the coming of the Messiah. The manner of the question does obviously seem to imply, that they expected of course the Messiah himself and his two coadjutors, Elijah and the prophet, to baptize those whom they should receive as disciples. But does this imply, that proselyte-baptism was already in use? So it has been thought and said. Yet I cannot see how this follows of necessity. Nay, I must even say that the necessary implication seems to be directly the contrary. What was the initiatory rite which they expected under a dispensation, that even in their own view was to be new, and very different in many respects from the former one? Was it to be a new rite, a distinctive sign; or was it to be merely the continuation of an old practice already in common usage? The former surely seems to be the most natural and probable. Indeed, the manner of the question put to John, absolutely forbids the idea, that those who put it considered baptism as a rite in common use. The necessary implication is, that unless John were either the Messiah, or Elijah, or the prophet, he could have no right to baptize. How could this be said with any good degree of force or congruity, in case the same kind of baptism which John practised was a matter of common usage? An appeal to this text, then, serves rather to confirm the opinion opposite to that, for the support of which the appeal is made.

ion.

In fine we are destitute of any early testimony to the practice of proselyte-baptism, antecedently to the Christian era. The original institution of admitting Jews to the covenant, and strangers to the same, prescribed no other rite than that of circumcisNo account of any other is found in the Old Testament; none in the Apocrypha, New Testament, Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, Joseph the Blind, or in the work of any other Targumist, excepting Pseudo-Jonathan, whose work belongs to the 7th or 8th century. No evidence is found in Philo, Josephus, or any of the earlier Christian writers. How could an allusion to such a rite have escaped them all, if it were as common, and as much required by usage, as circumcision?

The baptism of John and of Jesus, then, I must regard as being a special appointment of heaven. So the intimation seems to be in John 1:33. Luke 3: 2, 3. 7:30; and especially in Matt. 21:24-27. In this latter passage, Jesus evidently means to imply, that the baptism of John was from heaven; and so the Jewish people regarded it, v. 26.

That we cannot point out the exact time when proselyte-bap

tism began among the Jews, is little to the purpose of those who hold to its great antiquity; for where are the monuments which shew how and when many a rite began, which came into general reception in the churches of Christ in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries? Nor can I think, with many writers, that there is any thing mysterious in respect to the adoption of such a rite by the Jewish churches. How obvious the idea, that a heathen man who came over to the Jewish churches, was unclean in his heathen state! And what could be more natural, than to require ablution of him, especially when the days of Pharisaic superstition were fully come? The Rabbins tell us, that circumcision, baptism, and oblation were all necessary to his initiation. How then could the baptism of John or of Jesus, which was the sole initiatory rite, he derived from the proselyte-baptism of the Jews?

Besides all this, when a proselyte was once baptized and received, this rite was at an end. His children born after his reception, were no more required to be baptized, than those of the native Jews. What parallel, then, can be drawn between Christian and proselyte-baptism?

Dr Owen expresses his opinion, that the Rabbins introduced proselyte-baptism in imitation of the popular baptism of John; Theologoum. Lib. V. Digr. 4. So thinks Carpzov, also, in his Apparat. Criticus, p. 48. Improbable, I think, this cannot be called; and particularly in connexion with the many ceremonial ablutions of the Jews, it cannot be so deemed.

That the Jews of our Saviour's time entertained the idea, that he would baptize his disciples, may be well accounted for, without resorting to the supposition that proselyte-baptism was already practised. Let the reader consult Isa. 12: 3. 44: 3. Ezek. 36: 25. Zech. 13: 1, and he will easily see how the Jews might have formed an opinion, that the Messiah would baptize his disciples. But be this as it may, or be the origin of proselyte-baptism as it may, I cannot see that there is any adequate evidence for believing that it existed cotemporarily with the baptism of John and of Jesus.

But what has all this to do with the question, What was the ancient mode of Christian baptism? Much; for it is on all hands conceded, that so far as the testimony of the Rabbins can decide such a point, the baptism of proselytes among the Jews was by immersion. To cite authorities to this purpose is needless. They may be seen in Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 269;

in Danz (Meuschen Nov. Test. etc.) p. 283, and elsewhere. It is therefore a matter of no little interest, so far as our question is concerned, to inquire whether Christian baptism had its origin from the proselyte-baptism of the Jews. This we have now done, and have come to this result, viz. that there is no certainty that such was the case, but that the probability, on the ground of evidence, is strong against it.

§8. Mode of Baptism in the early Christian Churches.

IV. We come now to inquire, What was the mode of Baptism practised by the churches in the early ages of Christianity, and AFTER the times of the Apostles.

Here we may anticipate something more definite and clear, than we have yet been able to find; and consequently this topic of inquiry becomes important to our purpose. It is not my intention here to make a very copious selection of testimonies. An appropriate number well chosen, and from good authorities, will satisfy the reasonable desires of every intelligent reader.

In the writings of the apostolical fathers, so called, i. e. the writers of the first century, or at least those who lived in part during this century, scarcely any thing of a definite nature occurs respecting baptism, either in a doctrinal or ritual respect. It is, indeed, frequently alluded to; but this is usually in a general way only. We can easily gather from these allusions, that the rite was practised in the church; but we are not able to determine, with precision, either the manner of the rite, or the stress that was laid upon it.

In the Pastor of Hermas, however, occurs one passage, (Coteler. Patr. Apostol. I. p. 119 sq.) which runs as follows: "But that seal [of the sons of God] is water, in quam descendunt homines morti obligati, into which men descend who are bound to death, but those ascend who are destined to life. To them that seal is disclosed, and they make use of it, that they may enter the kingdom of God."

One would naturally expect something definite from Justin Martyr. But in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nothing of this nature occurs. He compares baptism with circumcision, and speaks of it as an initiatory ceremony; but says nothing specific concerning the manner of the rite. In his Apology, however, (Opp. Pat. I. p. 210, ed. Oberthur,) a passage occurs which deserves our attention. Speaking of converts to Chris

tianity or those who become believers, he says: "They are led out by us to the place where there is water... and in the name of the Father of the universe, the Lord God, and of the Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, τὸ ὕδατι λοῦτρον ποιουνται, they wash themselves with water . . . τοῦτον λουσόμενον ἄγοντες Eis to Lovroov, leading him who is to be washed to the bath or washing place... he who is enlightened λoverat, is washed or washes himself." It is remarkable here, that the verb 2ovoμa is employed throughout this passage, which is used by the Greeks to designate washing the body. But this may be done by bathing, by simple ablution, or by immersion. Immersion may of course be washing; although washing is not by any means always the same as immersion. The greater includes the less; but the less does not include the greater. I am persuaded, that this passage, as a whole, most naturally refers to immersion; for why, on any other ground, should the convert who is to be initiated, go out to the place where there is water? There could be no need of this, if mere sprinkling, or partial affusion only, was customary in the time of Justin.

Tertullian, who died in Á. D. 220, is the most ample witness of all the early writers. In his works is an essay in defence of Christian baptism, which had been assailed by some of the heretics of his time. Passing by the multitude of expressions which speak of the importance of being cleansed by water, being born in the water, etc. I quote only such as are directly to the point. In 2 he speaks of a baptized person, as “in aquam demissus, let down into the water, i. e. immersed, and inter pauca verba tinctus, i. e. dipped between the utterance of a few words;" by which latter expression he means, the repetition of the baptismal formula by the priest, while he was performing

the act.

In § 4 is a passage which seems to convey a still more definite sense. He is speaking of the original waters at the time of the creation, having been made a sanctified element by the influence of the Spirit of God upon them; from which he goes on to argue the sanctifying influence of baptismal water. But some will object, he says, that "we are not dipped (tinguimur) in those waters which were at the beginning." His reply is, that all water is a species of that genus, and that the species must have the same quality with the genus. He then proceeds: "There is, then, no difference, whether any one is washed in a pool, river, fountain, lake, or channel, alveus, (canal?) nor is

there any difference of consequence between those whom John immersed (tinxit) in the Jordan, or Peter in the Tiber." Here then we have in a very clear passage, the usual elements named, in which baptism was performed. It was done at or in some stream, pool, or lake. What other good reason for this can be given, excepting that immersion was practised?

In 6 he says: "Not that we obtain the Holy Spirit in aquis [i. e. in the baptismal water], but being cleansed in the water (in aqua emundati), we are prepared for the Holy Spirit." $7. "Afterwards going out from the ablution or bath (lavacro), we are anointed," etc.

In 11 and the sequel, he very often makes use of the Latin word tingo, in order to express the Greek word ßantico. In § 16 he speaks of those who had been baptized, as being those qui aqua lavarentur, who are washed with water; and again, qui aqua lavissent.

In his book against Praxeas, § 26 sub fine, he says: "Not once, but thrice, according to the several names [Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] are we baptized (tinguimur) into the several persons. The reader is desired to note here, and in other passages which will be cited in the sequel, that the practice of trine immersion, i. e. of plunging three times into the water, in correspondence with the names of the Godhead as they occur in the formula of baptism, was usual at so early a period as the time of Tertullian; how much earlier, we have no certain testimony, at least none that I am acquainted with. Tertullian himself, however, seems to have regarded this trine immersion, as something superadded to the precepts of the gospel; for thus he speaks in his book De Corona Militis, § 3: "Thence we are thrice immersed (ter mergitamur), answering, i. e. fulfilling, somewhat more (amplius aliquid respondentes), than the Lord has decreed in the Gospel."

I do not see how any doubt can well remain, that in Tertullian's time, the practice of the African church, to say the least, as to the mode of baptism, must have been that of trine immer

sion.

Subsequent ages make the general practice of the church still plainer, if indeed this can be done. The Greek words xaradva and xaráduous were employed as expressive of baptizing and baptism; and these words mean, going down into the water or immerging. So in the following examples :

Chrysostom, Homil. 40 in 1 Cor. i. "To be baptized and to VOL. III. No. 10.

46