Israel, how the baptism that leads to the remission of sins, they would not; but appointed for themselves;" meaning their superstitious worship, our Lord inveighs against; but says not a word here, nor elsewhere, of the baptism of proselytes, for which he had a fair opportunity, had he known any thing of it. Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century, was a Samaritan, and had knowledge of Jewish affairs; and had a dispute with Trypho the Jew, the same with Tarphon, a Jewish doctor, frequently mentioned in the Misnah; yet neither he nor Trypho say any thing of this custom. In answer to a question put by Justin, what was necessary to be observed; Trypho replies, "To keep the Sabbath; to be circumcised; to observe the new moons; to be baptized, or dipped, whoever touches any of those things forbidden by Moses;" meaning that such should be baptized, or dipped, who touched a dead body, or bone, or grave, &c. but not a syllable is here of the baptism, or dipping of proselytes. And Justin himself makes mention of Jewish proselytes, and calls them circumcised proselytes", but not baptized; by which it seems he knew nothing of any such custom, as to baptize them; yea, he does, in effect, deny there was any such custom of baptizing any, that universally obtained among the Jews, since he speaks of a certain sect, whom he will not allow to be, truly Jews, called by him Baptists. Whereas, if it was the practice of the whole nation to receive proselytes by baptism, or dipping, a particular sect among them, would not be stigmatized with such a name, since they must be all Baptists, both original Jews and proselytes, if they were all admitted into the Jewish church by baptism, as is affirmed. Origen, who lived in the beginning of the third century, in the city of Alexandria, where were great numbers of Jews, with whom he was acquainted, and must know their customs, says of Heracleon, a heretic, he opposes, That he was not able to show that ever any prophet baptized;" meaning, a common and ordinary one; and if none of these ever baptized, what foundation could there be for the baptism of proselytes before the times of Christ? Epiphanius, in the fourth century, was born in Palestine, lived some time in Egypt, had great knowledge of the Jews, and of their affairs; but seems to know nothing of this custom, as used neither in former nor in latter times; he says, Neither had Abraham baptism, nor Isaac, nor Elias, nor Moses, nor any before Noah and Enoch, nor the prophet Isaiah nor those who were after him: and he speaks of the Samaritans, that when they came over to the Jews, they were circumcised again; and gives an instance in Symmachus, who when he became a proselyte, was circumcised again. So likewise he speaks of Theodotion being proselyted to Judaism and of his being circumcised; but not a word of the baptism, or dipping, of either of them. He also speaks of Antipater, the father of Herod the King, that when he became procurator of Judæa, he was made a y Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 264. 66 a Ibid. p. 307. b Comment. in Joannem, p. 117. d De Mensur, & Ponder. proselyte, and was circumcised, both he and Herod his son; but says nothing of their baptism or dipping; so Herod is called by the Jews a proselytes; and his reign and that of his posterity, an mbo the reign of the proselytes, who became so by circumcision, and that only for aught appears. And of him, as a proselyte, but not of his baptism, speaks Jerom"; he lived in the same century, and great part of his time in Judæa, was acquainted with several Jews he had for his teachers, and with their traditions, of many of which he makes mention, but never of this of admitting proselytes by baptism, or dipping. He speaks of proselytes, and of their circumcision; and says, that "if strangers received by the law of the Lord, and were circumcised, and were eunuchs, as was he of the queen of Candace, they are not foreign from the salvation of God;" but not a word of their baptism or dipping. The instances given by Dr. Wall, from Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory Nazienzen, and Basil, only respect either the figurative baptism of the Israelites at the Red Sea; or their baptisms and bathings by immersion, for their purification from ceremonial uncleanness, but not for proselytism. So when the same writer' quotes Arrianus, a heathen Stoic philosopher of the second century, as speaking of του βεβαμμένου, a baptized Jew or one that was dipped; by whom the doctor thinks is meant one made a proselyte by baptism; no other may be designed than either a Jew who bathed his whole body, to purify himself from legal pollutions; or an Hemerobaptist, a sect of the Jews, who bathed themselves every day; or rather a Christian, as many learned men are of opinion"; since it was not unusual with heathen writers to call Christians, who were baptized, Jews; because the first Christians were Jews, and came from Judæa, into other parts of the world, and were reckoned by the heathens a sect of the Jews°, and were often confounded with them. Now since it appears there is no mention made of any such rite or custom of admitting Jewish proselytes by baptism, or dipping, to the Jewish religion, in any writings or records before the times of John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles; nor in any age after them, for the first three or four hundred years; or, however, before the writing of the Talmuds; it may be safely concluded there was no such custom, which had obtained in that interval of time. It remains therefore to be considered, what is the true ground and foundation of such a notion, and from whence it sprung, which will be done in the following chapter. f Juchasin, fol. 18, 1. & Seder Olam Zuta, p. 111, ed. Meyer. m h Comment. in Matt. xxii. fol. 30, k History, ut supra, p. 47. "Quem locum frustra quidam adducunt, ut probent Judæos ritu baptismi uti solitos fuisse, cum apertissime de christianis loquatur philosophus Oweni.-Theologoumen. 1. 1, c. 9, P. 109. And with Dr. Owen agrees Dr. Jennings; It is most likely, says he, that Arrian meant Christians in the place alleged; because in his time many persons became proselytes to Christianity, but few or none to Judaism.-Besides, if he had spoke of proselytes to Judaism, it is highly probable he would have mentioned their circumcision, for which the heathens derided them, rather than their baptism, which was not so very foreign to some of the heathen rites of purification. Jewish Antiquities, vol. i. c. p. 138. See Gale's Reflections on Wall's History, Letter 10, p. 355-362. 780 THE PROOF OF THIS CUSTOM IS ONLY FROM THE TALMUDS SEEING the rite of receiving proselytes by baptism, or dipping, among the Jews, is nowhere mentioned in any writing before the times of John and Christ, nor in any after, nearer than the third and fourth centuries; it is next to be inquired, when and where we first hear of it; and upon inquiry it will be found, that the first mention of it, for aught as yet appears, is in the Jewish Talmuds. The testimonies from thence concerning it, and the whole evidence, as there given of it, will now be laid before the reader. There are two Talmuds, the one called Jerusalem, the other Babylonian; the one written for the Jews at Jerusalem, and in Judæa, after the destruction of the city and temple, and in the Jerusalem dialect. The other for the use of the Jews in Babylon, and in those parts, and in their style. The former is the most ancient, and therefore I shall begin with it, being finished, as generally supposed, in the year 230; but if the Misnah was not compiled till the year 220, being one hundred and fifty from the destruction of Jerusalem, there must be a longer space of time than that of ten years between the one and the other. David Nieto, lately belonging to a Jewish synagogue here in London, says, the Jerusalem Talmud was written near a hundred years after the Misnah; but other Jews make it later still, and make a difference of two hundred and thirty-three years between the finishing of the one and the other; the one being finished in 189, and the other in 422, which is much more probable; and so this Talmud was not earlier than the beginning of the fifth century; nay sometimes they place it in the year 469, in the latter end of that century'. Scaliger places it in the year 370, Mr. Whiston in 369. And so Elias Levita" writes, that R. Jochanan compiled 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem; but Morinus" will have it to be after the year 600, which is carrying it down too low. The passages I have met with in it any way relating to the case under consideration, for it will be allowed there are some; and therefore it will be owned, that Mr. Rees was mistaken in saying it was not pretended to be found in it;-the passages are as follow: In one place, a certain Rabbi is represented as saying to another," Wait, and we will dip this proselytess to-morrow. R. Zera asked R. Isaac Bar Nachman, Wherefore? because of the glory of that old man, or because they do not dip a proselyte in the night. He replied to him, Why don't they dip a proselyte in the night? Ubda came before R. Jose (and said) What is the meaning then of not dipping a proselyte in the night?" And a little after, in the same column, a saying of R. P Metteh Dan, sive Cosri, par. 2, fol. 18, 1. 9 Vide Wolfii Præfat. ad Bibliothec. Heb. p. 28. Fabricii Bibliograph. Antiquar. c. 1. s. 2, p. 3. De Emend. Temp. 1. 7, p. 323. Chronolog. Tables, Cent. 19. u Præfat. ad Methurgeman. fol. 2. w De Sinceritate Heb. Text. 1. 2; Exer. 2, c. 2. * Infant Baptism no Institution of Christ, p. 23. T. Hieros. Yebamot, fol. 8. 4. Hezekiah is reported; "A man finds an infant cast out (an exposed infant) and he dips it in the name of a servant; or for a servant, on account of servitude; but then dipping for servitude, and dipping for proselytism, were two different things with the Jews, as before observed, and yet this is the only clause produced by Dr. Lightfoot out of this Talmud for the above purpose; or by any other that I have seen. However, there are others which speak of the dipping of adult proselytes; which became a matter of controversy. In-another treatise, in the same Talmud, mention is made of a proselyte circumcised, but not dipped; and it is (added) all goes after circumcision; that is, that denominates a proselyte. "R. Joshua says, yea, dipping stays (or retards) it; and Bar Kaphra teaches, that he who is not dipped, this is right (a true proselyte); for there is no proselyte but dips for accidents;" that is, for accidental and nocturnal pollutions; and it seems such a dipping sufficed for proselytism. Of so little account did these Rabbins make of dipping for proselytism, who first mention it, not only make it insignificant, but as a delay of it, and what was an obstruction and hinderance of it: and farther on it is said, "A proselytess less than three years of age and one day, she has no knowledge for dipping (or when she is dipped); and afterwards returns and is dipped for the name of the holy One of Israel; every one is a proselytess, and she is a proselytess." This looks like Anabaptism, or rebaptization for want of knowledge when first dipped. And a little further still", "A stranger or a proselyte who has children, and says, I am circumcised, but I am not dipped; he is to be believed, and they dip him on the Sabbath." In another treatise, mention is made of a proselyte who dipped after the illumination of the East, that is, after sun-rising. These are all the places I have met with in the Jerusalem Talmud any way relating to this custom. Dr. Walld refers to two or three other passages in this Talmud, through mistake for the Babylonian Talmud; in which he may be excused, because, as he himself says, he was not well acquainted with these books; but he cannot be excused of inadvertency in transcribing from his authors, unless they have led him wrong. The Babylonian Talmud is next to be considered; from whence testimonies may be brought relating to the custom under consideration. This Talmud was finished, as is usually said, about A.D. 500; according to the account of the Jews, it was finished three hundred and sixteen years after the Misnah, and eighty-three after the Jerusalem Talmud. Though Morinus thinks it did not appear until the seventh or eighth century. According to the Jewish doctors, as related in this Talmud, the Israelites, and the proselytes, were admitted into covenant in the same way and manner; and which they conclude from Numb. xv. 15. As ye are, so shall the stranger be, before the Lord: on which they thus descant, "As your fathers entered not into covenant but by circumcision ana dipping, and acceptance of blood or sacrifice; a Ibid. fol. 65. 2. b Kiddushin, fol. 66. 1. d History of Infant Baptism, Introduct. P. 44. f T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 9, 1. Kiddushin, fol. 64, 4. so they (the proselytes) enter not into covenant, but by circumcision, and dipping, and through acceptance of blood," or sprinkling of blood, as the Gloss is; or by sacrifice, as it is sometimes expressed, which is favourably accepted of God; and without both circumcision and dipping, none were reckoned proper proselytes; this is said two or three times in one leaf; "A man is not a proselyte unless both circumcised and dipped." R. Chiyah Bar Abba went to Gabla, it is said, and he saw the daughters of Israel pregnant by proselytes, who were circumcised but not dipped; he went and told R. Jochanan, who declared their issue bastards, and not children of the law, or legitimate: about this a controversy was raised, related in the same place: "A stranger that is circumcised and not dipped, R. Eliezer says, lo, this is a proselyte; for so we find by our fathers, that they were circumcised, but not dipped; one that is dipped, and not circumcised, R. Joshua says, lo, this is a proselyte; for so we find by our mothers (not maids, or maid-servants, as Dr. Lightfoot translates it), that they were dipped and not circumcised." Had the account stopped here, the decision must have been against dipping; for it is a rule with the Jews, that when R. Eliezer and R. Joshua dissent, the decision is according to R. Eliezer, whom they often call Eliezer the Great, and say many extravagant things of him; particularly, that if all the wise of Israel were put into one scale, and Eliezer, the son of Hyrcanus, into the other, he would weigh them all down'; yet here the wise men interpose, and say, "He that is dipped and not circumcised, circumcised and not dipped, is no proselyte, until he is both circumcised and dipped; for R. Joshua may learn from the fathers, and R. Eliezer from the mothers." And so in this way they reconciled both; but R. Eliezer continued in the same sentiments, which he afterwards declared for, and affirms, that a proselyte that is circumcised, and not dipped he is an honourable proselyte; so that, according to him, dipping was not necessary to one's being a proselyte; and R. Barzelonita says, of a sort of proselytes which have been taken notice of, he is a proselyte who is circumcised and not dipped; so that the Jews are not agreed among themselves about this point. The manner of receiving a proselyte, and dipping him, when circumcised and healed of his wound, and of the dipping of women also, is related in the same treatise of the Babylonian Talmud°; "A stranger, when he comes to be made a proselyte, at this time, they say unto him, What dost thou see, to become a proselyte? dost thou not know that the Israelites at this time are in distress, and in sorrowful circumstances, driven about and scattered, and are reproached, and chastisements come upon them? If he says, I know this, and I am not worthy (to be joined with them), they receive him immediately, and make known unto him some of the light, and some of the heavy commands (the particulars of which follow); if he receives them, they n Yebamot, fol 46. 1, 2; vide Beracot, fol. 47, 2; Avodah Zarah, fol. 57, 2, & 59, 1. * T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 54, 1; Megillah, fol. 16, 2; Kiddushin, fol. 39, 1. |