he is unable rightly to estimate the nature or power of the Greek language; or because he is influenced in some measure by party-feeling; or else because he has looked at the subject in only a partial manner, without examining it fully and thoroughly.

Thus much for the evidence derivable from the circumstances attending the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament. But were not these, in all probability, conformed in mode to baptisms already extant among the Jews? This leads us to another distinct head of inquiry.

$7. Jewish Proselyte-Baptism.

III. Was baptism as an initiatory rite, practised in the Jewish church, antecedently to the time when Christian baptism commenced?

This is a subject replete with difficulty, in some respects; because we have not adequate means of casting upon it all the light which is desirable. I begin with the ceremonies prescribed by the Mosaic law, in respect to the sacred use of water in ablutions, and inquire, whether there is any thing in them, which will render one mode of Christian baptism more probable than another. We find, then, the following results.

1. That washing the clothes only, is one of the ceremonial rites of purification. The first direction of this nature we find in Ex. 19: 10-14. It was made in relation to a preparation for the giving of the law at mount Sinai; and of course, on a most solemn and interesting occasion. Other similar directions, on a variety of occasions, and for the like purpose of purification, the reader will find, by consulting Lev. 11: 28, 40. 13: 34, 54, 58. 14: 47. 15: 17. Num. 8: 7, 21. 19: 10, 21. We shall see in the sequel, that this is a different rite from that of washing the person.

2. That washing the person is also enjoined, by way of purification. Aaron and his sons were washed with water, when entering on the priest's office; Ex. 29: 4. 30: 19-21. 40: 12. Lev. 8: 6. 16: 4, 24. On other occasions also, when they contracted any pollution they were commanded to wash; Lev. 22: 6. In all these and the like cases, the Hebrew verb is Y; which corresponds to the Greek love.

3. That both the clothes and person were to be washed, on a great variety of occasions, for the sake of purification. E. g. Lev.

14: 8, 9. 15: 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22, 27. 17: 15.

Num. 19: 7, 8, 19.

16: 26, 28.

4. That sprinkling was used most frequently of all, by way of purification and consecration. Especially was the sprinkling of blood practised for this purpose; e. g. Ex. 24: 6-8. 29: 20, 21. Lev. 1: 5, 11. 3: 2, 8, 13. 4: 6, 17. 5: 9. 7: 2. 8: 19, 24, 30. 9: 12, 18. 14: 7, 51. 16: 14, 15, 19. Num. 18: 17. 19: 4.-Also the sprinkling of oil; e. g. Lev. 8: 11. 14: 16, 27. Also the sprinkling of the water of purification or separation; e. g. Num. 8: 7. 19: 13, 18, 20, 21.

E..

5. That affusion was also used, in the rites of purification. g. Lev. 14: 18, 29, of oil to be poured on the head of him who was to be cleansed. So the priests were bedewed with oil, when consecrated to their office.

6. That smearing over was also a rite of purification. E. g. with oil; Lev. 14: 17, 28; of blood, Lev. 14: 25. 16: 18.

The statement just made, is the result of an examination, extended through the whole of the ceremonial laws of Moses. It is quite possible that some individual instances may have escaped my notice, in such a protracted examination; but this can in no way affect the result of the examples now produced. Do all or any of these examples cast any light upon the Christian rite of baptism?

We may answer this question by saying, that they serve, at least, to shew that there is no trace of any such rite as baptism, prescribed by the Jewish ceremonial law, as an initiatory rite, i. e. as one which was essential in order to make a profession of the Jewish religion. It is true, indeed, that Aaron and his sons were washed with water, when about to be inducted into the priest's office; see Ex. 29: 4. Lev. 8: 6. But it is equally true, that this was only one of very numerous rites of induction to that office. The reader will find them all described at full length, in Ex. c. 29, and Lev. c. 8.

It appears quite plain, that the washing of the priests, as preparatory to their entering upon their office, was in no other sense initiatory, than as a means of ceremonial purification, and an emblem of that purity of heart which was essential to a proper discharge of the duties of their office. This rite, therefore, was not different, as to its essential meaning or intention, from the like rite as practised by others, for the sake of ceremonial purification. Indeed, I can see no difference as to the object which was to be attained, between washing the clothes, the person, or

the clothes and the person both. It seems to be the fact, however, that washing of the person only, was a ceremony confined to the order of the priests; as may be seen by consulting the passages under No. 2 above. But at Mount Sinai, all the people were required to wash their clothes, Ex. 19: 10-14; and so on diverse other occasions, as may be seen by the references under No. 1. On a variety of occasions, likewise, all who had contracted certain kinds of pollution, were required both to "wash their clothes and bathe themselves in water." The word bathe, in all the cases appealed to under No. 3 where it is used, corresponds to the Hebrew y, to wash. Why our translators have rendered the word wash in one case, and bathe in another, it is difficult to see. Neither washing nor bathing appear to be the same as plunging or immersing; for neither the word, to merge, immerse, nor the word, to overwhelm, inundate, is used in reference to these ceremonial washings.

As this is a point of some importance, I must dwell for a moment upon it. The word, dip, immerse, is used in Lev. 4: 6. 14: 16. 9: 9, in respect to the priest's dipping his finger into blood or oil, in order to sprinkle them before the Lord. So also in Lev. 4: 17, and in a similar way as to the dipping of various things into blood, in order to sprinkle it, in Lev. 14: 6, 51. Ex. 12: 22. So of dipping a bundle of hyssop into water, in order to sprinkle it, Num. 19: 18. In all these cases, it is evident at first view, that the dipping of the finger, the hyssop, etc. is merely preparatory to a rite to be performed, and is in no case of itself a proper rite.

All the other examples of in the Hebrew Scriptures, are very few; and I refer to them here, in order that any one who chooses may consult them: Ruth 2:14. Deut. 33: 24. Ezek. 33: 15,, dyed, coloured; 1 Sam. 14: 28. Job 9: 81. 2 K. 5: 14, which is the only example respecting immersion of the whole person, and refers to Naaman's dipping himself seven times in the river Jordan; 2 K. 8: 15. Gen. 37: 31. Joshua 3: 15, which respects the dipping of the priests' feet, who bore the ark, in the brim of the river Jordan.

As to the other word , it properly means to inundate, to to overflow, overwhelm, etc. The only examples of its occurrence in the Mosaic law, are in Lev. 6: 28, respecting a brazen pot; Lev. 15: 12 respecting a vessel of wood; and Lev. 15: 11, respecting the hands of a person. In these three cases, our English version renders the word by rinsed, which implies

immersion. But in no case is the word applied to the whole person, or to the clothes of any individual.

We find, then, no example among all the Levitical washings or ablutions, where immersion of the person is required. The word, which is almost uniformly employed, and which our translators have rendered wash and bathe, does not imply immersion. It may, indeed, admit the idea of immersion, because a washing or ablution may be effected in this way; but on the other hand, the meaning of the verb is equally well answered, without immersion.

Washing the clothes, then, or washing the person, or both the person and clothes; or sprinkling of blood, oil, water; affusion of oil, or smearing with oil or blood; were all the rites. which had relation to liquid substances, so far as they were concerned with application to person or dress. From none of these, can any example be drawn, to shew or even illustrate the necessity of total immersion, as an initiatory rite under the Christian dispensation.

Is there, then, any thing in the ancient law which enjoins baptism, on either the Jew or the Gentile proselyte, when becoming a member of the Hebrew community or church? I cannot find a word to this purpose in the Scriptures. In the original institution of the rite of circumcision, Gen. 17: 9-14, this rite and this only is demanded, as the ceremonial of entrance among the Jewish community. The same requisition is made, both of the native Hebrew and of any foreigner who comes under his control. So again in Ex. 12: 48, 49, it is expressly enjoined, that the stranger shall be circumcised, in order to keep the feast of the passover; and it is at the same time declared, that "one law shall be to him that is home-born, and to the stranger." In all this, there is not even a reference to any ablution what

ever.

Ablution, then, was not an original condition of membership of the church, under the ancient dispensation. It was obligatory, as we have seen, in many forms, upon those who were already members of it, but NOT to their becoming so.

In later times, then, than the giving of the law in the wilderness, must the practice of baptizing proselytes have sprung up. It was an idea very natural to a Jew, that a man who passed over from a heathen state to the Hebrew church, was unclean of course in his heathen state, and needed to be purified. Hence the ablution so common among the Jews, in order to beVOL. III. No. 10. 44

come ceremonially pure, might very easily be extended to him. And one can hardly doubt, that in consequence of such analogical reasoning, baptism came at length to be considered by the Jews, as essential to the due introduction of a Gentile to their church.

But did such a custom exist among the Jews, antecedently to the ministry of John the Baptist and of Jesus? A question long and variously disputed, and which seems, as yet, hardly to be settled to the satisfaction of all. The impression, however, has become widely extended in the Christian church, that such was the fact; and inasmuch as it is conceded that proselyte-baptism was usually by immersion, it becomes necessary to our purpose, to examine into this subject.

The reader should be advertised, however, that there is by no means a general agreement among the learned, in regard to this question. While the majority of the older writers have adopted the opinion of Selden, Lightfoot, Danz, Buxtorf, Schoettgen, Wetstein, and others, that the baptism of proselytes was common. when John the Baptist made his appearance as a public teacher; others of no small ability and reputation have denied strenuously that there is any satisfactory evidence of this. Among these are Ernesti, Bauer, Paulus, De Wette, and (in a modified way) E. G. Bengel, of recent times; also John Owen, Wernsdorf, Zeltner, Carpzov, and others, among the older writers. Most of these writers I have consulted; a great part of them, however, do but repeat what had been already said by some leading author. The substantial part of the case, I shall now endeavour to lay before the reader.

1. There can be no doubt, that among the Jews of later times, probably from some time in the latter part of the third century downwards, the baptism of proselytes has been generally regarded as a constituent part of the rite of initiation into the Jewish community, when a Gentile convert was to be introduced.

Maimonides, in the twelfth century, speaks very fully and positively as to such a practice; and he extends it to the Hebrews, as well as to others. "By three things," says he, "Israel was introduced to the covenant; by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt; as it is said, No uncircumcised person shall eat of the passover. Baptism was in the desert, before the giving of the law; as it is said, Thou shalt sanctify them to day and to morrow, and they shall wash their clothes," etc. Issure Biah, cap. 13. Here he has mistaken