baptizing to Moses but this; else why should he call this, the baptizing to Moses? "It would have been much more natural to refer to that more familiar initiatory baptism which our adversaries plead for, if the apostles had known of it, than to this figurative one. And then to make this parallel to our baptism is very improper, if they had used another which resembled ours....The apostle Peter makes our baptism to be the antitype of the ark, 'in which few were saved by water'.... But is it not strange the sacred writers should point out these allusions, and yet never in the least hint at the ancient ceremony from whence our baptism, it is pretended, was immediately borrowed? Nothing, surely, can look more improbable."*

As there is no appearance in the New Testament of this proselyte baptism, but strong presumptive proof to the contrary; so Dr. Gill, who was well versed in both Jewish and Christian antiquity, unites with Sir Norton Knatchbull, (No. 8,) in assuring us, That there is no mention of it in any of the fathers, for the first three or four hundred years; nor in the writings of those who flourished before the Talmuds were compiled.† The same learned author farther informs us, that the Christians of our Lord's time, "are called by the Jews, in a way of contempt, apostates, that received the doctrine of baptism, and were dipped in Jordan."-The following quotations from Tertullian by Mr. Barker, and his remark upon them, deserve regard. "Before the Lord's suffering, [says the African father,] forgiveness was by faith alone; but when faith was increased-baptism was added....The pool of Bethesda,-the figure of the bodily remedy represented the spiritual one:-the waters of the flood, by which the old wickedness was washed away;the people going out of Egypt passed through the water, -a figure of baptism:-the water was healed of its

* Reflections, p. 371.372. selyte Bap. p. 47.

† Dr. Gill's Dissert. on Pro

+ Dr. Gill on Matt. iii. 6.

bitterness by wood:-the water which flowed out of the rock :-Christ himself was baptized....The Gentilesare initiated to some sacred rites by washing;-purify houses, temples, and whole cities by sprinkling;-and among the ancients he who was accused of murder, purged himself by water.... We see the aim of the devil imitating the things of God, when he uses a baptism on his worshippers." Thus Tertullian. On which Mr. Barker observes as follows. "The fathers are fond of finding any thing like baptism among the Jews; and imagine imitations of it among the Heathens, often when the likeness was without design, as in Justin Martyr, as well as here. But though they have brought in all they can find, right or wrong, there is not a word of any supposed Jewish proselyte baptism, which would have been more similar than any of them; whence it is plain to me, they knew of no such thing; on the contrary, he [Tertullian] here speaks of baptism, as a thing which began with, and was peculiar to Christianity. The Gentile rites, in my mind, are not imitations of baptism, but of the Jewish purifications."*

notice.

The following extracts from Dr. Gale, are worthy of "Barnabas, in that Catholic epistle, (if indeed it be his,) whereof we have the greatest part still remaining in the original, though he is wholly employed about Jewish rites, &c. has not one word concerning the baptism our Pædobaptists contend for; which being the same as to externals with one of our holy sacraments, could not, had this holy man known it, have been passed by at such a time. Nay, more, in one place he applies himself to find out some preludes of our Christian baptism; and yet even there, where it would have been so natural and necessary, we meet with no footsteps of it. 'Let us see,' says he, whether God took care to manifest any thing beforehand concerning water and the Who would not expect here to have that bap

cross.'

* Duty and Benefits of Bap. p. 89, 90.

tism itself mentioned which was the fore-runner and type of ours, and from whence it was immediately taken, if there had been any such?....Justin Martyr, in his long dispute with Trypho the Jew, mentions perhaps all their other rites and their legal washings, but is utterly silent as to this initiatory baptism; and there are some passages which seem to argue he was ignorant of it. On a deliberate and impartial survey of the case, we may therefore safely conclude; That the Papists and Lutherans have much better evidence, with regard to antiquity, in favour of exorcism, than which can be produced for the Jewish proselyte baptism, learned Lutheran, when speaking of the former, says; "It is a very ancient rite, and was practised among the Jews in the time of Christ; who are said to have used it in expelling demons, (Luke xi. 19; Acts xix. 3.).... Exorcism also, in a very early age, began to be connected with the sacrament of baptism, as is testified by Cyprian."†

any

For as a

Reflect. IV. But supposing it were incontestably proved, that the Jews had such a custom before the ministry of John commenced; it would by no means follow, that our Lord paid it any regard in the appointment of Christian baptism, and that for several reasons. For if he made that initiatory rite the model of his own appointment; and if a knowledge of the former be of great use to understand who are interested in the latter, as many Pædobaptists pretend; that information must be obtained either from what our divine Teacher says in the New Testament, or from the traditions and records of the Jews. But our Lord says not a word about any such thing, in all the apostolic writings. We find baptism repeatedly mentioned, solemnly appointed, frequently practised, and the design of it explained; but nothing at all relating to this proselyte baptism. If, therefore, we * Reflections, p. 373, 374.

† Deylingii de Prudentiâ Pastoral. pars iii. c. iii. § 27.

obtain the useful intelligence about it, so as to help us in settling who are the subjects of our Sovereign's appointment, it must be by having recourse to the Jewish synagogue. Now is it not-let common sense determine--is it not far more probable, that Christ intended his own commission for the observance of baptism, as the only law of administration, and the practice of his apostles as the only example for his people to follow; than that he should leave either its mode or subjects, to be learned from the traditions of an apostate people, or the records of their admired but impious Talmuds?* Can it be imagined, that our Lord should appoint baptism for all his disciples; that he should give them a body of doctrine and a code of law in his New Testament; and after all, tacitly refer them to the writings of his enemies -those writings which are the registers of their own pride, and madness, and shame-writings too, of which perhaps a great majority of Christians never heard, nor had it in their power to read-in order to learn, whom he intended to be baptized? See Part II. Chap. I. Reflect. III.

Again: It is generally agreed by theological writers, if I mistake not, that Sir John Marsham and Dr. Spencer have not only erred from the truth, but greatly dis honoured the Jewish economy, by maintaining that circumcision, and various other positive rites, were adopted by Jehovah from the Egyptian sacra; because that hypothesis naturally tends to ennoble the Pagan superstition, and to depreciate the Mosaic system of worship, with which those borrowed rites are supposed to have been incorporated. "But who," as Deylingius observes, "who can believe that the most holy God appointed to Abraham, for a sign of the covenant, an Egyptian rite, devised by the accursed posterity of Ham; and that he so severely enjoined it, under a capital punishment, on his own people, who were chosen for his peculium, and for the pursuit of holiness above all the nations of the * Vide Witsii Judæus Christianizans, cap. iv.

earth?"-Thus the learned Vander Waeyen: "Did it become God to borrow the greatest part of his laws from Satan?"-Thus also the ingenious and eloquent Saurin: "It was in order to lessen the majesty of the Jewish religion, that its enemies have often asserted, that the Jews received the rites of circumcision from the Heathens. We may see several examples thereof in the philosopher Celsus, and in Julian the Apostate. The strongest demonstrations will be necessary to invalidate the notion, which the text of Moses does at first offer to our mind, and to engage a reasonable man to adopt a sentiment so disadvantageous in appearance to the Jewish religion."-Now if the opinion that circumcision was originally taken from an ancient heathen practice, and appointed by Jehovah for the use of his own people, be degrading to the Hebrew ritual, it cannot be for the honour of Christianity, to imagine that the first of its positive ordinances was originally a human invention, and borrowed of the superstitious Jews; the generality of whom were as hardened opposers of Jesus Christ, and as inimical to the interests of his kingdom, as any of the heathens were to the glory of Jehovah, or to the welfare of his chosen people. From various particulars recorded in the evangelical history, there is reason to think that the scribes and pharisees, and priests and elders of those times, were not much superior to the rabbies of Tiberias in a following age, of whom Dr. Lightfoot says: "Recollect, I beseech you, the names

of the rabbins of Tiberias, from the first situation of the university there, to the time that it expired; and what at length do you find, but a kind of men mad with Pharisa

* Observat. Sac. pars ii; observ. vi. § 2.

+ Varia Sacra, p. 278. Vid. p. 265–622.

Dissertat. upon the Old Test. p. 136, 137, 394, 395. Vid. Witsii Ægyptiac. 1. iii. c. vi. Heidegg. Corp. Theol. loc. xv. § 8, 9, 10, Basnagii Exercitat. Hist. Crit. p. 118, 119. Lib. Bib. pars i. p. 104-113. Lips. 1731. Lustrat. cap. 2.

Carpzovii Introduct. ad Lomeieri De Vet. Gent.