that of human traditions, Christianity would lose much of its glory; least of all are they interested in it, who intend to establish a law to sprinkle the infants of Christians, upon proving, that the Jews had a custom of dipping men and women when they renounced Paganism.

In this hopeless affair, could the fact be demonstrated, no advance would be made in the argument; for it would be easy to prove, that if it were by tradition Jewish traditions neither have nor ought to have any force with Christians and that if it were even an institute of Moses, the ceremonies of Moses were abolished in form by an authority which no Christian will oppose.

The legislator of the Jews instituted what an apostle (1) calls divers washings, which were not intended to be perpetual, but were imposed by Moses on the Jews until the time of reformation by the Messiah, as all the other ceremonies of that religion were.

The regular way of considering this subject is to set out with an inquiry into the duration of the Mosaical economy, or, to use the language of scripture, the precise period in which Moses was to be heard in the character of a lawgiver. This question receives an answer from Moses himself, who said to the Jews of his own time, and entered it into a publick record (2) for the information of their successors, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken. According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God; neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, they have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. The rites of Judaism therefore were to be considered as institutes of God, and to be obeyed till he should think fit to give new orders by another prophet like Moses. Some think this prophet like Moses was (1) Heb. ix. 10. (2) Deut. xviii. 15 &c.

Joshua (3). Others say, Moses meant a succession of prophets (4); but the Jews in the time of John the Baptist understood the passage of the Messiah (5), and the apostle Peter directly applies it to Jesus (6). Many are the resemblances (7) between Moses and Jesus: but the most striking is that which Eusebius mentions, and which most modern expositors approve, that the likeness lay chiefly in legislation (8). Other prophets resembled Moses in many things, but none of them were lawgivers; they only interpreted and enforced the law of Moses. Hence it follows, that let the rites of Judaism be what they may, Christians are not bound to perform them because they were instituted by Moses; but it must be proved that Jesus the successor of Moses, and a legislator like him, hath re-ordained them. This point was fully and finally settled in an assembly of all the apostles at Jerusalem convened for the purpose, who gave it under their hands in writing (9), that they had no commandment to keep the law, that is, the Mosaical law of ceremonies. Jewish ceremonies therefore, are to be considered now only as Pagan rites are considered, as histories of past ages, but not as law of present times.

Jewish washings, instituted and not instituted, may be conveniently classed under four heads, common, traditional, ritual, and extraordinary.

By common washings are meant bathings, which the Jews in common with all the people of the East practised for cleanliness, health, and pleasure. The daughter of Pharaoh was going to bathe herself in the river, when she found Moses (1.) Bathsheba was bathing when David first saw her (2); for the Jews had baths in their gardens and houses. Private baths of their own were more necessary to Jews resident in foreign countries than to others; for the Pagans adorned their public baths with statues of their gods (3), and for this reason the Jew never entered them.

By traditional washings such are intended as were enjoined by the Rabbies without any authority from the writings of Moses. There is a clear distinct account of

(3) Munster. Drusius. Fagius. Calmet.
(5) John i. 21.
(7) Jortin.

Newton on the Prophecies. Vol
(8) Eusebii Demonst. Evang. Lib.i. cap. 3.
(1) Exod. ii. 5.

(3) Jo. Alb. Fabricii Bibliograph. Antiq, cap.

(4) Pole. Le Clerc. (6) Acts iii. 22, 23.

i. dis. vi.

(9) Acts xv. 5, 20, 23, 24. (2) 2 Sam. xi. 2. xxii, sect. 14.

these in the gospel of Mark, to which is added the opinion of Jesus concerning them (4). Then came together unto him the Pharisees and certain of the scribes which came from Jerusalem: and when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say with unwashen) hands, they found fault: for the Pharisees 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 vessels and tables. Then the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples after the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied 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 aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups; and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, full well ye receive the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Although no Christians hold themselves bound by the canons of Jewish Rabbies, yet this passage hath been extremely disputed, for the sake of determining the meaning of the word baptize, some affirming that the Jews dipped themselves and their utensils; 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 said on a subject that hath been so thoroughly investigated: but an arrangement of what seems most satisfactory must suffice.

i. It is to be observed, that whatever these washings or baptisms were, they were traditional, and censured by Jesus Christ, and consequently that nothing determinate concerning them can be inferred from the Old Testament, or from the approbation of Jesus.

ii. It is said, the traditions of the elders, or as the Jews call them, "the words of the scribes, the commands of the wise men," expressly require dipping. In general (5) they say, "wheresoever in the law, washing of the flesh

(4) Mark vii. 1-9.

(5) Maimonides. Misn, Celim in Gill on the place.

or of clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else but the dipping of the whole body in water-for if any man wash himself all over, except the top of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness." In particular they say, "in a laver which holds forty seahs of water, which are not drawn, every defiled man dips himself, except a profiluvious man; and in it they dip all unclean vessels. A bed that is wholly 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 shall 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 these human inventions which the Saviour reproved.

iii. It is added, history explains how the Jews understood the canon. Dr. Gale says, "we have frequent mention among the ancients of the Hemero-baptists (6), who were so called from their practice of washing themselves in this manner every day as in the apostolical constitutions, where it is noted, that unless they were so washed, they ate not-they are inserted in the catalogue of Jewish sects by Hegesippus; and Justin Martyr, mentioning several sects also of the Jews, names these among the rest, and calls them Baptists; from this signification of the word. These washings are what in the constitutions are intended by daily washings, or baptisms, as may be further confirmed by that account given us of one sect of the Jews by Josephus. Tertullian, too, plainly intimates, that the Jews used to wash their whole bodies, when he says, the Jews daily wash every part of the body, yet they are never clean.”

iv. It is further observed by the same writer, that "all the versions in the Polyglot (7), except those of Montanus, and the vulgar Latin, to wit, the Syriack, Arabick, Ethiopick, and Persick, unanimously understand the words in a sense 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

(6) Gale's Reflections on Wall's History of Infant Baptism. Let. iv. where the authorities are quoted.

(7) Gale, as above in favour of this version, and Gill, Pole, and others against it.

be washed, before they could be eaten. Thus they translate the place, And what they buy in the market, unless it be washed, they eat not. It must be owned, the Greek is capable of this sense."

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

The third sort of washings were called ritual, because they were positively instituted by Moses, and make a part of that book, in which the observances of the Jewish religion are set down. These are called purifications, and there are several of them. One was at the consecration of priests (2), who were first washed, then clothed with sacerdotal habits, and then with sacrifices inducted, or put into actual possession of both the duties and the honours of the priesthood.

A second purification was daily. Moses commanded a laver of brass (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 minister. This statute was in force until the dissolution of the economy, and the penalty for the breach of it was death (4).

A third was the purifications of clothes stained with blood in offering sacrifices (5), which were washed; and of utensils which were washed, scoured, and rinsed in water (6).

A fourth was the cleansing of a leper (7). His clothes, whether linen, woollen, or skin, were washed in water twice. The priest always put spring water into an carthen vessel, and killed a bird over it so 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 hyssop tied with a scarlet thread to the end of a cedar stick, and sprinkled the patient, who shaved off all his hair, washed his flesh in water, and concluded the whole by offering sacrifices.

(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, sed et corpus mersando.

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

(4) Maimon. De introitu in sanet. sect. v. (6) Ib. verse 28.

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

(5) Lev. vi. 27.

Ib. chap. xiii. xiv.