proselyte baptism, up to the time of John the Baptist, and during the ministry of our Lord, furnishes a key fitted to unlock the mystery of the subject of Infant Baptism better than any other with which we are acquainted" (p. 409). This is the brother who, speaking of the Baptists and proselyte baptism, says: "They will have it; we must go back to that institution for our guidance" (p. 529). How inconsistent with himself! What a libeller of his opponents! How much more nearly correct is the sentiment of Mr. I. T. Hinton: "I regard the baptism of John as Christian baptism in an incompletely-developed state, yet with all its elements of character strongly marked" (His. of Bap., p. 53). Another says that John's baptism "looked forwards in hopes that Christ was about to appear. This looks backwards and recognises Christ's death and resurrection." Olshausen speaks of a "prominent distinction in baptism, in which it differs from mere lustrations," namely, "that one party appears as the baptizer, the other as the baptized" (Com., Matt. iii. 13). Elsewhere he teaches that "the baptizing party performed the immersion on the baptized (which was the specific difference between baptism and all other lustrations)," and "that a formula was used at the immersion."-On Matt. iii. 1.

The remarks of our opponents are so frequent and so confident on the questions put to John the Baptist, and on the conversation of our Lord with Nicodemus, that further notice of them may by some be deemed appropriate. The rite of baptism "prescribed and submitted to, apparently without explanation on one side or surprise on the other," is deemed evidence that the Jews were familiar with it, and a powerful argument, or a "strong presumption," in favour of the pre-existence of proselyte baptism. If directions were now given by a parent to his child, or by a physician to his patient, to dip the hand or to immerse the body in water, who would think of the necessity of explaining a word in common use and of definite import? If the fact of having bathed a foot or the person in the sea or in a pool were related, where is the man that would feel astonished if the import of this action had no explanation? The lack of exclamation or of explanation proves nothing in regard to the newness or oldness of the action. It is, on the other hand, maintained by one of our Pædobaptist brethren, that the question of Nicodemus, which clearly indicates his ignorance and surprise, "at once suggests that Jesus was setting forth no new doctrine" (R. A. Lancaster, on Chris. Bap., p. 33). The designation of John as "The Baptist" implies, as we think, something peculiar to John, distinguishing him from his contemporaries and predecessors, and that this distinction had reference to his baptizing. This distinction, so far as we can judge from Scripture, is in his immersing those who confessed their sins, professing their repentance, and belief in the Saviour about to appear. Thus his baptism is designated "the baptism of repentance;" and he said, "I baptize you with water unto repentance;" and taught "that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." Previous bathings had usually before been performed by the individuals themselves. John is not by way of distinction called the preacher, or the publisher of a Divine message, but THE BAPTIST. And yet, as if there was nothing unique in connexion with this, Dr. Cumming says: "It was

the baptism by which and through which every priest entered on his priestly office" (Sab. Eve. Lec. on Luke, pp. 51, 52). That it bore the greatest resemblance to this, we admit; but how much better to have said that his designation in Holy Writ, like the question of our Saviour to the chief priests and elders respecting the authority of his baptism, proves his baptism to have been in some respects novel, and to have been from heaven!

Baptism," says Poole, on Matt. iii. 15, "is a new law of the gospel-church." Richd. Watson says: "We find no account of baptism as a distinct religious rite before the mission of John, the forerunner of Christ, who was called the Baptist' on account of his being commanded by God to baptize with water all who should hearken to his invitation to repent.' "Washing, however, accompanied many of the Jewish rites.' "Soon after the time of our Saviour, we find it to have been the custom of the Jews solemnly to baptize, as well as to circumcise, all their proselytes."-Bib. Dic. Art. Bap.

66

Sir Norton Knatchbull says: "If baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in ancient times, why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist, Why dost thou baptize, if thou art not Christ, nor Elias, nor that prophet? (John i. 25). Do they not plainly intimate that baptism was not in use before?"-In Du Veil, on Acts ii. 38.

"Tostatus," as quoted in The Messiah, "gives twelve reasons to show that baptism was not practised before the coming of John; some of which are, that he would not have been called The Baptist had there been others who baptized before him. Josephus speaks of him as The Baptist, and of none others who exercised such an office: none of the prophets baptized: it was not ordained by the Mosaic law: it is not mentioned in any of the ancient Scriptures: it was called the baptism of John by our Lord: if it had been commanded before John, all the land of Ĵudea and they of Jerusalem [many of the Pharisees and Sadducees] would not have gone out unto him, to be baptized in the river Jordan, as St. Mark relates: the disciples of John were jealous because John baptized, which they would not have been had the ceremony prevailed before: from the fact of John's baptizing, the Jews were led to think that he was some great prophet, and asked if he were the Christ, or Elias, which they could not have done had it been a well-known ordinance.Tostatus, in Matt., c. iii., quæs. 38."

Venema says: "Part of John's office consisted in baptizing: an external rite, then in a particular manner appointed of God, and not used before.”—His. Eccl., tom. iii., § 35.

Witsius says: "There can be found no Divine institution of it before John, the forerunner of Christ, was sent of God to baptize, for to him it was expressly commanded: The word of God came unto John' (Luke iii. 2; John i. 23)."-Econ. Foed., 1. iv., c. 16, 8.

J. R. Pitman says: "The use of water in baptism, as an emblem of purity, ought not to have been new to Nicodemus: it was a rite which the Baptist John had previously inculcated."-Prac. Lec., on John iii. 9, 10.

Dr. W. Smith's Biblical Dictionary: "It is an old controversy whether the baptism of John was a new institution, or an imitation of the baptism of proselytes as practised by the Jews. But at all events, there is no record of such a rite, conducted in the name of, and with reference to a particular person (Acts xix. 4), before the ministry of John."-Art. Jesus Christ. W. T. (i.e., Dr. Wm. Thomson.)

Dr. H. H. Milman: "The practice of the external washing of the body, as emble matic of the outward purification of the soul, is almost universal." "The perpetual similitude and connection between the uncleanness of the body and of the soul, which ran through the Mosaic law, and had become completely interwoven with the common language and sentiment, the formal enactment of ablutions in many cases, which either required the cleansing of some unhealthy taint, or more than usual purity, must have familiarized the mind with the mysterious effects attributed to such a rite [or represented by such a rite]: and of all the Jewish sects, that of the Essenes, to which no doubt popular opinion associated the Baptist, were most frequent and scrupulous in their ceremonial ablutions."-His. of Christia., vol. i., p. 142.

How accordant are most of these Pædobaptists with the language of a Baptist on John's baptism: "Christ's forerunner did not administer it of his own private will, or to comply with any previous custom; but 'the word of God came to John,' and he was 'sent to baptize with [in] water' (Luke iii. 2; John i. 33)." But whether John's baptism was new or old, it will be generally admitted that the word by which it is described has the same import as that by which the baptism enjoined by Christ, and subsequently practised by the apostles, is described.

Maimonides, who wrote in the twelfth century, thus testifies to the character of Jewish baptism: "There must be water sufficient for the dipping of the whole body of a man at once; and such the wise men reckon to be a cubit square, and three cubits in depth." Again: "Wherever washing of the flesh, and washing of clothes, are mentioned in the law, nothing else is meant but the dipping of the whole body in a confluence of water, and that if he dip his whole body except the tip of his little finger he is still in his uncleanness: and that all unclean persons who are dipped in their clothes, their dipping is right, because the waters penetrate to them, not being separated by their clothes.' In another place, when speaking of the manner in which a proselyte was baptized, he says: "As soon as he grows

whole of the wound of circumcision, they bring him to baptism, and being placed in the water, they again instruct him in some weightier and in some lighter commands of the law, which being heard, he plungeth himself, and comes up, and behold he is an Israelite in all things."

The very decided manner in which rabbinical writers have spoken of this Jewish and traditional rite have induced confessions even from Dr. Lightfoot, that stern opponent of the necessity of immersion. His words are: "That the baptism of John was by plunging the body, after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes was, seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, that he baptized in Jordan, that he baptized in Enon, because there was much water there; and that Christ being baptized, came up out of the water: to which that seems to be parallel (Acts viii. 38), Philip and the eunuch went down into the water," &c.

The following, on Jewish ablutions, is from E. De Lissau, a converted Jew:"Jewish ablutions are daily performed; first, when they rise in the morning, before prayers, or using the phylacteries. They rinse their face and hands three times with pure water, which is poured on the hands; they also wash their hands in the same manner before every meal, repeating softly whenever they perform the ablution, ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hath sanctified us with Thy commandment, and commanded us to cleanse our hands.' This ablution is also used on touching any unclean animal, &c. Their more elaborate ablutions are performed in baths, kept by certain Jews for that purpose. Complete immersion under water is the invariable mode of performing these religious rites; the time, after sunset. The baths for each sex are kept respectively by an aged man or woman, who conducts the persons under the water, according to the law; and a short ejaculatory prayer is said before they come up out of the water. No Christian can be present at these observances. Proselytes are also thus immersed on a confession of their faith. This method bears a peculiar and striking affinity to water-baptism as practised by the Christian Baptist churches" (p. 347).

Dr. H. H. Milman, in his History of Christianity, says: "It is strongly asserted on the one hand, and denied with equal confidence on the other, that baptism was in general use among the Jews as a distinct and formal rite" (vol. i., p. 142).

Dr. J. A. Alexander, on the eunuch's expression, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" says: "The readiness with which the Ethiopian made this proposition has been supposed by some to imply a previous familiarity with proselyte baptism as a Jewish practice. But besides the historical uncertainty which overhangs this custom, and the high authorities by which it is denied, it

seems scarcely natural that one who had already been baptized at his reception into Judaism, should expect, as a matter of course, to be baptized again, when convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus; unless, indeed, he knew that this rite was an essential one, prescribed by Christ himself; and if he did know this, there can be no need of resorting to the dubious assumption of a Jewish baptism to explain what is as well, or rather better, understood without it."-Com., on Acts viii. 36.

Dr. Benson thus proposes his difficulties: "I have not in the Old Testament found any instance of one person's washing another by way of consecration, purification, or sanctification, except that of Moses's washing Aaron and his sons when he set them apart unto the office of priests (Lev. viii. 6). 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. 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. 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 persons being washed by one another."

T. H. Horne observes: "Some learned men have supposed that our Lord alluded to this rabbinical tradition when He reproached Nicodemus with being master in Israel, 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 above noticed; because there are no traces of Jewish proselyte baptism earlier than the middle of the second century. Consequently, it is more likely that the Jews took the hint of proselyte baptism from the Christians after our Saviour's time, than that He borrowed His baptism from theirs."

Prof. Stuart, on the question, "Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" observes: "The manner of the question does obviously seem to imply that they expected 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."

We think that sufficient has been written to prove that Jewish proselyte baptism is, as to origin, of uncertain date, and, as to character, confirmatory of the sentiment that baptism is immersion, and that nothing less than immersion is baptism.

SECTION VII.

ON EVIDENCE FROM PÆDOBAPTIST CONCESSIONS.

Dr. J. P. SMITH." Though our interpretations of the Word of God must rest upon their own intrinsic evidence, in grammatical construction, suitableness to the connexion, and agreement with other parts of Scripeure, still it is a useful assistance, in cases of difficulty, to know what sentiments have been entertained, and expositions given, by persons whose opportunities of knowledge, and whose character for learning and judgment, constitute a reasonable presumption

that they have not taken up their opinions from supine ignorance, unexamined custom, or other prejudice. Upon this ground, therefore, and not because we attribute to the sentiments of uninspired men any commanding authority, I bring some instances to shew to our opponents that it is not a novelty in the church of Christ."-Cong. Lec., p. 16.

CHAMIER-What can be a more convincing proof than that which arises from the confession of an adversary ?"-In Tes. of Em. Pœ., p. 9.

J. STENNETT.-"Does Mr. R. think it impossible for authors to write inconsistently, that nothing may be inferred from what they grant to lessen the force of what they assert? and that it is impertinent to cite their testimony to a matter of fact, if this fact is not altogether agreeable to the principles and practices they embrace?"-Ans. to Russen, pp. 201, 202.

are

T. CLARKE.-"It is some relief to timidity that the opinions supported in these pages. countenanced also by many of the greatest men and first writers, both of our own and other countries; and (if I mistake not) the Divine oracles give them the weight of their high decisions." -His. of Intol., vol. i., pp. vii., vili.

Prof. J. H. GODWIN.-"Every author must be under great obligations to those who have preceded him,-not less, perhaps, to those who have maintained different views, than to those with whom in general he agrees."-Chr. Bap., p. vii.

Dr. J. CUMMING.-"Such extracts from able divines as are likely to throw light on the inspired word will be introduced."-Sab. Eve. Rea., on Cor., p. ii.

Dr. W. H. HETHERINGTON.-"I have preferred to quote the testimony of opponents rather than that of friends, in many instances, as less likely to be disputed."-His. of the Ch. of Scot., vol. i., p. vi.

Dr. WARDLAW.-"Let not the introduction of such quotations be interpreted by any of my hearers as implying my approbation of every incidental sentiment, or mode of expression, which they may contain."-Cong. Lec., p. 148.

MOST Protestant and Papal critics of eminence concede that immersion is the primary and proper meaning of baptism. It has not been maintained by the great majority of them that in every instance where the word occurs, the idea of pouring or sprinkling is excluded; although even this is admitted by some, who maintain that the church has power to decree rites, or who deplore that the church has departed from primitive practice, and that the inveterate custom it is now difficult to uproot. The concessions which we are about to adduce we conceive to have resulted from truth and candour. The practice of pouring or sprinkling by the authors of these acknowledgments, affords the highest reason to conclude that nothing but the force of evidence and a conscientious regard to truth could have induced them to use language which is so strongly in support of a contrary practice. After we have accepted their testimony relative to the primary (or only) meaning of the word, we may properly require proof from them that in any instance this primary meaning has been abandoned for an altogether different meaning, -a meaning to express which the Greek language is rich in other, and definite, and well-known words. That Pædobaptists intended to promote the cause of the Baptists by their concessions we do not insinuate; but we maintain that their concessions are inimical to sprinkling and pouring, and that if we can condemn their practice from their own lips, our conduct will be sanctioned by the highest authority. To argue from the admissions of opponents is undoubtedly legitimate, not simply because this has been extensively adopted by Christians arguing with the Jews, by Protestants arguing with the Papists, by Protestant Dissenters in their arguments with English Conformists, and by one denomination of Dissenters engaged in controversy with another, but because it has been adopted by the Spirit of infallibility. (See Acts xvii. 28; Titus i. 12.) "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" (Luke xix. 22). This method, called argumentum ad hominem, was adopted by Eliphaz and by David (Job xv. 5, 6; 2 Sam. i. 16). The prophet Nathan, under Divine guidance, pronounced condemnation on David from the confession of his own lips (2 Sam. xii. 1-9). Our Saviour reasoned with the Pharisees from the Old Testament, which they admitted as Divine, and