will require it of him. The rites of Judaism therefore were to be confidered as inftitutes of God, and to be obeyed till he should think fit to give new orders by another prophet like Mofes. Some think this prophet like Mofes was Jofhua (3). Others fay, Mofes meant a fucceffion of prophets (4); but the Jews in the time of John the Baptist understood the paffage of the Meffiah (5), and the apoftle Peter directly applies it to Jefus (6). Many are the refemblances (7) between Mofes and Jefus : but the most ftriking is that which Eufebius mentions, and which most modern expofitors approve, that the likeness lay chiefly in legiflation (8). Other prophets refembled Mofes in many things, but none of them were law-givers; they only interpreted and enforced the law of Mofes. Hence it follows that, let the rites of Judaifm be what they may, Chriftians are not bound to perform them because they were inftituted by Mofes: but it must be proved that Jefus, the fucceffor of Mofes, and a legiflator like him, hath re-ordained them. This point was fully and finally fettled in an affembly of all the apoftles at Jerufalem convened for the purpofe, who gave it under their hands in writing (9), that they had no commandment to keep the law, that is the Mofaical law of ceremonies. Jewish ceremonies, therefore, are to be confidered now only as Pagan rites are confidered, as hiftories of paft ages, but not as law of present times.

Jewish wafhings, inftituted and not inftituted, may be conveniently claffed under four heads, common, traditional, ritual, and extraordi

nary.

By common wafhings are meant bathings, which the Jews in common with all the people of the East practifed for cleanliness, health, and pleasure. The daughter of Pharaoh was going to bathe herfelf in the river when she found Mofes (1). Bathsheba was bathing when David first faw her (2); for the Jews had baths in their gardens and houses. Private baths of their own were more neceffary to Jews refident in foreign countries than to others; for the Pagans adorned their publick, baths with ftatues of their gods (3), and for this reafon the Jews never

NEWTON on the Prophecies. Vol. i. dif. vi.

(8) EUSEBTI Demonft. Evang. Lib. i. cap. 3.

(9) ACTS xv. 5. 20. 23, 24.

(1) EXOD. ii. 5.

(2) 2 SAM. xi. 2.

(3) Jo. ALB. FABRICII Bibliograph. Antiq. cap. xxii. fect. 14....Quoniam Balneas quotidie magna multitudo frequentabat, hinc in ufu fuit idola et fimulacra deorum ad cultum in illis collocare, cujus moris meminerunt Talmudici in tractatu Avoda Sara. Tom. iv.

By traditional wafhings, fuch are intended as were enjoined by the Rabbies without any authority from the writings of Mofes. There is a clear diftin&t account of thefe in the gofpel of Mark, to which is added the opinion of Jefus concerning them (4). Then came together unto him the Pharifees and certain of the feribes which came from Jerufalem : and when they faw fome of his difciples eat bread with defiled (that is to fay with unwashen) hands, they found fault: for the Pharifees and all the Jews except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups and pots, and of brazen vellels and tables. Then the Pharifees and the Scribes afked him, Why walk not thy difciples after the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered, and faid unto them. Well hath Efaias prophefied of you, hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying afide the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups; and many other fuch like things ye do. And be faid unto them, full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own

tradition.

Although no Chriftians hold them felves bound by the canons of Jewish Rabbies, yet this paffage hath been extremely difputed, for the fake of determining the meaning of the word baptize, fome affirming that the Jews dipped themselves and their utenfils; and others that they only poured on water, and hence they infer, that to pour water is to baptize. There is nothing new to be faid on a subject that hath been fo thoroughly inveftigated: but an arrangement of what feems moft fatisfactory muft fuffice.

i. It is to be obferved, that whatever these washings or baptifms were, they were traditional, and cenfured by Jefus Chrift, and confequently that nothing determinate concerning them can be inferred from the old teftament, or from the approbation of Jefus.

ii. It is faid, the traditions of the elders, or, as the Jews call them, "the words of the fcribes, the commands of the wife men," exprefsly require dipping. In general (5) they fay, "wherefoever in the law, wathing of the flesh or of clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else but the dipping of the whole body in water. . . for if any man wafh himself all over, except the top of his little finger, he is ftill in his uncleanness.” In particular they fay, "in a laver which holds forty feahs of water, which are not drawn, every defiled man dips himself, except a profluvious man; and in it they dip all unclean veffels. A bed that is wholly

(4) MARK vii. 1-9.

(5) MAIMONIDES....Mifn, Celim in GILL on the place.

defiled,

defiled, if he dips it part by part, it is pure. If he dips the bed in the pool, although its feet are plunged in the thick clay at the bottom of the pool, it is clean. What fhall he do with a pillow, or a bolster of skin? He must dip them and lift them up by their fringes." It was not a neglect but a performance of thefe human inventions which the Saviour reproved.

iii. It is added, hiftory explains how the Jews underftood the canon. Dr. Gale fays, "we have frequent mention among the ancients of the Hemero-baptifts (6), who were fo called from their practice of washing themselves in this manner every day: as in the apoftolical conftitutions, where it is noted, that unless they were fo washed, they ate not....they are inferted in the catalogue of Jewish fects by Hegefippus; and Juftin Martyr, mentioning feveral fects alfo of the Jews, names thefe among the reft, and calls them Baptifts; from this fignification of the word. These washings are what in the conftitutions are intended by daily wafhings, or baptifms, as may be further confirmed by that account given us of one fect of the Jews by Jofephus. Tertullian, too, plainly intimates, that the Jews ufed to wafh their whole bodies, when he fays, the Jews daily wafh every part of the body, yet they are never

clean."

iv. It is further observed by the fame writer, that "all the versions in the Polyglot (7), except thofe of Montanus, and the vulgar Latin, to wit, the Syriack, Arabick, Ethiopick, and Perfick, unanimously understand the words in a fenfe quite different from what has been hitherto mentioned, that is, they all take the meaning to be, not that the Jews washed themselves, or their hands, when they came from the market, but that the herbs, for instance, and other things they bought there, were first to be washed, before they could be eaten. Thus they tranflate the place, And what they buy in the market, unless it be washed, they eat not. be owned, the Greek is capable of this fenfe."

It must

v. Commentators of great note therefore conclude that the baptifm of cups is putting them into water all over, and rinfing them (8). The wafhing is a washing of themselves all over (9): for they not only washed their hands, but immerfed their whole bodies (1).

(6) GALE's Reflections on WALL's Hiftory of Infant Baptifm. Let. iv. where the authorities are quoted.

(7) GALE, as above in favour of this verfion, and GILL, POLE, and others against it. (8) HAMMOND, and others.

(9) VATABLUS in Loc. Se totos abluebant.

(1) GROTIUS in Loc. Se purgabant a fori contactu, quippe non manus tantum lavando, fed et corpus merfando....Plura de lotione manuum vide in GEIRI de luctu Hebræorum lib..... GUIL. STUCKII de antiq. convivial. Lib. ii.....Joh. Adam Konig, de ritu lavand. man. differt.

The third fort of wafhings were called ritual, because they were pofitively inftituted by Mofes, and make a part of that book, in which the obfervances of the Jewish religion are fet down. These are called purifications, and there are feveral of them. One was at the confecration of priests (2), who were firft washed, then clothed with facerdotal habits, and then with facrifices inducted, or put into actual poffeffion of both the duties and the honours of the priesthood.

A fecond purification was daily. Mofes commanded a laver of brafs (3) to be put betwixt the tabernacle and the altar, and water to be put therein, for the priests to wash or dip their hands and their feet, whenever they went to the altar to minifter. This ftatute was in force until the diffolution of the economy, and the penalty for the breach of it was death (4).

A third was the purifications of clothes ftained with blood in offering facrifices (5), which were washed; and of utenfils, which were washed, fcoured, and rinfed in water (6).

A fourth was the cleanfing of a leper (7). His clothes, whether linen, woollen, or fkin, were washed in water twice. The priest always put fpring water into an earthen veffel, and killed a bird over it fo that the blood ran into the water, then he dipped a live bird into the blood and water, and let it fly, next he dipped a bunch of hyffop tied with a fcarlet thread to the end of a cedar ftick, and fprinkled the patient, who shaved off all his hair, washed his flesh in water, and concluded the whole by offering facrifices.

A fifth was the purifying of various uncleanneffes (8), contracted by touching the dead, and by any other means, in which cafes, as before, clothes were washed, utenfils rinfed in water, and the people bathed themselves for the lawgiver had declared, if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh: then he shall bear his iniquity.

The laft clafs of Jewish washings were extraordinary. One of this kind is in the hiftory of the healing of Naaman, by the prophet Elisha (9). The prophet bade him go and wash in Jordan feven times. Naaman went down and dipped himfelf feven times, and was miraculously healed. Another was at the giving of the law, when the Lord ordered all the people to prepare for that moft folemn of all days, by fanctifying them

(2) Exod. xxix. 4, &c.

(3) IB. xxx. 17, &c.

(4) MAIMON. De introitu in fan&t. felt. v.

(5) LEV. vi. 27.

(6) IB. verf. 28.

(7) IB. chap. xiii. xiv.

(8) IB. chap. xv...........xviii, 16, &c.

(9) 2 KINGS v.

felves,

elves, and washing their clothes (1), and two days were allowed for this extraordinary service. So, after a victory (2), the captives were purified, the raiment of the conquerors wafhed, and the booty taken from the enemy purified with water of feparation and in like manner the people were ordered to fanctify themselves before they paffed through Jordan to take poffeffion of the land of promife (3). All these were washings on extraordinary occafions, and the whole, ordinary and extraordinary, were intended to imprefs the minds of the Jews with proper fentiments of the holiness of God, and that purity of heart, which he required in all his worshippers. Except in the fingle circumftance of dipping, none of these washings bears the leaft refemblance to Christian baptifm, and this circumftance is a mere accident, and may as well be taken from Pagan rituals as from the ceremonies of the Jews, that is to fay, it is fo vague and far-fetched that it deserves, in this point of view, no confideration at all. Some learned men have currently reported, that chriftian-baptifm is a continuation of profelyte-baptifm among the Jews, and it faves a great deal of trouble to believe the report; for if the matter be investigated, the report will appear untrue, and the reasoning, from an imaginary fact, illogical. There was no baptifm in the world among any people till John, and the purifying of a profelyte by dipping himfelf, which they very inaccurately call baptifm, will appear to have been a late tradition, long after the time of John.

The learned and laborious Dr. Benson, than whom no man ftudied the hiftory of the new teftament with more attention, argued at first against the opinion of Mr. Emlyn, concerning the ceafing of baptism among fuch as defcended from chriftian ancestors, upon the fuppofition that the Jewish cuftom of initiating heathen profelytes by baptifm was a certain fact, fupported by undoubted authority: but on further examination he faw reafon to doubt of that fact, and like a generous investigator of truth, as he was, he propofed his difficulties with a view to excite a further inquiry. They are these :

i. The doctor had "not found any inftance of one perfon's wafhing another, by way of confecration, purification, or fanctification; except that of Mofes his washing Aaron and his fons, when he fet them apart to the office of priefts. Lev. viii. 6."

ii. The doctor fays; "I cannot find that the Jews do at present practife any fuch thing as that of baptizing the profelytes that go over to them, though they are faid to make them wafh themselves."

iii. He afks, "where is there any intimation of fuch a practice among the Jews before the coming of our Lord? If any one could produce any

(1) Exod. xix. 10, &c.

(2) NUMB. xxxi. 19. 23, Fa

(3) Josн. . 5.

F 2

clear