In the initiation of proselytes to the Jewish religion, according to the rabbinical writers, the three following observances were appointed, namely, circumcision, baptism, and the offering of sacrifice; all of which, except circumcision, were performed by the women, as well as by the men, who became proselytes.

1. Circumcision (the import of which is more fully explained in pp. 295-297.) was the seal of the covenant into which the proselyte entered with God, and of the solemn profession which he made to observe the entire law of Moses: and if the proselyte were a Samaritan, or of any other nation that used that rite, blood was to be drawn afresh from the part circumcised.

2. The second ceremony was Washing or Baptism; which must be performed in the presence of at least three Jews of distinction, and in the day-time, that nothing might be done in secret. At the time of its performance the proselyte declared his abhorrence of his past life, and that no secular motives, but a sincere love for the law of Moses, induced him to be baptized; and he was then instructed in the most essential parts of the law. He promised, at the same time, to lead a holy life, to worship the true God, and to keep his commandments.

Baptism was also administered to the children of proselytes who were born before their parents became proselytes, and generally at the same time with their parents: but it was not administered to children born after that event, because the parents and their offspring were considered as Israelites, clean from their birth, and therefore were brought into covenant by circumcision alone.1

3. The third ceremony to be performed was that of offering Sacrifice.

It was a common notion among the Jews, that every person who had duly performed all the preceding ceremonies was to be considered as a new-born infant. Thus Maimonides expressly says:"A Gentile who is become a proselyte, and a servant who is set at liberty, are both as it were new-born babes 3; and all those rela

separated from him. Schulzii Archæol. Hebr. ut suprà. Jennings's Jewish Antiquities, book i. ch. iii. pp. 63-80. Dr. Lardner has remarked, that the notion of two sorts of proselytes is not to be found in any Christian writer before the fourteenth century; see his arguments at large, Works, vol. vi. pp. 522-533. 8vo., or vol. iii. pp. 397-400. 4to., and vol. xi. pp. 313-324. 8vo., or vol. v. pp. 485-493. 4to. This observation renders it probable that the twelfth prayer of the Jews in p. 287. suprà, is not of so early a date as is commonly supposed.

'Lightfoot's Hor. Hebr. on Matt. iii. 6.

2 Ibid; Wetstein on John iii. 2.; and Whitby on John iii. 4, 5, 6. Some learned men have supposed that our Lord alluded to this rabbinical tradition when he reproached Nicodemus with being a master in Israel (John iii. 10.), and yet being at the same time ignorant how a man could be born a second time. But it is most probable that Jesus Christ referred to that spiritual meaning of circumcision which is noticed in p. 296. note, infra. The arguments on the much disputed question, Whether baptism was in use, or not, before the time of our Saviour, are reviewed by Carpzov in his Apparatus Antiquitatum Sacrarum, p. 49., and by Dr. Jennings in his Jewish Antiquities, book i. c. 3. It may be not irrelevant to remark, that the learned Dr. Campbell refers our Lord's censure of Nicodemus, not to the rabbinical notion above-mentioned, but rather to his entire ignorance of that effusion of the Spirit which was to take place under the Messiah, and which had been so clearly foretold by the prophets. Translation of the Four Gospels, vol. ii. p. 515. 3d edit.

In allusion most probably to this custom, St. Peter addresses the Hebrews who had re

tions which he had while either Gentile or servant, now cease from being so."

On the proselytism of the Jews, Jesus Christ appears to have formed the principal qualities which he required in the proselytes of his covenant. "The first condition of proselytism among the Jews was, that he, who came to embrace their religion, should come voluntarily, and that neither force nor influence should be employed in this business. This also, is the first condition required by Jesus Christ, and which he considers as the foundation of all the rest. If any man be willing (ži Tis Jéɛi) to come after me. (Matt. xvi. 24.) — The second condition required in the Jewish proselyte was, that he should perfectly renounce all his prejudices, his errors, his idolatry, and every thing that concerned his false religion, and that he should entirely separate himself from his most intimate friends and aquaintances. It was on this ground that the Jews called proselytism a new birth, and proselytes new born and new men; and our Lord requires men to be born again, not only of water but by the Holy Ghost. (John iii. 5.) All this our Lord includes in this word, let him renounce himself —áπaрνησáo0w έavтóv. (Mark viii. 34.) To this the following scriptures refer: Matt. x. 33.; John iii. 3. 5.; 2 Cor. v. 17. The third condition, on which a person was admitted into the Jewish church as a proselyte, was, that he should submit to the yoke of the Jewish law, and patiently bear the inconveniences and sufferings, with which a profession of the Mosaic religion might be accompanied. Christ requires the same condition, but, instead of the yoke of the law, he brings in his own doctrine, which he calls his yoke (Matt. xi. 29.), and his cross (Matt. xvi. 24.; Mark viii. 34.), the taking up of which implies not only a bold profession of Christ crucified, but also a cheerful submitting to all the sufferings and persecutions to which he might be exposed, and even to death itself.

The fourth condition was, that they should solemnly engage to continue in the Jewish religion, faithful even unto death. This condition Christ also requires; and it is comprised in this word, let him follow me." (Matt. xvi. 24-26.; Mark viii. 34-37.)

IV. In consequence of the Babylonish captivity, the Jews were dispersed among the various provinces of the great Babylonian empire; and though a large portion of them returned under Zerubbabel, it appears that a considerable part remained behind. From this

circumstance, as well as from various other causes, it happened, in the time of our Lord, that great numbers of Jews were to be found in Greece, and all the other parts of the Roman empire, which at that time had no other limits but those of the then known world.2 It was of the JEWS DISPERSED AMONG THE Gentiles or Greeks, that mention is made in John vii. 35.: and to them Jesus Christ is

cently embraced Christianity, as new-born babes (1 Ep. ii. 2), because they had been born again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, even the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever. (i. 23.)

Dr. A. Clarke on Mark viii. 34.

Philo, de Legatione ad Caium, p. 1031. et in Flaccum, p. 971. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xvi. c. 6. lib. xii. c. 3. lib. xiv. c. 10. Cicero, Orat. pro Flacco, c. 28.

also supposed to have alluded when he said that he had other sheep (John x. 16.), but without excluding the Gentiles, who also were to enter into his sheepfold, or be admitted into his church. To these dispersed Jews it was, that Peter and James inscribed their respective epistles; the former to those who were scattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia (1 Pet. i. 1.); and the latter to the twelve tribes who were dispersed throughout the then known world. (James i. 1.) The Jews who were assembled at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, were of the dispersion. (Acts ii. 5-11.)

V. There were also Jews who lived in those countries where Greek was the living language, and perhaps spoke no other. These are distinguished in the New Testament from the Hebrews or native Jews, who spoke what was then called Hebrew (a kind of Chaldaico-Syriac), by the appellation of HELLENISTS, or Grecians as they are termed in our authorised English version. These in all other respects were members of the Jewish church; they are repeatedly mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles; and it was a party of the Hellenistic Jews that requested to see Jesus.1

VI. During the time of our Saviour there was a considerable number of Jews resident at Rome: Josephus estimates them at eight thousand; and Philo, who relates that they occupied a large quarter of the city, says that they were chiefly such as had been taken captive at different times, and had been carried into Italy, where they had subsequently acquired their freedom and were called LIBERTINES. The synagogue of the Libertines, mentioned in Acts vi. 9. is, by some critics, supposed to have belonged to this class of Jews.2

VII. In consequence of this dispersion of the Jews throughout the Roman empire, and the extensive commerce which they carried on with other nations, their religion became known, and the result was the prevalence of a somewhat purer knowledge of the true God among the Gentiles. Hence we find, that there were many who, though they did not adopt the rite of circumcision, yet had acquired a better knowledge of the Most High than the Pagan theology furnished, and who in some respects conformed to the Jewish religion. Of this description appear to be the "DEVOUT MEN who feared God," who are frequently mentioned in the New Testament3, and particularly the pious centurion Cornelius, of whom the sacred writer has given us so pleasing an account. (Acts x.)

VIII. All these persons, with the exception of the last class, were members of the Jewish church, participated in its worship, and regulated themselves by the law of Moses (or at least professed to do so), and by the other inspired Hebrew books, whence their sacred rites and religious instruction were derived. No person, however, was

John xii. 20. See also Acts vi. 1., ix. 29., and xi. 20, and the commentators on those passages.

2 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 11. (al. 13.) lib. xviii. c. 3. (al. 4.) §§ 4, 5. Philo de Legat, ad Caium, p. 1014. Tacitus, Annal. lib. ii. c. 85. Suetonius in Tiberio, c. 36. Wolfius on Acts vi. 1. has detailed the various opinions of learned men respecting the Libertines. See pp. 276, 277. suprà.

Sce Acts xiii. 43. 50., xvi. 14., xvii. 4. 17., and xviii. 7.

allowed to partake of the sacred ordinances, until he had undergone the rite of CIRCUMCISION.' This rite is first mentioned in Gen. xvii. 10-12., where we read that it was a seal of the covenant which God made with Abraham and his posterity. Afterwards, when God delivered his law to the children of Israel, he renewed the ordinance of circumcision, which from that time became a sacrament of the Jewish religion. Hence the protomartyr Stephen calls it the "covenant of circumcision" (Acts vii. 8.); and Jesus Christ also ascribes its institution to Moses, though it was derived from the patriarchs. (John vii. 22.) Besides the design which God proposed to himself in establishing this ceremony, he appointed it for some other ends, suited to the circumstances of the Israelites; a brief consideration of which will illustrate many important passages of Scripture. In the first place, it included in it so solemn and indispensable an obligation to observe the whole law, that circumcision did not profit those who transgressed. (Rom. ii. 25.) Hence the Jews are in the Scriptures frequently termed the circumcision, that is, persons circumcised, as opposed to the uncircumcised Gentiles, who are styled the uncircumcision (Rom. iii. 1. 30., iv. 12.; Gal. ii. 7-9.; Eph. ii. 11.; Phil. iii. 5.); the abstract being put for the concrete. Thus, our Saviour is called the minister of circumcision: and therefore St. Paul says, that whoever is circumcised, is bound to keep the whole law. (Gal. v. 3.) For the same reason Jesus Christ was circumcised, that he might be made under the law, to fulfil the promise of the Messiah, and redeem those who were under the law. (Gal. iv. 4.) Secondly, as only circumcised persons were deemed to be visible members of the Jewish church, so none but these were permitted to celebrate the great festivals, particularly the passover. On this account it was that Joshua commanded all the Israelites, who having been born in the wilderness remained uncircumcised, to undergo the rite of circumcision, previously to their entering the land of Canaan (Josh. v. 4. 6. 9.); on which occasion God told them that he had removed or rolled away the reproach of Egypt from them; in other words, that they should thenceforth be regarded as his peculiar people, and no longer as the slaves of Egypt. The knowledge of this circumstance beautifully illustrates Eph. ii. 11-13.; where St. Paul, describing the wretched state of the Gentiles before their conversion, represents them as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and, consequently, excluded from all its privileges and blessings. Thirdly, circumcision was an open profession of the worship of the true God, and, consequently, an abjuration of idolatry; on this account we are told that during the persecution of Antiochus the heathen put to death those Jewish women who had caused their children to be circumcised'; and such Jews as apostatised to heathenism took away as much as possible every vestige of circumcision. As this rite was an open profession of the Jewish religion, some zealous converts from that faith to Christianity strenuously urged its continuance, especially among

Calmet has an elaborate disquisition on the origin and design of circumcision. Dissertations, tom. i. pp. 411–422.

21 Macc. i. 63. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib xii. c. 7.

those who were of Jewish origin; but this was expressly prohibited by St. Paul. (1 Cor. vii. 18.)

Lastly, circumcision was appointed for mystical and moral reasons: it was, as baptism is with us, an external sign of inward purity and holiness: hence these expressions of "circumcising the foreskin of the heart," the "circumcision of the heart,' ," the "circumcision made without hands," the "uncircumcised in heart," &c., so often occurring in the Scriptures.'

The ordinance of circumcision was enjoined to be observed on the eighth day (Gen. xvii. 12.), including the day when the child was born, and that on which it was performed; and so scrupulous were the Jews in obeying the letter of the law, that they never neglected it, even though it happened on the sabbath-day. (John vii. 22, 23.) This they termed "driving away the sabbath." If they were obliged to perform circumcision either sooner or later, it was considered as a misfortune, and the circumcision so administered, though valid, was not deemed equally good with that done on the eighth day: and when this ceremony was deferred, it was never used to drive away the sabbath. It was for this reason that St. Paul accounted it no small privilege to have been circumcised on the eighth day. Accordingly John the Baptist (Luke i. 59.) and Jesus Christ (Luke ii. 21.) were circumcised exactly on that day. There was a peculiar fitness in the circumcision of Jesus Christ: for, as the Jews reckoned it dishonourable to associate with uncircumcised persons (Acts xi. 3.), it was necessary that he should be circumcised in order to qualify him for conversing familiarly with them, and also for discharging the other duties of his ministry. Besides, as the Messiah was to be descended

1 See Lev. xxvi. 41, 42.; Deut. x. 16., xxx. 6.; Jer. iv. 4., ix. 25, 26.; Rom. ii. 25-29.; Col. ii. 11.; Acts vii. 51. Circumcision was that rite of the law by which the Israelites were taken into God's covenant; and (in the spirit of it) was the same as baptism among Christians. For, as the form of baptism expresses the putting away of sin, circumcision was another form to the same effect. The Scripture speaks of a "circumcision made without hands," of which that made with hands was no more than an outward sign, which denoted "the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh" (Col. ii. 11.), and becoming a new creature; which is the sense of our baptism. Of this inward and spiritual grace of circumcision the apostle speaks expressly in another place: "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." (Rom. ii. 28.) Some may suppose that this spiritual application of circumcision, as a sacrament, was invented after the preaching of the Gospel, when the veil was taken from the law; but this doctrine was only enforced to those who had it before, and had departed from the sense of their own law; for thus did Moses instruct the Jews, that there is a "foreskin of the heart" which was to be "circumcised" in a moral or spiritual way, before they could be accepted as the servants of God; and again, that the Lord would "circumcise their heart, to love him with all their heart, and with all their soul" (Deut. x. 16., and xxx. 6.); which was the same as to say, that he would give them what circumcision signified, making them Jews inwardly, and giving them the inward grace with the outward sign; without which the letter of baptism avails no more now than the letter of circumcision did then: and we may say of the one as is said of the other, "He is not a Christian which is one outwardly, and baptism is not the putting away the filth of the flesh by washing with water, but the answer of a good conscience towards God." (1 Pet. iii. 21.)-Rev. W. Jones on the Figurative Language of Scripture. (Works, vol. iii. pp. 77, 78.) On this subject Dr. Graves has some excellent remarks, in his Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. i. pp. 241-250. See also a discourse of Bishop Beveridge, entitled 66 The New Creature in Christianity." Works, vol. ii. Serm. xix. pp 417, et seq. 8vo. edit.