age

infants in the New Testament; and that there is neither plain precept nor example for it, as some ordinarily plead; the reason is, because there needed none, baptizing infants having been as ordinarily used in the church of the Jews, as ever it hath been in the christian church:-that baptism was no strange thing when John came baptizing; but the rite was known so well by every one, that nothing was better known what baptism was, and therefore there needed not such punctual and exact rules about the manner and object of it, as there had needed, if it had never been seen before:-that Carist took up baptism as it was in common and known use, and in ordinary and familiar practice among that nation; and therefore gave no rules for the manner of baptizing, nor for the and sex of persons to be baptized, which was well enough known already, and needed no rule to be prescribed;-observing how very known and frequent the use of baptism was among the Jews, the reason appears very easy, why the Sanhedrim, by their messengers, inquired not of John, concerning the reason of baptizm, but concerning the authority of the baptizer; not what baptism meant; but whence he had a licence so to baptize, John i. 25. Hence also the reason appears why the New Testament does not prescribe, by some more accurate rule who the persons are to be baptized:—the whole nation knew well enough that little children used to be baptized; there was no need for a precept for that, which had ever by common use prevailed." Dr Wall, upon these authorities, has thought fit to premise an account of this Jewish baptisin, to his history of infant-baptism, as serving greatly the cause of it, and as throwing light upon the words of Christ and his apostles, concerning it, and the primitive practice of it; and, animated by such authorities, every puny. writer, who does not know his right hand from his left in this matter, takes it up, swaggers with it. And, indeed, scarce any will now venture in the defence of infant-baptism without it. This is the last refuge and dernier resort of the Pædobaptist; and, indeed, a learned baronet of our nation says, he knows not of any stronger argument in proof of infant-baptism than this is. Now since so great a stress is laid upon it, and it is made a matter of such great importance, as to be a transition into christianity, and to be closely connected with christian-baptism; that from whence it is taken, and is the rule to direct how to proceed, both with respect to the manner and objects of it; yea, is the basis and foundation of infant-baptism, and the strongest argument in proof of it; and which makes other arguments, heretofore thought of great weight, now unnecessary: it is highly proper to inquire what proof can be given of such a rite and custom being in use among the Jews, before the times of John Baptist, Christ, and his apostles; and if so, what force and influence such a custom can and ought to have on the faith and practice of christians. The proof of which will next be considered.

and

Lightfoot's Works, vol. I. Harmony and Chronicle of the New Testament, p. 9, 12, 17. Harmony of the Four Evangelists, part 1. p. 465, 465. part 2. p. 526, 527. and part 3. p. 583, *Sir Richard Ellys, Fortuita Sacra, p. 67. 584. Vol. II. Hor. Heb. in Matt. iii. 6.

THE PROOF OF THE BAPTISM

OF JEWISH PROSELYTES INQUIRED INTO;

WHETHER THERE IS ANY PROOF OF IT BEFORE, AT, OR QUICKLY AFTER THE TIMES OF JOHN

7

AND CHRIST.

THE inquiry to be made is, Whether there are any writings or records before the times of John, Christ, and his apostles, or at or near those times, or in the third and fourth century from the birth of Christ, or before the Talmuds were written; which make any mention of, or refer to any such rire and custom in use among the Jews, as to admit proselytes to their religion by baptism, or dipping, along with other things. Now upon search it will be found,

First, That nothing of this kind appears in the writings of the Old Testament, which chiefly concern the Jewish nation. We read of many who either were, or are supposed and said to be made proselytes, as the Shechemites in Jacob's time, the multitude that came out of Egypt with the Israelites', Jethro, Moses's father in law, Shuah, Tamar, Rahab?, and Ruth, and many in the times of Mordecai and Esther, who became Jews', Esther viii. 17. but not a word of their being admitted proselytes by baptism. Dr. Lightfoot indeed says, that Jacob admitted the proselytes of Schechem and Syria into his religion by baptism, but offers no proof of it; the Jews' pretend, that Pharaoh's daughter was a proselytess, and the Babylonian Talmud ", quoting the passage in Exod. ii. 5. And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself; R. Jochanan says, she came down to wash herself from the idols of her father's house, and the Gloss on the place is, "to dip on account of proselytis n;" but then the Gloss is the work of Jarchi, a writer in the twelfth century; and was it so said in the Talmud itself, it would be no sufficient proof of the fact. Dr. Hammond says, that Jethro was made a proselyte this way; but produces no scripture for it; but refers to the Talmud, Tr. Repud; but there it is not to be found, as before observed: and Schindler asserts the same, as said by the Jews, and seems to refer to the same Tract in general, without directing to any particular place and from him Hammond seems to have taken it upon trust, and some other writers also, without examination; since no such passage is to be found in that Tract. Pfeiffer. in proof of it, refers to a book called Targum Jon. in Numb. xi. 4. Ibid. in Exod. xviii. 6, 7. A lbid. in Gen. xxxviii. 20 T. Bab. Sotah, fol. 10. 1. PIbid. Megillah, fol. 14. 2. Targum in Ruth i. 16.

W

F. Megillah,

Targum in Esther. Chronicle, p. 18. Targum in 1 Chron, iv. 18. fol. 23. 1. Sotah, fol. 12. 1. w Lexic. in voce op col. 686. vid. de Dieu, append. ad. Matt xxiii. 15. * Antiqu. Ebr. c. 1. §. 5.

3

Zennorenna, a comentary on the law, written in Hebrew-German, in the last century, by R. Jacob Ben Isaac, a German-Jew. Indeed, in the Talmud, Jethro is said to become a proselyte, but no mention is made in what manner he was made one; and elsewhere explaining these words, and Jethro rejoiced says Rab, he made a sharp sword to pass over his flesh; that is, according to the Gloss, he circumcised himself, and became a proselyte; but not a word of his baptism, or dipping; and so the Targum on Exod. xviii. 6, 7. is, " And he said to Moses, I Jethro, thy father-in-law, am come unto thee to be made a proselyte; but if thou wilt not receive me for myself, receive me for the sake of thy wife, and her two children, who are with her; and Moses went out from under the clouds of glory to meet his father-in-law, and bowing himself, kissed him, and he made him a proselyte; but nothing is said of the manner d doing it." Mr. Broughton also, as before quoted, says, that the Babylonian Tal mud, and Rambam record, that in the days of David and Solomon, many thou sands of heathens were made proselytes, and admitted byjbaptism only; but this instance is not to be met with in the Babylonian Talmud; yea, that expressly denies it in two different places; and in which it is asserted, that they did a receive proselytes neither in the days of David, nor in the days of Solomon; Solomon's wife, Pharaoh's daughter, is indeed excepted; because the reason for which they say, proselytes were not then received; namely, because they might be desirous of being made proselytes, that they might be admitted to the king's table, could have no influence on her, since she was the daughter of a mighty king; and yet it is said by some, that though it was Solomon's intention to make her a proselyte, yet he was not able to do it; and she became one of his troublers; and by what is said of her, in 2 Chron. viii. 11. it looks as if she did not become a proselyte; Rambam, or Maimonides, indeed, to reconcile wh later writers have said, with those words of the Talmudists, have contrived a distinction between the Sanhedrim and private persons; as if proselytes, though not received in those times by the former, were by the latter. He says, there were many proselytes in those times who were made so before private persons, but not before the Sanhedrim; he owns the Sanhedrim, did not receive them, and though they were dipped, yet not by their order, and with their consent; but he produces no passage of scripture to support this private dipping; nor do the scriptures any where speak of such numbers of proselytes in those days, and much less of their baptism; and the strangers, who in the Greek version are called proselytes, whom Solomon numbered and employed at the building of the temple, 2 Chron. ii. 17. at most could only be proselytes of the gate, not of righteousness, and so there can be no pretence for their admission by baptism, or dipping; nor is there any thing of this kind with respect to any persons to y Wolfii Bibliothec. Heb. p. 598. z Zebachim, fol. 16. 1. vid. Shemo: R bba, s. 27. fol. a T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 94. 1. b T. Bab. Yebamot, fol 76. 1. Avodah Zarah Ya kut Chadasha tit. de David, n. 89. Apud. Beckii, not. in Farg. a Chron. dIssure Biah, c. 13. §. 15.

80. 2, 3.

fol. 3.2.

wii. 11.

There is a plain and express

be found in the writings of the Old Testament. law for the admission of proselytes to the Jewish religion, and for what, as a qualification, to partake of the ordinances and privileges of it; particularly to eat of the pass-over; and that is the circumcision of them, with all their males; and on this condition, and on this only, they and theirs were admitted without any other rite annexed unto it, they were obliged unto; nor does it appear that ever any other was used; no, not this of baptism; there was but one law to the stranger or proselyte, and to the home-born Israelite; see Exod. xii. 48, 49. There were proselytes in the times of Hezekiah, 2 Chron. xxx. 25. who came out of the land of Israel, to eat the pass-over at Jerusalem, who therefore must be circumcised, according to the said law; but there is no reason to believe that they were baptized. There was a law concerning the marriage of a captivewoman taken in war, Deut. xxi. 10-14. previous to which she must become a proselytess; and the law enjoins various particular rites to be observed in order to it, as shaving her head, paring her nails, and putting off the raiment of her captivity; but not a word of her baptism; which one would think could never be omitted, had such a custom prevailed as early as the times of Moses and Jacob, as is pretended. There were divers bathings, baptisms, or dippings, incumbent on the Israelites, and so upon such proselytes who were upon an equal foot with them, and equally under obligation to obey the ceremonial law; which consisted of divers washings, baptisms, or dippings, yet none of them for proselytism; but for purification from one uncleanness or another, in a ceremonial sense: these seem to be what a learned writer calls Aquilustria lustrations by water; which he thinks it is clear the captive Jews in Babylon observed, from having their solemn meetings by rivers, Ezek. iii. 15. Ezra viii. 15, 21. but it is not so clear they had their abode in such places, whether for a longer or shorter time, on account of them; and it is still less clear what he further says, that these lustrations had a promise of grace annexed to them, were sacraments of the Old Testament, and a type of our baptism. However, though he supposes the returning Jews and proselytes were circumcised, he does not pretend they were baptized; nor does he attempt to prove proselyte-baptism from hence. Among the ten families said by the Jews to come out of Babylon, the proselytes are one sort; but they say nothing of their baptism; see Ezra vi. 21. As for those scriptures of the Old Testament the Rabbins make use of to justify this custom of theirs, they will be considered hereafter,

Second, Whereas there are several books called Apocrypha, supposed to be written between the writingof the books of the Old Testament and those of the New, and are generally thought to be written by Jews, and to contain things which chiefly have respect to them; and though there is sometimes mention made in them of proselytes to the Jewish religion, yet not a syllable of any such rite or custom, as of haptism or dipping at the admission of them; particularly of Achior the Ammonite, in the times of Judith; upon her cutting off the head Erio. Phaletran. de ablatione Seeptr. Jud. c. 9. p. 43.

f Misnah, Kiddushin, c. 4 s. 1.

of Olophernes it is said, that "he, seeing all that the God of Israel did, strongly believed in God, and circumcised the flesh of his fore-skin, and was added to the house of Israel unto this day;" that is, he and his posterity continued in the Jewish religion. Now here is mention made of his being circumcised, previous to his addition, or his being proselyted to the Jewish church; but not a word of baptism, or dipping, in order to it; see Judith xiv. 6.

Third, Mention is made of proselytes in the New Testament, Matt. xxiii. 15. Acts ii. 10. and vi. 5. and xiii. 43. but nothing is said concerning their admission, and the manner of it. Indeed, in the Ethiopic version of Matt. xxiii. 15. the words are ren lered, They baptize one proselyte; which seems to have respect to the custom under cousideration; but then this is but a translation, and not a just one. The Ethiopic version is not only reckoned not very good, but of no great antiquity. Ernestus Gerhard says of the antiquity of it, he dare not affirm any thing certain. And Ludolph, in his history of Ethiopia relates that he could find nothing certain concerning the author and time of this ver. sion; but thinks it probable it was made at the time of the conversion of the Habessines, or a little after, but not in the times of the apostles, as some have affirmed; and in the margin, a little after, he observes, that in an Emiopic martyrology, St Frumentius, called abbot of Salama, is said to be author of it; who, according to another place in the said history, seems to have lived in the fourth century, in the times of Athanasius, and is thought to be the first founder of the christian religion in Ethiopia, and the first bishop in it. Scaliger takes the Ethiopic version to be a recent one; and De Dieu, from what the autho or authors of the version of the evangelist Matthew, add at the end of it, sus pects that they were of the Maronites, who became subject to the pope of Rone A. D. 1182. and so this version is too late a testimony for the antiquity of suca a custom; and the closing the translation o some of the epistles with desiring the prayers of Peter and others, shews what sort of persons they were who translated them, and in what times they lived. The title of the book of the Revelation in this version, is, "The vision of John, which John was bishop of the metropolis of Constantinople, when he suffered persecution;" by which it appears not to be ancient. Hence Dr Oven calls it a novel endeavour of an illiterate person; and the translation of the clause itself in Matr. xxiii. 15 is censured by Ludolphus as ridiculous; the word by which it is rendered being used in the Ethiopic language to convert a man to christianity, or to make a man a christian; which is by it absurdly attributed to the Scribes and Pharisees.

Fourth, As there are no traces of this custom in the writings before, at, or about the times of John, Christ, and his apostles; so neither are there any it. those which were written in any short time after; as, not in Philo the Jew, who

* Hist. Ethiop. Of the divine Original,

Lexic. Ethnop. Col. 414.

Ileras Positionum ex Ling. Heb. Chald Syr. Ar. & Ethiopir. Pos 5. Ibid. 1. 3. c. 2. * In Append. ad Matt. p. 584. &c. of the Scriptures, p. 343. vid. Theologoumen. 1. I. c. 1. p. 4.

1. 3. c. 4.