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 7, 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 7, 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 be 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 the washing of the clothes for the immersion of the whole person; a palpable mistake, as may be seen by comparing the cases of ablution already cited above.-Again; "Whenever any Gentile wishes to be received into the covenant of Israel, and associated with them, ... circumcision, baptism, and voluntary offering, are required. If the person be a female, then only baptism and offering." Ibid. Danz, in two dissertations on this subject, printed in Meuschen's Nov. Test. ex Talmude illustratum, has cited examples in abundance, to shew that such is and has been the general opinion of the Jewish Rabbins. In fact it has become among them even a trite maxim, 78, there is no proselyte, until he is circumcised and baptized. Yet all this being conceded, as to the opinion of Rabbins earlier and later, it makes but little to our purpose. One has only to look into the Gospels, or into the Mishna, in order to find conclusive evidence that the Jews have added unnumbered ceremonies to their ancient law. Whether they hold these to be binding or otherwise, is a matter of no consequence to our present purpose. Our present inquiry respects only the antiquity of the usage in question; and on this point, all the overwhelming mass of quotations produced in the pedantic and tedious dissertations of Danz, give little or no satisfaction. 'The oldest source of Jewish Rabbinical traditions, next after the works of Josephus and Philo, the New Testament, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, is the Mishna, i. e. repetition or oral law, second law, collected by Rabbi Judah Haqqodesh, i. e. the Holy, about A. D. 220. From this work which contains such an almost infinite number of Jewish superstitions, usages, and rites, I have as yet seen but one passage produced, which seems to have any direct bearing upon our question. It runs thus: גר שנתגייר פסחי בית שמאי אומרים טובל ואוכל את פסחי לערב ובית הלל אומרים הפורש מן הערלה כפורש מן הקבר: i. e. as to a proselyte, who becomes a proselyte on the evening of the passover, the followers of Shammai say, Let him be baptized (7) and let him eat the passover in the evening; but the disciples of Hillel say, He who separates himself from the prepuce, separates himself from a sepulchre; Tract. Pesahhim, c. VIII. §8. is here De Wette, in commenting on this, says, that equivalent to lavatus, washed; Opusc. Theol. p. 62. It may be so; for the Heb. 3, like the Greek Báno and Banrico, might mean to wash, to bathe, etc. But inasmuch as this word is not employed in any part of the Mosaic institutes, in respect to the ablutions there specified; and as the compiler of the Mishna must have been intimately acquainted with the ritual part of these institutes; I can hardly believe, on the whole, that the word has such a meaning in this place. more probably means, baptized, immersed. It Accordingly, in the Jerusalem Talmud, Tract. Pesah. p. 36. c. 2, in the way of allusion to the passage of the Mishna just quoted, and in explanation of it, Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, is represented as saying, that some Roman soldiers, who kept guard at Jerusalem, ate of the passover, being baptized (77) on the evening of the passover. De Wette (Opusc. p. 63) construes this passage in the same way as he does that of the Mishna above recited. But Bauer allows it to be a case of proselyte-baptism; Gottensdienst. Verfassung, II. p. 389. The Jerusalem Talmud, it will be remembered, was composed during the latter part of the third century, some fifty or sixty years, (the time is not exactly known,) after the Mishna was reduced to writing. I cannot resist the impression, therefore, that the custom of baptizing proselytes before they were admitted to the passover, was at least distinctly known among the Jews of the third century. Indeed, it is difficult to see how we can avoid the conclusion, that such a custom was older than the third century. The Mishna, certainly for the most part, only reduces to writing what was before extant in traditions orally preserved. It is probable, then, that the custom in a greater or less extent of baptizing proselytes, must have existed in the second century, and possibly still earlier. Let it be noted, however, that the very passage in the Mishna, quoted above, shews that the ancient Jews were not agreed in relation to the effect produced by baptizing proselytes, before their admission to the passover; in other words, they were not agreed as to its being a sufficient initiatory rite even when circumcision accompanied it. The disciples of Shammai affirm, that when a circumcised proselyte is baptized he ought to be admitted to the passover; but those of Hillel maintain, that circumcision when recent is not a sufficient expurgation, not even when baptism follows it; for such seems plainly to be the meaning of the words, he who separates himself from the prepuce, separates himself from a sepulchre; i. e. he has need still of |