A fifth was the purifying of various uncleannesses (8), contracted by touching the dead, and by any other means; in which cases, as before, clothes were washed, utensils rinsed 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 last class of Jewish washings were extraordinary. One of this kind is in the history of the healing Naaman, by the prophet Elisha (9). The prophet bade him go and wash in Jordan seven times. Naaman went down and dipped himself seven times, and was miraculously healed. Another was at the giving of the law, when the Lord ordered all the people to prepare for that most solemn of all days, by sanctifying themselves, 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 washed, and the booty taken from the enemy purified with water of separation and in like manner the people were ordered to sanctify themselves before they passed through Jordan to take possession of the land of promise (3). All these were washings on extraordinary occasions; and the whole, ordinary and extraordinary, were intended to impress the minds of the Jews with proper sentiments of the holiness of God, and that purity of heart, which he required in all his worshippers. Except in the single circumstance of dipping, none of these washings bears the least resemblance to christian-baptism, and this circumstance is a mere accident, and may as well be taken from Pagan rituals as from the ceremonies of the Jews; that is to say, it is so vague and far-fetched that it deserves, in this point of view, no consideration at all. Some learned men have currently reported, that christian-baptism is a continuation of proselyte-baptism among the Jews, and it saves 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 baptism in the world among any people till John, and the purifying of a proselyte by dipping himself, which they very inaccurately call baptism, will appear to have been a late tradition, long after the time of John. (8) Lev. chap. xv. xviii. 16, &c. (9) 2 Kings v. (3) Josh.iii. 5. The learned and laborious Dr. Benson, than whom no man studied the history of the New Testament with more attention, argued at first against the opinion of Mr. Emlyn, concerning the ceasing of baptism among such as descended from christian ancestors, upon the supposition that the Jewish custom of initiating heathen proselytes by baptism was a certain fact, supported by undoubted authority: but on further examination he saw reason to doubt of that fact, and like a generous investigator of truth, as he was, he proposed his difficulties with a view to excite a further inquiry. They are these: i. The doctor had "not found any instance of one person's washing another, by way of consecration, purification, or sanctification; except that of Moses his washing Aaron and his sons, when he set them apart to the office of priests. Lev. viii. 6." ii. The doctor says; "I cannot find that the Jews do at present practise any such thing as that of baptizing the proselytes that go over to them, though they are said to make them wash themselves." iii. He asks, "where is there any intimation of such a practice among the Jews before the coming of our Lord? If any one could produce any clear testimony of that kind from the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, Josephus, or Philo, that would be of great moment." iv. He adds: "in former times, proselytes, coming over from heathenism to the Jewish religion, used to wash themselves; which is a very different thing from baptism, or one person's being washed by another. Though I must own, I cannot see how infants could wash themselves (4)." The modest Dr. Benson was pleased to add, that he wished to see these difficulties cleared up, and that he could not answer all that Dr. Wall and Mr. Emlyn had said in support of proselyte-baptism: but with all possible deference to this most excellent critick, it may be truly said, he hath, by stating his difficulties, fully answered both these writers; for, if what they call proselyte-baptism was not baptism, and if there was no institution of such a washing as they call baptism in the Old Testament, and no mention of such a thing in the Apocrypha, (4) On St. Paul's Epistles. Vol. i. dis. viii. part ii. The publick worship of the first Christians. Chap. v. S. ii. ---Lightfoot's works. Vol. ii. p. 120. or in Josephus, or in Philo, what at this age of the world signify the conjectures of a Lightfoot and a Wall, or even an Emlyn? A fact it is, beyond all contradiction, that this same proselyte-washing, which learned men have thought fit to call baptism, is no baptism at all, but, as Dr. Benson truly says, a very different thing, and that in which infants could have no share. It was a person's washing himself, and not the dipping of one person by another. It is conceivable that, if such a practice had existed, the whole formulary would not have been settled and published, or mentioned, or hinted at by the Jews, whose scrupulosity in the manner of doing the most minute affairs is so notorious. On supposition, the existence of such a practice could be proved, what then? Nothing at all in regard to baptism. It would appear that a proselyte washed himself, but this is not baptism. Dr. Lightfoot led the baptizers of infants into this labyrinth, and no learned man ever did more to render words equivocal than he. If there be a word in the New Testament of a determinate meaning, it is the word baptism: yet, by a course of sophistry, it shall be first made synonymous with washing, and then washing shall be proved synonymous with sprinkling, and then sprinkling shall be called baptism. Thus the book intended to instruct shall be taught to perplex: the book in the world the most determinate shall be rendered the most vague: the book, the credit of which is absolutely ruined if it admit of double meanings, shall of all others be rendered the most mysterious book in the world, saying every thing, and of course narrating and proving nothing (5). It is necessary, however, to give some account of proselyte-baptism. A proselyte must be described, the fact of his baptism must be ascertained, and it must be inquired to what practical uses the subject can be applied. i. A proselyte must be described. There were among the Jews two, some say three sorts of proselytes (6). (5) See Dr. Benson's Essay concerning the Unity of Sense; to shew that ne text of scripture has more than one single sense, page 11. (6) To avoid repetitions, the substance of this part is taken chiefly from the following authors apud Blas. Ugolin. Thesaur. Antiq. Venet. 1759, tom. xxii.. Pauli Slevogti Diss. de prosyl. judæor -- - Jo Gregor. Mulleri Diss. de prosyl--- Johan. Reiskii de Bapt. Judæor· - Jo. And. Danzii Bapt. proselyt. Judaic ---- Gill's Body of Divinity. Vol. iii. and Preface to the New Test. Hammond and Lightfoot on Matt. iii. - - - OwGale's Reflections en's Theologoumena. - · Wall's Hist. of Inf. Bapt. · en Wall. .... The first were called proselytes of the gate; the second were denominated mercenary or hired; the third were called proselytes of righteousness. Philo and Josephus, who lived nearest the time of Jesus, both mention proselytes, but neither says one word about the baptism of them. The genuine Targums (7), written about the close of the first century, and the Misnah, written about the middle of the second century, say nothing on this subject. The christian writers called Fathers speak of Jewish proselytes, and washings, and purification from ceremonial uncleannesses: but nothing of admitting proselytes into the community by baptizing. This baptism of proselytes came to light through the later Rabbies, and it is chiefly to be sought in the writings of Maimonides (8), or Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, who flourished in the eleventh or twelfth century at the head of a famous school in Egypt. This justly celebrated writer composed the best system of the civil and canon laws of the Jews that is extant, under the title of Yad Chazaka. It is a compendium of the Misnah and Talmud, and a collection of traditions, rites, usages, and customs of the Jews. A Jewish proselyte is a convert to Judaism. Proselytes of the gate were neither circumcised by others, nor did they dip themselves. Mercenary proselytes, it is agreed on all hands, did not dip, and it is uncertain whether they were circumcised. It is the proselyte of righteousness, who was accounted purified by dipping himself. The Jews were extremely cautious what persons they admitted under this character. For this purpose candidates underwent a very strict examination concerning the motives of their conduct, and the examiners utterly refused all ignorant, mercenary, or vicious people. If they were adjudged sincere, they were taken into tuition, and were instructed in the doctrine of the unity of God, and all the other articles of the Jewish religion. After this the men were circumcised, and when they were out of danger both men and women dipped themselves in water. The ceremony was performed once by the first convert but never more than once through successive generations in the same fam Jo, Laur. Berti Eccles. Hist. Breviar. tom. ii. sec. 12. ily. If a Jew bought a Pagan minor (9), or if one were taken in war, it was determined by the wise men, he should dip himself as a proselyte of righteousness. It was objected, that a minor could not consent; but it was determined by the wise men, that in this extraordinary case, the decree of the Rabbies should be held to supply the place of assent. Adult proselytes received instruction, and made a confession of their assent during their washing, and afterwards completed the ceremony of initiation by offering sacrifice. The mode of this purification was immersion in water. A river was preferred but any collection of clean water of a depth sufficient for dipping would do. If a bath were necessary, a square, with about four feet and a half depth of water was requisite. The proselyte was not to jump in as if he were bathing; but he was to walk in leisurely. A woman was to be conducted by three women, and when notice was given that she was up to the neck in the water, the three judges either withdrawing or turning their backs, she plunged herself once into the water. Some dipped themselves naked, others in a thin garment that would admit the water every where ; but none in any habit that might prevent the water from wetting all the body, for if only a small defluxion from the eye ran between the water and the skin, the purification was judged partial and incomplete. ii. The fact must be ascertained. A learned foreigner (1) says, Jewish baptism is a solemn rite instituted by God, in which proselytes of both sexes, in the presence of three credible witnesses, are dipped in water, that being legally cleansed and regenerated they may enter on the profession of a new religion. This definition affirms what is not true, for neither was there ever such a rite as Jewish baptism, nor can it be pretended seriously, that proselyte-dipping was instituted by God. If any divine institute could be produced, if there were in the Jewish ritual any ceremony similar to baptism, there would be some shew of reasoning; but in the present case, as affirmation is the whole argument, bare negation is a sufficient answer. There are in the Old Testament (2) many precedents of admitting proselytes |