of proselytes, by baptism or dipping, has no foundation but in the Talmuds; and the proof of it there so miserably supported from scripture, surely it can never be thought that christian baptism was borrowed from thence; or that it is no other which is continued in the christian church, being taken up as it was found by John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles; the folly and falshood of which will be evinced in the following chapter.

THE REASONS WHY CHRISTIAN

BAPTISM IS NOT FOUNDED ON, AND TAKEN FROM, THE PRETENDED JEWISH BAPTISM OF ISRAELITES AND PROSELYTES.

HAVING traced the admission of the Jewish proselytes by baptism, or dipping, to the spring-head of it, the Jewish Talmuds; I shall now proceed to give rea sons, why christian baptism cannot be thought to be taken from such a custom ; nor that to be a rule according to which it is to be practised.

First, The Talmuds are of too late a date to prove that such a custom obe tained before the times of John and Christ, since they were written some centuries after those times, as has been shewn; and besides, there is in them a plain chronological mark, or character, which shews that this custom took place! among the Jews since they were driven out of their own land, and scattered among the nations, and suffered reproach and persecution; for among the in terrogatories put to persons who came to them to be made proselytes, this ques tion was asked, "What dost thou see to become a proselyte? dost thou not know, or consider, that the Israelites are now at this time, in sorrowful: circumstances, driven about and scattered, and loaded with reproaches and afflictions? If he says, I know this; and I am not worthy (that is, to be joined to them) they receive him immediately." Many are the surmizes and conjectures of learned men concerning the original and rise of this custom... It is scarce worth while, to take notice of the notion of Grotius', that this custom was taken up on account of the flood, and in commemoration of the world's being purified by it nor of Sir John Marshain's *, that it was taken up by the Israelites, in imitation of the Egyptian's manner of initiating persons into the mysteries of their goddess Isis, by washing them; for which he cites Apuleius. A goodly pattern of christian baptism this! it is much it never entered into the thoughts of these learned men, or others, that the Jews took up this rite of dipping their prosely es, as they found it among the Medes and Persians, when they lived in their countries, and so brought it into Judæa, some hundreds of years before the coming of Christ, and his forerunner John the Baptist; since of the eighty rites. the Persians used in the initiation of men into the mysteries of Mithras, their chief deity, the first and principal was baptism. They dipped them in a bath, T. Bab Yebamot, fol. 47. 1. i Annot. in Matt. iii. 6. * Chronic, secul. g. p. son.

and signed them in their foreheads, and had a sort of an Eucharist, an oblation of bread, as Tertullian has it, and an image of the resurrection (that is, in their baptism); promising the expiation of sins by the laver; and also had an imitation of martyrdom'. Some say ", this custom of the Jews was taken up by them out of hatred to the Samaritans, and was added to circumcision, to distinguish them from then: but if so, it is very much that Symmachus the Samatitan, when he came over to the Jews, was not only circumcised again, as he was, but also baptized, or dipped; of which Epiphanius, who gives an account of his becoming a proselyte to them, and of his being circumcised, but not of his being baptized, as before observed. Dr. Owen thinks this custom was taken up by some Antemishnical Rabbins, in imitation of John the Baptist; which is not very probable, though more so than any thing before advanced. To me it seems a clear case, that this custom was framed upon a general notion of the uncleanness of heathens, in their state of heathenism, before their embracing the Jewish religion; and therefore devised this baptism, or dipping, as a symbol of that purity, which was, or ought to be, in them, when they became Jews, of whom they might hope to gain some, they being now dispersed among the nations; and of some they boast, even of some note: and this was first introduced when they digested the traditions of the elders into a body, or pandect of laws; and were finishing their decisions and determinations upon them, to be observed by their people in future time.

Since I wrote the preceding chapters, I have met with a quotation; for I will not conceal any thing that has occurred to me in reading, relative to this custom of dipping Jewish proselytes; I say, I have met with a quotation by Maimonides, out of a book called Siphri, an ancient commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy, which has these words: "As the Israelites did not enter into covenant but by three things, by circumcision, dipping, and acceptation of sacrifice; so neither proselytes likewise." Now if this is the ancient book of Siphri, from whence this passage is taken, as may seem, which is a book of an uncertain author and age; and is allowed to be written after the Misnah P; yet if it is the same that is referred to in the Babylonian-Talmud, it must be written before that was published, though it might be while it was compiling, and it may be, by some concerned in it; since the rite referred to is expressed in the same words in the one as in the other; and is founded upon and argued from the same passage of scripture, Numb. xv. 15. and seems to be the lari-guage and reasoning of the same persons. However, if the passage quoted by Maimonides stands in that book, which is a book I never saw, though printed; if, I say, these several things can be made plain; it is indeed the earliest 1 Witsii Ægyptiaca, l. 2. c. 16. s. 10. vid. Tertullian. de Præscript. Hær. c. 40. m Schick. ard. & Mayerus, apud Pfeiffer. Autiqu. Ebr. c. 1. s. 5. vid. Selden. de Syned. I. 1. c. 3< P Mabo Hagemara Beracot, fol. 47.

Ut Supra & Theologoumen. p. 447. ad Calcem Halicot Olam, p. 223. T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 9. 1.

Præfat. ad Seder Kodashim.

T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol, 49. 2.

testimony we have of this custom; especially if the book was written before the Jerusalem Talmud, which yet is not certain: but be it as it may, it is a testimony of the same sort of persons, and of no better authority than what has been before produced, and serves to confirm, that this custom is a pure device of the Jewish doctors, and is merely Rabbinical; and besides, at most, it can only carry up this custom into the fifth century, which is too late for John Baptist and Christ to take up the ordinance from it; and on account of these testimoies not being early enough for such a purpose, the late Dr Jennings has given up the argument from them, in favour of infant-baptism, s insufficient. His words are," After all, it remains to be proved, not only that christian bapism was instituted in the room of proselyte-baptism; but that the Jews had any Such baptism in our Saviour's time: the earliest accounts we have of it, are in the Mislina (but in that we have none at all) and Gemara." And again he "There wants more evidence of its being as ancient as our Saviour's time, than I apprehend can be produced to ground an argument upon it, in relation to christian baptism."

says,

Second, This custom, though observed as a religious action, yet has scarce any appearance of religion and devotion in it; but looks rather like a civil affair, it being in some cases under the cognizance and by the direction of the "Sanhedrim, or court of judicature. There was no divine solemnity in the performance of it. It was not administered in the name of the God of Israel, whom the Jews professed; nor in the name of the Messiah to come, expected by them, as was the baptism of John; nor in the name of the Three divine Persons in the Trinity, which yet the ancient Jews believed. They dipped their proselytes indeed, according to their account in the name of a proselyte, or as one; and a servant, in the name of a servant, or on account of servitude; and a freeman, in the name of a free-man; but neither of them in the name of any divine Person, or with the invocation of the name of God; so that it had no appearance of a religious solemnity in it. To which may be added, that this custom gave a licence to things the most impure and abominable, things contrary to the light of nature, and not to be named among the Gentiles, and which must make it detestable to all serious persons. According to the Jews, it dissolved all the ties of natural relations, which before subsisted among men; for according to them, “As soon as a man is made a proselyte, a soul flies out of a (celestial) palace, and gets under the wings of the Shechinah, (or divine Majesty) which kisses it, because it is the fruit of the righteous, and sends it into the body of a proselyte, where it abides; and from that time he is called a proselyte of righteousness; so that now he has a new soul, and is a new man, another man than he was before;" not a better man, but, to use our Lord's words, he is made two-fold more the child of hell. For, according to them, all his former connections with men are broken, and all obligations to natural relations are dissolved; Jewish Antiqu. vol. I. p. 136, 138. Zohar in Numb. fol. 69. 4. Ed. Sultzbach.

and he may, without any imputation of crime, be guilty of the most shocking incest, as to marry his own mother or his own sister. But hear their own words, "When a Gentile is made a proselyte, and a servant made free, they are both as a new-born babe; and all the relations which they had when a Gentile or a servant, are no more relations to them;" or their kindred and relation by blood is no more; as brother, sister, father, mother, and children, these are no more to be so accounted; insomuch, that, "when one becomes a proSlyte, he and they (his quondam kindred) are not guilty, by reason thereof, on account of incest, at all; so that it is according to law (the civil law of the Jews) that a Gentile may marry his own mother, or his sister, by his mother's side (his own sister) when they become proselytes." But though they allow it to be lawful, they have so much modesty and regard to decency, or rather to their own character, that it is added; "But the wise men forbid this, that they (the proselytes) may not say, we are come from a greater degree of holiness to a lesser one; and what is forbidden to-day is free to-morrow; and so a proselyte who lies with his mother or his sister, and they are in Gentilism, it is no other than if he lay with a stranger"." Now can any man, soberly thinking, judge that the New Testament-ordinance of baptism was taken up by John and Christ from such a wretched custom, which gave licence to such shocking immorality and uncleanness; or that christian baptism is built on such a basis as this?

Third, To suppose that John took up the practice of baptizing as he found it among the Jews, and from a tradition and custom of theirs, greatly detracts from the character of John, his divine mission, and the credit of baptism, as administered by him; and is contrary to what the scriptures say concerning him. They represent him as the first administrator of baptisin, and, for a while, the sole administrator of it; for, for what other reason do they call him the Baptist, and distinguish him by this title, if it was then a common thing and had been usual in time past, to baptize persons? The scriptures say he was, a man sent of God, and sent by him to baptize with water, John i. 6, 33. But what need was there of a mission and commission to what was in common use, and had been so time out of mind? The Jews hearing of John's baptizing persons, sent messengers to him, to know who he was that took upon him to baptize; who asked, Why baptizest thou, if thou art not that Christ, nor Elias nor that prophet? As if it was a new thing; and that it was expected he should be some extraordinary person who baptized. But why should such questions be put to him, if this was in common use, and if any ordinary person, however, any common doctor or Rabbi, had then, and in former times, been used to baptize persons"? The scriptures speak of John's baptism as the counsel of

u Maimon. Issure Biah, c. 14. 3. 11, 12. Schulchan Aruch, par. 2. Yore Dea. Hilch Gerim, Art. 269. 3. 1. Annon plane innuunt (verba Joan. 1. 25.) nullum fuisse baptismi usum, & receptam fuisse opinionem inter ipsos (Judæos), nullum debere esse, usquedum veni. Tet Christus, vel Elias, vel propheta ille ? Knatchbul in 1 Pet. iii. 21.

X

God: but according to this notion, it was a device and tradition of men; and had this been the case, the Jews would not have been at a loss, nor under any difficulty, to answer the question Christ put to them, nor indeed, would he ever have put such an one? The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men? for his putting the question thus, supposes the contrary, that t was not from men, but from God: and if it was not of God, but a tradition of men, they could have readily said, Of men; without being confuted by him, or exposed to the people; but being thrown into a dilemma, they took the wisest way for themselves, and answed, We cannot tell! Dr Wall says, If John had been baptizing proselytes, and not natural Jews, the Pharisees would not have wondered at it, it being so well known to them; and he suggests, that the wonder was, that natural Jews should be baptized: but why so? for according to this notion, the original natural Jews were received into covenant by baptism; they as the proselytes, and the proselytes as they; the case, according to them, was similar. But let us examine this affair, and see how the fact stands. When John first appeared baptizing, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were natural Jews, came to his baptism, and were not admitted to it, but rejected from it, as unfit and improper persons, and others of the same nation and profession, in their turn, rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized by John, Matt. iii. 7. Luke vii. 30. On the other hand, publicans, the Roman tax-gatherers, of whom some indeed were Jews, others heathens, both equally odious, and therefore joined together, these justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John; and these went into the kingdom of God, into the gospel-state, before the Pharisees, and embraced its doctrines, and submitted to its ordinances, Luke vii. 29. and. iii. 12. Matt. xxi. 31. and even soldiers, Roman soldiers, for no other soldiers were then in Judea, were among the multitude who came to be baptized by him, to whom he gave good instructions, but did not refuse to baptize them, Luke iii-7, 14. and our Lord Jesus Christ, whose forerunner John was in his ministry and baptism, gave orders to his disciples to baptize indiscriminately persons of all nations, Jews and Gentiles, who believed in him; and who accordingly did baptize them: so that baptism, in those early times of John, Christ, and his apostles, was not confined to Natural Jews; the wonder and the question upon it, as above, were not about the persons baptized, whether Jews or Gentiles, but about baptism itself, and the administrator of it, as being altogether new. The account which Josephus, the Jewish historian, who lived soon after the times of John, gives of him, and his baptism, agrees with the sacred scriptures; and which testinony stands not only in the common editions of that historian, but is preserved by Eusebius, as a choice piece of history; m which, he not only says john was a religious and good man, but, with the scriptures, that he was surnamed the Baptist, to distinguish him from others; and that he ordered the Jews who lived * Introduction to his History, p. 64. Ed. 2. 4to. y Antiqu. 1. 18. c. 6, s. 2. ). 1. c. 11.

* Eccl Hist.