Son of the ever-living God, and how, among men, the spiritual-minded, the enlightened from above, the renewed, the sanctified, were the servants of that Master. With regard to the distinguishing characteristics of these