Chapter 5

Chapter 5

Chapter 5

The Reasons Why Christian Baptism Is Not Founded On, And Taken From, The Pretended Jewish Baptism Of Israelites And Proselytes

Having traced the admission of the Jewish proselytes by baptism, or dipping, to the spring head of it, the Jewish Talmuds; I shall now proceed to give reasons, why Christian baptism cannot be thought to be taken from such a custom; nor that to be a rule according to which it is to be practised.

I. First, the Talmuds are of too late a date to prove that such a custom obtained before the times of John and Christ, since they were written some centuries after those times, as has been shown; and besides, there is in them a plain chronological mark, or character, which shows that this custom took place among the Jews since they were driven out of their own land, and scattered among the nations, and suffered reproach and persecution; for among the interrogatories put to persons who came to them to be made proselytes, this question was asked,^[5085] "What dost thou see to become a proselyte? dost thou not know, or consider, that the Israelites are 'now' הזה בזמן 'at this time', in sorrowful circumstances, driven about and scattered, and loaded with reproaches and afflictions? If he says, I know this; and I am not worthy (that is, to be joined to them) they receive him immediately." Many are the surmises and conjectures of learned men concerning the original and rise of this custom. It is scarce worth while, to take notice of the notion of Grotius,^[5086] that this custom was taken up on account of the flood, and in commemoration of the world's being purified by it: nor of Sir John Marsham's,^[5087] that it was taken up by the Israelites, in imitation of the Egyptian's manner of initiating persons into the mysteries of their goddess Isis, by washing them; for which he cites Apuleius. A goodly pattern of Christian baptism this! it is much it never entered into the thoughts of these learned men, or others, that the Jews took up this rite of dipping their proselytes, as they found it among the Medes and Persians, when they lived in their countries, and so brought it into Judaea, some hundreds of years before the coming of Christ, and his forerunner John the Baptist; since of the eighty rites the Persians used in the initiation of men into the mysteries of Mithras, their chief deity, the first and principal was baptism. They "dipped" them in a "bath", and "signed" them in their "foreheads", and had a sort of an "Eucharist", an oblation of bread, as Tertullian has it, and an image of the resurrection (that is, in their baptism); promising the expiation of sins by the laver; and also had an imitation of martyrdom.^[5088] Some say,^[5089] this custom of the Jews was taken up by them out of hatred to the Samaritans, and was added to circumcision, to distinguish them from them: but if so, it is very much that Symmachus the Samaritan, when he came over to the Jews, was not only circumcised again, as he was, but also baptized, or dipped; of which Epiphanius, who gives an account of his becoming a proselyte to them, and of his being circumcised, but not of his being baptized, as before observed. Dr. Owen thinks^[5090] this custom was taken up by some Antemishnical Rabbins, in imitation of John the Baptist; which is not very probable, though more so than anything before advanced. To me it seems a clear case, that this custom was framed upon a general notion of the uncleanness of heathens, in their state of heathenism, before their embracing the Jewish religion; and therefore devised this baptism, or dipping, as a symbol of that purity, which was, or ought to be, in them, when they became Jews, of whom they might hope to gain some, they being now dispersed among the nations; and of some they boast, even of some of note: and this was first introduced when they digested the traditions of the elders into a body, or pandect of laws; and were finishing their decisions and determinations upon them, to be observed by their people in future time. Since I wrote the preceding chapters, I have met with a quotation; for I will not conceal anything that has occurred to me in reading, relative to this custom of dipping Jewish proselytes; I say, I have met with a quotation by Maimonides,^[5091] out of a book called Siphri, an ancient commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy, which has these words: "As the Israelites did not enter into covenant but by three things, by circumcision, dipping, and acceptation of sacrifice; so neither proselytes likewise." Now if this is the ancient book of Siphri, from whence this passage is taken, as may seem, which is a book of an uncertain author and age; and is allowed to be written after the Misnah;^[5092] yet if it is the same that is referred to in the Babylonian Talmud,^[5093] it must be written before that was published, though it might be while it was compiling, and it may be, by some concerned in it; since the rite referred to is expressed in the same words in the one as in the other;^[5094] and is founded upon and argued from the same passage of scripture (Numbers 15:15), and seems to be the language and reasoning of the same persons. However, "if" the passage quoted by Maimonides stands in that book, which is a book I never saw, though printed; "if", I say, these several things can be made plain; it is indeed the earliest testimony we have of this custom; especially if the book was written before the Jerusalem Talmud, which yet is not certain: but be it as it may, it is a testimony of the same sort of persons, and of no better authority than what has been before produced, and serves to confirm, that this custom is a pure device of the Jewish doctors, and is merely "Rabbinical"; and besides, at most, it can only carry up this custom into the "fifth" century, which is too late for John Baptist and Christ to take up the ordinance from it; and on account of these testimonies not being early enough for such a purpose, the late Dr. Jennings^[5095] has given up the argument from them, in favour of infant baptism, as insufficient. His words are, "After all, it remains to be proved, not only that Christian baptism was instituted in the room of proselyte baptism; but that the Jews had any such baptism in our Saviour's time: the earliest accounts we have of it, are in the Mishna (but in that we have none at all) and Gemara." And again he says, "here wants more evidence of its being as ancient as our Saviour's time, than I apprehend can be produced to ground an argument upon it, in relation to Christian baptism."

II. Secondly, this custom, though observed as a religious action, yet has scarce any appearance of religion and devotion in it; but looks rather like a civil affair, it being in some cases under the cognizance and by the direction of the Sanhedrim, or court of judicature. There was no divine solemnity in the performance of it. It was not administered in the name of the God of Israel, whom the Jews professed; nor in the name of the Messiah to come, expected by them, as was the baptism of John; nor in the name of the Three divine Persons in the Trinity, which yet the ancient Jews believed. They dipped their proselytes indeed, according to their account, בשם "in the name" of a proselyte, or as one; and a servant, "in the name" of a servant, or on account of servitude; and a free man, "in the name" of a free man; but neither of them in the name of any divine Person, or with the invocation of the name of God; so that it had no appearance of a religious solemnity in it. To which may be added, that this custom gave a licence to things the most impure and abominable, things contrary to the light of nature, and not to be named among the Gentiles, and which must make it detestable to all serious persons. According to the Jews, it dissolved all the ties of natural relations, which before subsisted among men; for according to them, "As soon as a man is made a proselyte, a soul flies out of a (celestial) palace, and gets under the wings of the Shechinah, (or divine Majesty) which kisses it, because it is the fruit of the righteous, and sends it into the body of a proselyte, where it abides; and from that time he is called a proselyte of righteousness;^[5096] so that now he has a new soul, and is a new man, another man than he was before;" not a better man, but, to use our Lord's words, he is made "twofold more the child of hell". For, according to them, all his former connections with men are broken, and all obligations to natural relations are dissolved; and he may, without any imputation of crime, be guilty of the most shocking incest, as to marry his own mother or his own sister. But hear their own words, "When a Gentile is made a proselyte, and a servant made free, they are both as 'a newborn babe'; and all the relations which they had when a Gentile or a servant, are no more relations to them;" or their kindred and relation by blood is no more; as brother, sister, father, mother, and children, these are no more to be so accounted; insomuch, that, "when one becomes a proselyte, he and they (his quondam kindred) are not guilty, by reason thereof, on account of incest, at all; so that it is according to law (the civil law of the Jews) that a Gentile may marry his own mother, or his sister, by his mother's side (his own sister), when they become proselytes." But though they allow it to be lawful, they have so much modesty and regard to decency, or rather to their own character, that it is added; "But the wise men forbid this, that they (the proselytes) may not say, we are come from a greater degree of holiness to a lesser one; and what is forbidden today is free tomorrow; and so a proselyte who lies with his mother or his sister, and they are in Gentilism, it is no other than if he lay with a stranger.^[5097] " Now can any man, soberly thinking, judge that the New Testament ordinance of baptism was taken up by John and Christ from such a wretched custom, which gave licence to such shocking immorality and uncleanness; or that Christian baptism is built on such a basis as this?

III. Thirdly, to suppose that John took up the practice of baptizing as he found it among the Jews, and from a tradition and custom of theirs, greatly detracts from the character of John, his divine mission, and the credit of baptism, as administered by him; and is contrary to what the scriptures say concerning him. They represent him as the first administrator of baptism, and, for a while, the sole administrator of it; for, for what other reason do they call him the Baptist, and distinguish him by this title, if it was then a common thing, and had been usual in time past, to baptize persons? The scriptures say he was a man sent of God, and sent by him "to baptize with water" (John 1:6, 33). But what need was there of a mission and commission to what was in common use, and had been so time out of mind? The Jews hearing of John's baptizing persons, sent messengers to him, to know who he was that took upon him to baptize; who asked, "Why baptizest thou, if thou art not that Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet?" As if it was a new thing; and that it was expected he should be some extraordinary person who baptized. But why should such questions be put to him, if this was in common use, and if any ordinary person, however any common doctor or Rabbi, had then, and in former times, been used to baptize persons^[5098] ? The scriptures speak of John's baptism as the "counsel of God": but according to this notion, it was a device and tradition of men; and had this been the case, the Jews would not have been at a loss, nor under any difficulty, to answer the question Christ put to them, nor indeed, would he ever have put such an one; "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men?" for his putting the question thus, supposes the contrary, that it was not from men, but from God: and if it was not of God, but a tradition of men, they could have readily said, "Of men"; without being confuted by him, or exposed to the people; but being thrown into a dilemma, they took the wisest way for themselves, and answered, "We cannot tell". Dr. Wall^[5099] says, If John had been baptizing proselytes, and not natural Jews, the Pharisees would not have wondered at it, it being so well known to them; and he suggests, that the wonder was, that natural Jews should be baptized: but why so! for according to this notion, the original natural Jews were received into covenant by baptism; they as the proselytes, and the proselytes as they; the case, according to them: was similar. But let us examine this affair, and see how the fact stands. When John first appeared baptizing, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were natural Jews, came to his baptism, and were not admitted to it, but rejected from it, as unfit and improper persons; and others of the same nation and profession, in their turn, "rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized by John" (Matthew 3:7; Luke 7:30). On the other hand, publicans, the Roman tax gatherers, of whom some indeed were Jews, others heathens, both equally odious, and therefore joined together, these "justified God", being baptized with the baptism of John; and these "went into the kingdom of God", into the gospel state, before the Pharisees, and embraced its doctrines, and submitted to its ordinances (Luke 7:29, 3:12; Matthew 21:31), and even soldiers, Roman soldiers, for no other soldiers were then in Judea, were among the multitude who came to be baptized by him, to whom he gave good instructions, but did not refuse to baptize them (Luke 3:7, 14), and our Lord Jesus Christ, whose forerunner John was in his ministry and baptism, gave orders to his disciples to baptize indiscriminately persons of all nations, Jews and Gentiles, who believed in him; and who accordingly did baptize them: so that baptism, in those early times of John, Christ, and his apostles, was not confined to natural Jews; the wonder and the question upon it, as above, were not about the persons baptized, whether Jews or Gentiles, but about baptism itself, and the administrator of it, as being altogether new. The account which Josephus,^[5100] the Jewish historian, who lived soon after the times of John, gives of him, and his baptism, agrees with the sacred scriptures; and which testimony stands not only in the common editions of that historian, but is preserved by Eusebius,^[5101] as a choice piece of history; in which, he not only says John was a religious and good man, but, with the scriptures, that he was surnamed the Baptist, to distinguish him from others; and that he ordered the Jews who lived righteous and godly lives to come to baptism, and such only did John admit of; and that baptizing was acceptable to God, when used not for removing some sins (by which his baptism is distinguished from Jewish baptisms, which were used to purge from sin in a ceremonial sense) but for the purity of the body, the soul being before purified by righteousness. Also he observes, with the scriptures, that multitudes flocked to him; and that Herod, fearing that by his means his subjects would be drawn into a revolt, put him to death. But why such flockings to him, if baptism had been a common thing? And what had Herod to fear from that? He might reasonably conclude, that if this was no other than what had been usually practised, the people would soon cease from following him. Nay, Josippon Ben Gorion;^[5102] the Jew's Josephus, the historian whom they value and prefer to the true Josephus, says of that חבילה עשה "he made", instituted, and performed baptism, as if it was a new thing, founded by him; and for which later Jews express their resentment at him. One of their virulent writers says,^[5103] "Who commanded John to institute this baptism? in what law did he find it? neither in the old nor in the new." Now this would not be said by the Jews, if John had taken up his baptism from a custom of theirs; nor would they speak of the ordinance of baptism in such a scandalous and blasphemous manner as they do, and in language too shocking to transcribe.^[5104]

IV. Fourthly, the Jews will not allow that any proof of baptism can be produced out of the writings of the Old Testament, nor out of their Talmuds. Such passages in the Old Testament which speak of washing, and in which men are exhorted to "wash" and be "clean", as Isaiah 1:16 it is said, are to be understood of men cleansing themselves from their sins, and not of plunging in water; "To plunge a man in water, is no where written; why therefore did Jesus command such baptism," or dipping^[5105] ? and whereas the passage in Ezekiel 16:9 "Then washed I thee with water", is by some interpreted of baptism; the Jew observes^[5106] the words are not in the future tense; "I will wash thee": but in the past tense; "I have washed thee"; and so cannot refer to baptism. And whereas the promise in Ezekiel 36:25 "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness", etc. is brought by some, I suppose he means some popish writers, as another proof of baptism the Jews replies,^[5107] "What sin and uncleanness does baptism take away? and what sin and uncleanness are there in newborn babes? Besides, says he, you do not do so; you do not sprinkle, but you are plunged into water:" which, by the way, shows that sprinkling was not used in baptism when this Jew wrote, which was in the twelfth century, as Wagenseil, the editor of his work, supposes. The same Jewish writer^[5108] asks, "If the law of Jesus, and his coming, were known to the prophets, why did not they observe his law? and why did not they 'baptize themselves', according to the law of Jesus?" And he represents^[5109] David as praying (it must be supposed, under a prophetic spirit) for those who should, in this captivity of the Jews, be forced, against their wills, to baptism, and that they might be delivered from it, Psalm 69:1, 15 144:7. Nor does this writer take any notice of receiving proselytes by baptism; though he makes mention of receiving men proselytes,^[5110] yet by circumcision only; and also of women proselytes, but not a word of baptism of either; and had he thought the baptism their Talmud speaks of, had any affinity with our baptism, and was the ground of it, he would not have been so gravelled with an objection of the Christians, as he was; which is put thus,^[5111] "We baptize male and female, and hereby receive them into our religion; but you circumcise men only, and not women:" to which he appears to be at an entire loss to answer; whereas he might have readily answered, had the case been as suggested, that we baptize women as well as men, when they are received proselytes among us. But that the Jews had no notion that Christian baptism was founded upon any prior baptism of proselytes, or others, among them, as related in their Talmud, is manifest from a disputation had between Nachmanides, a famous Jew, and one brother Paul, a Christian, in the year 1263.^[5112] Brother Paul affirmed, that the Talmudists believed in Jesus, that he was the Messiah, and was both God and man: the Jew replied, after observing some other things, "How can brother Paul say so, that they believed in him; for they, and their disciples, died in our religion? and 'why were they not baptized', according to the command of Jesus, as brother Paul was? And I would be glad to hear," says he, "'how' he learned baptism from them (the Talmudists) and 'in what place' (of the Talmud)? did not they teach us all our laws which we now observe? and the rites and customs they gathered together for us, as they were used when the temple was standing, from the mouths of the prophets, and from the mouth of Moses, our master, on whom be peace? And if they believed in Jesus, and in his law, they would have done as brother Paul has; does he understand their words better than they themselves?"

V. Fifthly, to say, as Dr. Lightfoot does, that Christ took baptism into his hands as he found it, that is, as practised by the Jews, is greatly to derogate from the character and authority of Christ; it makes him, who came a Teacher from God, to teach for doctrines the commandments of men, which he himself condemns. It makes that "all power in heaven and in earth", said to be given him, in consequence of which he gave his apostles a commission to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; I say, it makes it to dwindle into this only, a power to establish a tradition, and commandment of men long in use before he came. Again, who can believe that Christ, who so severely inveighed against the traditions of the Jews, could ever establish any one of them, and make it an ordinance of his; and particularly, should inveigh against those, respecting the baptisms, or dippings of the Jews then in use among them; and especially without excepting that of their baptism of proselytes from the rest, and without declaring it his will that it should be continued and observed; neither of which he has done.

VI. Sixthly, such a notion as this highly reflects dishonour on the ordinance of baptism; that one of the principal ordinances of the New Testament, as that is, should be founded on an human tradition, an invention of men; it must greatly weaken the authority of it, as well as disparage the wisdom of the Lawgiver; and must have a tendency to bring both the author and the ordinance into contempt. Nothing can make an ordinance a Christian ordinance, but its being instituted by Christ. If baptism is an institution of men, and received and retained from men, and regulated according to their device, it is no Christian ordinance: and, as Witsius says,^[5113] "Whatever may be said of the antiquity of that rite (proselyte baptism, which yet with him was dubious and uncertain) there can be no divine institution of it (of baptism) before John, the forerunner of Christ, was sent of God to baptize; for to him that was expressly commanded; 'The word of God came unto John', Luke 3:2 John 1:33, etc."

VII. Seventhly, if it was the custom of the Jews before the times of John and Christ, to receive young children as proselytes by baptism, or dipping, and this was to be as a rule according to which Christian baptism was to be practised; then most surely we should have had some instances of children being baptized by John, or by the apostles of Christ, if "baptizing infants had been as 'ordinarily used' in the church of the Jews, as ever it hath been in the Christian church," as Dr. Lightfoot says; and yet we have not one instance of this kind; we no where read of any children being brought to John to be baptized, nor of any that were baptized by him; nor of any being brought to the apostles of Christ to be baptized, nor of their being baptized by them; from whence it may be concluded there was no such custom before their times; or if there was, it never was intended it should be observed by Christians in later times; or otherwise there would have been some precedents of it, directing to and encouraging such a practice: many things would follow on such a supposition, that Christian baptism is borrowed from and founded on proselyte baptism, and the latter the rule directing the practice of the former; for then,

VIII. Eighthly, Self-baptizing, or persons baptizing themselves, without making use of an administrator, might be encouraged and established; which is what the Paedobaptists charge, though wrongly, some of the first reformers of the abuses of baptism with; since it is plain, from the quotations before made, that though it is sometimes said, "they", that is, the doctors or wise men, "baptize", or "dip", yet it is also said, both of men and women, that they "dipped themselves"; as of a man חכל)הו "he dipped himself", and went up from the water; and of a woman, being placed by women in the water, חכל "she dipped", that is, herself; and so Leo of Modena says,^[5114] of a Jew proselyte, that after he is circumcised, and well of his sore, "he is to wash himself all over in water", in the presence of three Rabbins, or other persons in authority, and from thenceforth he becomes as a natural Jew; and, indeed, all the Jewish baptisms, or bathings, commanded in the law, were done by persons themselves (see Leviticus 14:8, 9; Numbers 19:7, 8). And Dr. Lightfoot^[5115] thinks that John's baptism was so administered; he supposes, that men, women, and children came unto it; and that they standing in Jordan, were taught by John, that they were baptized into the name of the Messiah, ready to come, and into the profession of the gospel, about faith and repentance; and that "they plunged themselves into the river", and so came out.

IX. Ninthly, if this Jewish custom is to be regarded as a rule of Christian baptism, it will tend to establish the Socinian notion, that only the first converts to Christianity in a nation, they and their children are to be baptized, but not their posterity in after ages; for so both Lightfoot and Selden, with others, say, who were sticklers for Christian baptism being taken from the custom of baptizing, or dipping Jewish proselytes, and their children; that only the children of proselytes, born before their parents became such, were baptized, or dipped; but not those born afterwards: baptism was never repeated in their posterity; the sons of proselytes, in following generations, were circumcised, but not baptized;^[5116] and, as Dr. Jennings^[5117] rightly observes, "it was a maxim with the Rabbins, 'Natus baptizati, habetur pro baptizato'." This "restriction of baptism to children born before their parents' proselytism, rests on the same authority as the custom of baptizing any children of proselytes." So that if the one is to be admitted, the other is also; and so the children of Christian parents are not to be baptized, only the converts from another religion; and these the first, and their then posterity, but not afterwards.

X. Tenthly, if this custom, said to be practised before the times of John and Christ, is the rule to direct us in Christian baptism, there were several circumstances attending that, which should be observed in Christian baptism, to make it regular; it must be done before three witnesses, and these men of eminence; but who, of such a number and character were present at the baptism of the apostle Paul? (Acts 22:16, 9:18). Nor was it to be performed in the night; what then must be said of the baptism of the jailor, and his family? (Acts 16:33) nor on a Sabbath day; nor on a feast day; yet Lydia, and her household, were baptized on a Sabbath day (Acts 16:13, 15), and the three thousand Christian converts were baptized on the day of Pentecost? and which was also the first day of the week, the Christian Sabbath (Acts 2:1, 41). Wherefore, if this Jewish custom was the rule of baptism, and from whence it was taken, and by which it should proceed; (for if in one case, why not in others?) these instances of Christian baptism were not rightly performed.

XI. Eleventhly, if the Ethiopian eunuch Philip baptized, was a proselyte, as Grotius and others say, he must be either a proselyte of the gate, a proselyte inhabitant, or a proselyte of righteousness; not the former, for he was no inhabitant in any part of Judea; but most probably he was the latter, since he was a very devout and religious man, had an high opinion of the worship of God among the Jews, and had travelled from a far country to worship at Jerusalem; and so Dr. Jennings^[5118] justly observes, that "he seems to be rather a proselyte of the covenant, or completely a Jew; not only from his reading the scripture, but because he had taken so long a journey to worship at Jerusalem at the feast of Pentecost, one of the three grand festivals; when all the Jewish males, who were able, were, according to the law, to attend the worship of God at the national altar." He appears to have thoroughly embraced the religion of the Jews, even their whole law, and was conversant with their sacred writings; he was reading in one of their prophets when Philip joined his chariot, and was taken up into it by him: whereas a son of Noah, as the Jews called a proselyte of the gate, might not study in the law, according to their canons,^[5119] which they say he had nothing to do with; only with the seven precepts of Noah; and, indeed, no Gentile or uncircumcised person.^[5120] And if the eunuch was a proselyte of righteousness, according to the pretended custom of dipping such, he must have been baptized, or dipped, when he became a proselyte; and since, according to this notion, he must have been baptized with a baptism which John and Christ took up as they found it among the Jews, and which is the basis and foundation of Christian baptism, and the rule to direct in the performance of it, it is much he should desire baptism again! and that Philip, who is thought to be a proselyte also (Acts 6:5), and must know the custom of making proselytes, should administer it to him: and if he had been baptized before, must he not then be an Anabaptist? And so the proselytes in Acts 2:10 were, as Drusius and others think, proselytes of righteousness, who had embraced the Jewish religion, and were circumcised, and, according to this notion, baptized. Besides, none but proselytes of righteousness might dwell in Jerusalem; as has been observed, 26. And also proselytes of the gate were never called Jews, as these were; only proselytes of righteousness: and if any of these were among the three thousand converted and baptized by the apostles, which is not improbable, must not they be also Anabaptists? The Grecians, or Hellenists, whose widows were neglected in the daily ministration, are thought by Beza, and others, to be widows of Jewish proselytes, and therefore it is highly probable, that their husbands had been members of the Christian church at Jerusalem, and so must have been rebaptized; and most certain it is, that Nicholas of Antioch, who was one of the seven appointed to take care of these widows, was a proselyte, and as Grotius truly thinks, a proselyte of righteousness; and so, as he must have been baptized according to this notion, when he became a proselyte, he must have been rebaptized when he became a member of the Christian church at Jerusalem, of which he most certainly was, being chosen out of it, and appointed to an office in it (Acts 6:1, 5).

XII. Twelfthly, it may be observed, in a quotation before made, that if a proselytess big with child was baptized, or dipped, her child needed not baptism, or dipping, the mother's baptism, or dipping, was sufficient for it: but this is not attended to by Paedobaptists; it seems, in the beginning of the fourth century, there were some of the same opinion with the Jews; but a canon in the council of Neocaesarea was made against it; which, as explained, declared that the child of such a person needed baptism, when it came to be capable of choosing for itself;^[5121] which canon should not have been made, if this Jewish custom is to be regarded as a rule.

XIII. Lastly, As an argument "ad hominem", it may be observed, that if this custom is to be considered as a rule of Christian baptism, then sprinkling ought not to be used in it; for the baptism of Jewish proselytes, men, women, and children, was performed by dipping; as all the above quotations show. To which may be added, that one of their rules respecting proselyte baptism is, that a proselyte must dip in such a place (or confluence of water) as a menstruous woman dips herself in,^[5122] or which is sufficient for such an one; and that, as the Gloss is, was what held forty seahs of water; and to this agrees the account Maimonides^[5123] gives of such a confluence of water, that it must be "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; and this measure holds forty seahs of water." And he further says,^[5124] "that wherever washing of the flesh, and washing of clothes from uncleanness, 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 dips his whole body, except the top 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 come into them (or penetrate through them) and do not divide," or separate; that is, the clothes do not divide, or separate between the water and their bodies, so as to hinder its coming to them; so the menstruous woman dipped herself in her clothes; and in like manner the proselyte. Let such observe this, who object to the baptism of persons with their clothes on. Again, as an argument of the same kind, if baptism was common in all ages, foregoing the times of John, Christ, and his apostles, as is said, then it could not succeed circumcision, since it must be contemporary with it. Upon the whole, what Dr. Lightfoot,^[5125] and others after him, have urged in favour of infant baptism from hence, is quite impertinent; that "there was need of a plain and open prohibition, that infants and little children should not be baptized, if our Saviour would not have had them baptized; for since it was most common in all ages foregoing, that little children should be baptized, if Christ had been minded to have had that custom abolished, he would have openly forbidden it; therefore his silence, and the silence of the scripture in this matter, confirms Paedobaptism, and continues it unto all ages" But first, it does not appear that any such custom was ever practised before the times of John, Christ, and his apostles, as to admit into the Jewish church by baptism, proselytes, whether adult or minors. No testimony has been, and I believe none can be given of it. And, as some very learned men have truly observed,^[5126] and as Dr. Owen^[5127] affirms, there are not the least footsteps of any such usage among the Jews, until after the days of John the Baptist, in imitation of whom, he thinks, it was taken up by some Ante-Mishnical Rabbins; and, as he elsewhere says,^[5128] "The institution of the rite of baptism is no where mentioned in the Old Testament; no example is extant; nor during the Jewish church, was it ever used in the admission of proselytes; no mention of it is to be met with in Philo, Josephus, nor in Jesus the son of Syrach; nor in the evangelic history." What testimony has been given of this custom, falls greatly short of proving it; wherefore Christ could have no concern about abolishing a custom which had not obtained in his time; nor was there any room nor reason for it, since it had never been practised, for ought appears: his silence about what never existed, can give no existence to it, nor to that which is founded on it, Paedobaptism; and which is neither warranted and confirmed by any such custom, nor by the word of God, in which there is an high silence about both. This custom of baptizing little children was so far from being common in all ages foregoing the times of John, Christ, and his apostles, that not a single instance can be given of anyone that ever was baptized; if there can, let it be produced; if not, what comes of all this bluster and harangue? With much more propriety and strength of reasoning might it be retorted; that since it is plain the children of the Jews, both male and female, did eat of the passover, which was not an human custom and tradition; but an ordinance of God, common in all ages foregoing the times of John, etc. and since, according to the hypothesis of the Paedobaptists, the Lord's supper came in the room of the passover; for which there is much more reason in analogy, than for baptism coming in the room of circumcision; it should seem, if our Saviour would not have had children eat of the Lord's supper, as they did of the passover, he would have openly forbidden it. A plain and open prohibition of this was more needful than a prohibition of the baptism of infants, if not his will, had there been such a custom before prevailing, as there was not; since that could only be a custom and tradition of men; and it was enough that Christ inveighed against those of the Jews in general, which obtained before, and in his time; and against their baptisms and dippings in particular. And after all, it is amazing that Christian baptism should be founded upon a tradition, of which there is no evidence but from the Rabbins, and that very intricate, perplexed, and contradictory, and not as in being in the times referred to; upon a tradition of a set of men blinded and besotted, and enemies to Christianity, its doctrines and ordinances; and who, at other times, reckoned by these very men, who so warmly urge this custom of theirs, the most stupid, sottish, and despicable, of all men upon the face of the earth! If this is the basis of infant baptism, it is built upon the sand, and will, ere long, fall, and be no more.I conclude this Dissertation in the words of Dr. Owen,^[5129] "That the opinion of some learned men concerning transferring the rite of Jewish baptism, by the Lord Jesus, which, indeed, did not then exist, for the use of his disciples, is destitute of all probability." And after all, perhaps, the Paedobaptists will find their account better in consulting the baptism of the ancient heathens, and its rites, than that of the Jews; said^[5130] to be in use before the times of Moses, and in ages since, and that among all nations; and being more ancient than Christian baptism, a learned writer referred to, says, it is as a sort of preamble to it. And from whom the Paedobaptists may be supplied with materials for their purpose.

^[4578] Let the commandments be what they may, which are chiefly intended in the text; yet since water-baptism is a commandment of God, and allowed to be such, and the rest of the commandments mentioned are not denied to be, nor excluded from being the commandments of God; there can be no impropriety in treating on the commandment of baptism particularly and singly from this passage of scripture; and it might have escaped, one would have thought, a sneer, though it has not, of a scurrilous writer, in a late newspaper, referred to in the preface.

^[4579] That we are ever referred to this chap. or, for a proof of Infant-baptism, is denied, and pronounced a willful, is representation, by the above mentioned writer, in his second letter in the newspaper. This man must have read very little in the controversy, to be ignorant of this. The very last writer that wrote in the controversy, that I know of, calls the covenant made with Abrahamin that Chapter "the grand turning point, on which the issue of the controversy very much depends; and that if Abraham's covenant, which included his infant-children, and gave them a sight to circumcision, was not the covenant of grace; then he freely confesses, that the main ground, on which they assert the right of infants to baptism, is taken away; and consequently, the principal arguments in support of the doctrine, are overturned." Bostwick's Fair and Rational Vindication of the Right of Infants to the Ordinance of Baptism, etc.

^[4580] The above letter-writer, in the news-paper, observes, "that the kingdom of heaven signifies either the kingdom, or church of Christ here, or the kingdom of glory above. If the former, they are declared, by Christ himself, real subjects of his among men; if the latter, if members of the invisible church, why not of the visible?" But, in fact, they themselves are not intended, only such as they; such who are comparable to them for meekness and humility; for freedom from malice, pride, and ambition. But admitting that the words are to be understood of infants literally, the kingdom of heaven cannot design the kingdom, or church of Christ under the gospel dispensation, which is not national, but congregational; consisting of men gathered out of the world, by the grace of God, and who make a public profession of Christ, which infants are not capable of, and so cannot be real subjects of it; and if they were, they mull have an equal right to the Lord's supper, as to baptism, of which they are equally capable. The kingdom of glory then being recant, it is asked, if members of the invisible church, why not of the visible? They may be, when it appears that they are of the invisible church, which only can be manifest by the grace of God bestowed on them; and it is time enough to talk of their baptism when that is evident; and when it is clear they have both a right unto, and meetness for the kingdom of heaven.

^[4581] But our letter-writer says, "When the apostles received their commission, they could not understand it otherwise than to baptize the parentsthat embraced the faith of Christ; through their preaching, and all their children with them, as was the manner of the ministers of God in preceding ages, by circumcision;" but if they so understood it, and could not other ways understand it, it is strange they should not practice according to it, and baptize children with their parents; of which we have no one instance. By the ministers of God in preceding ages, I suppose, he means the priests and prophets, under the Old Testament-dispensation; but these were not the operators of circumcision, which was done by parents and others: and surely it cannot be said, it was the usual manner of ministers to baptize parents, and their children with them in those ages; and it is pretty unaccountable how they should baptize them by circumcision, as is affirmed; this is something unheard of before, and monstrously ridiculous and absurd.

^[4582] The above writer affirms, that my manner of "proving the negative, wasby barely assertingthere were no children in any of the families, mentioned in the scriptures, as baptized." The falsity of which appears by the following descriptive, characters given of the patrons in the several, families, and the reasonings upon them.

^[4583] In his turn, the writer in the news-paper, "defies me to produce one scripture precept, or precedent, for delaying thebaptism of children ofChristian parents; or for baptizing adult persons, born of such parents. On this the controversy hinges." It is ridiculous to talk of a precept for delaying that which was not in being; and of a precedent for delaying that which had never been practiced. If a warrant is required for baptizing adult persons, believers, it is ready at hand (Mark 16:16), and precedents enough: and we know of no precept to baptize any other, let them be born of whom they may; and as for precedents of the baptism of adult persons, born of Christian parents, it cannot be expected, nor reasonably required of us; since the Acts of the Apostles only give an account of the planting of the first churches; and of the baptism of those of which they first consisted; and not of those that in a course of years were added to them. Wherefore, to demand instances of persons, born of Christian parents, and brought up by them, as baptized in adult age, which would require length of time, is unreasonable; and if the controversy hinges on this, it ought to be at an end, and given up by them.

^[4584] The letter-writer makes me to say, "All the world acknowledge βαπτιζω, signifies to dip or plunge, and never to sprinkle or pour water on any thing," which is a false representation of my words, and of the manner in which they were delivered; however, this I affirm, that in all the Greek Lexicons I ever few, and I have seen a pretty many, I do not pretend in have fern all that have been published; yet in what my small library furnishes me with, the word is always rendered in the first and primary sense by mergo, immergo, todiporplunge into; and in a secondary and consequential sense, by abluo, lavo, towash, because what is dipped is washed; and never by persundo or aspergo, topour or sprinkle; as the Lexicon published by Constantine, Budaeus, etc. those of Hadrian, Junius, Plantinus, Scapula. Sebreveius, and Stockins, besides a great number of critics that might be mentioned; and if this writer can produce any one Lexicographer of any note, that renders the word topour or sprinkle, let him name him. Thisignorant scribblerputs the following questions, "Did the Jews plunge their whole bodies in water always before they did eat? Did they dip their pots, brazen vessels and beds?" He does not suffer me to answer the questions, but answers for me, "He knows the contrary." But if I may be allowed to answer for myself, I must say, by the testimonies of the Jews themselves, and of others, I know they did; that is, when they came flora market, having touched the common people, or their clothes, immersed themselves in water; so saysMaimonidesin Misn. Chagigah. c. e. sect. 7. "If the Pharisees touched but the garments of the common people they were defiled, and needed immersion, and were obliged to it." AndScaligerobserves, de Emend. Temp. 1. 6."That the more superstitious part of the Jews, every day before they sat down to meat, dipped the whole body; hence the Pharisee's admiration at Christ (Luke 11:38)." According to the law ofMoses(Leviticus 11:32), unclean vessels were washed by putting or dipping them into water; and according to the traditions of the ciders, to which our Lord refers (Mark 7:4), not only brazen vessels and tables, but even beds, bolsters and pillows unclean, in a ceremonial sense, were washed by immersion in water. So the Jews say in their Misnah, or book of traditions, "A bed that is wholly defiled, a man dips it part by part." Celim, c. 26. sect. 14. See also Mikvaot, c. 7. sect. 7.

^[4585] The above letter-writer asks, "How often must I be told, that the particle ειω and εκ are in hundreds of places in the New Testament rendereduntoandfrom?" be it so; it follows not, that they mull be so rendered here. Greek particles or prepositions have different significations, according to the words and circumstances with which they are used; nor is it as proper or a more just reading of the words, "they went downuntothe water and came up from it;" it is neither proper nor just; for before this, they are expressly said to come to a certain water, to the waterside; wherefore when they went down, they went notuntoit, if they were there before, butintoit; as it must be allowed the preposition sometimes, at least, signifies; and circumstances require that it should be so rendered here, let it signify what it may elsewhere; and this determines the sense of the other preposition, that it tour and ought to be rendered out of; for as they went down into the water, when they came up, it must be out of it. What he means by the strange question that follows, "What will he make of Christ's goinginto a mountain?" I cannot devise, unless he thinks the translation of Luke 6:12 is wrong, or nonsense, or both; but has this wiseacre never heard or read of a cave in a mountain, into which men may go, and properly be said to go into the mountain; and such an one it is highly probable our Lord went into, to pray alone; such as the cave in mount Horeb, into whichElijabwent. But his tip-top translation of all is that of John's baptizing inJordan, which he supposes might be rendered, by baptizing the peoplewith the river Jordan. This is the man that reproaches me with very freely finding fault with the translators; my complaint is only of a non-translation, not of a wrong one; but this man finds fault with the translation as wrong, or however thinks it may be corrected or mended, and that in more places than one.

^[4586] The letter-writer I have often referred to, affirms, that "the learned world universally maintain, that the Israelites were no other waysbaptized in the sea, than by being sprinkled with the spray of the tolling waves, agitated by the wind that blew as they passed through the channel." Who the learned world be, that maintain this whimsical notion, I own, I am quite ignorant of, having never yet met with any learned man that ever asserted it. It is a mere conceit and a wild imagination, and contrary to the sacred scriptures, which represent the waves of the feat through which the Israelites passed, not as agitated and tossed about, but as standing unmoved, as a wall on each side of them, whatever was the care in that part where the Egyptians were;The floods, says the inspired writer,stood uprights as an heap,and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea(Exodus 15:8). And if there was a continual spray of the tossing waves, as the Israelites passed through the channel, how could they pass through the sea ondry ground? As they are said to do (Exodus 14:16, 22, 29). What this man scoffs at, the celebratedGrotius, who is universally allowed to be a man of learning and sense, expresses in a note on 1 Corinthians 10:2 "were baptized, that is, as if they were baptized; for there was some likeness in it; the cloud was over their heads, and so water is over them that are baptized; the sea encompassed the sides of them, and so water those that are baptized."

^[4587] The same writer is pleased to represent this explanation of the baptism of the Spirit as ridiculous; but some of greater learning than he can pretend to, have so explained it, as particularly Dr.Casaubon,famous for his great knowledge of the Greek language; though perhaps thisvery illiberalman will call the learned doctor a dunce for what he says; his words on Acts 1:5 are these, "though I do not disapprove of the wordbaptizebeing retained here, that the antithesis may be full; yet I am of opinion that regard is had in this place to its proper signification, for βαπτιζειν is to immerse, so as totingeordip; and in this sense the apostles were truly said to be baptized; for the house in which this was done was filled with the holy Ghost, so that the apostles seemed to be plunged into it as into a pool." In confirmation of which, he makes mention on Acts 2:2 of an observation in a Greek commentary on it, "the wind filled the whole house, filling it like a pool; since it was promised to them (the apostles) that they should bebaptized,with the Holy Ghost." It seems to be the same commentary,Erasmus, on the place, says went under the name ofChrysostom, in which are there words, as he gives them, "the whole house was so filled with fire, though invisible, as a pool is filled with water."—Our scribbler, in order to expose the notion of dipping, as used in the baptism of the spirit, and fire, condescends, for once, to readdip, instead ofbaptize; "Johnsaid I indeed dip youwithwater, but one, mightier than I, cometh, he shalldipyouwiththe holy Ghost, andwith fire." But not only the wordbaptize should be readdip,but the preposition "should be renderedin;inwater; andinthe holy Ghost; andinfire; and the phraseof dipping infire, is no unusual one, both in Jewish and Greek authors; as I have shewn in my Exposition of the place, and of Acts 2:3.

^[4588] De Doctrina Christiana, 50:3, c. 9.

^[4589] Vid. Socin. Disp. de Baptismo, c. 15, 16, 17.

^[4590] See the Dissertation concerning the Baptism of Jewish Proselytes, at the end of this work. See on topic 1300.

^[4591] Comment. on Matthew p. 372, 375.

^[4592] Comment. On Matthew 28:19.

^[4593] Contr. Arian. orat. 3. p. 209.

^[4594] Baptism of infants a reasonable service, p. 14, 15.

^[4595] Bostwick's Fair and Rational Vindication of Infant-baptism, p. 19.

^[4596] See, my Exposition of 1 Corinthians 7:14. See Gill on 1 Corinthians 7:14.

^[4597] Ecclesiastes Hist. 50:1. c. 4.

^[4598] See my Treatises, "The Argument from apostolic Tradition, in Favour of Infant Baptism, considered;" and "Antipaedo-Baptism, or Infant Baptism, an Innovation," with others.

^[4599] "Quod longinquitas temporis objicitur, eo major suspicio, inesse debet, emanasse illas traditiones a Pseudo apostolis; qui mirandum in modum conturbaverunt sanctos apostolos; quo magis cavendum est, viri Christiani". Aonii Palearii Testimonium, c. 2. p. 238.

^[4600] "Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est", Cyprian. epist. 74. p. 195.

^[4601] Essay to Restore the Dipping of Infants in Baptism, p. 44.

^[4602] Institut. 50:4. c. 15. s. 19.

^[4603] Opera, vol. 6. col. 2008.

^[4604] Some represent the river Jordan, from Sandys's account of it, as if it was a shallow river, and insufficient for immersion; but what Sandys says of it, is only that it was not navigably deep, not above eight fathoms broad, nor, except, by accident, heady. Travels, b. 3:p. 110. ed. 5. But Mr. Maundrel says, for its breadth, it might be about twenty yards over, and in depth it far exceeded his height. Journey from Aleppo, etc. p. 83. ed. 7. vid. Reland. de Palestina, 50:1. p. 278. And Adamnan. in ib. And therefore must be sufficient for immersion. And Strabo speaks of ships of burden sailing through Jordan, Geograph. 50:16. p. 519. And that it was a river to swim in, and navigable, according to the Jewish writers, see Gill on " Matthew 3:5 ".

^[4605] Ep. c. 9. p. 235. ed. Voss.

^[4606] De Baptismo, c. 8.

^[4607] Maimon. Hilchot Mikvaot, c. 1. s. 2.

^[4608] In Act. 1:5.

^[4609] Epiph. contra Haeres. 50:1. Haeres. 9.

^[4610] In Misn. Chagigah, c. 2. s. 7.

^[4611] De Emend. Temp. 50:6. p. 771.

^[4612] Maimon. Hilchot Celim. c. 26. s. 14.

^[4613] Misn. Mikvaot, c. 7. s. 7.

^[4614] Ibid. s. 6.

^[4615] Ten thousand were baptized in one day by Austin the monk, in the river Swale, if our historians are to be credited. Fox's Acts and Monuments, vol. 1:p. 154. Ranulph. Polychron. 50:5. c. 10. The twelve sons of Wolodomir, Grand Prince of Russia, with twenty thousand Russians, in cent. 10. were baptized in one day, by a missionary of Photius the patriarch; and the ancient Russians would allow no person to be a Christian, unless he had been dipped quite under water. Strahlenberg. Histor. Geograph. Descript. of the Northern and Eastern Parts of Europe and Asia, 40. p. 283, 286. Vid. Fabricii Lux Evangel. p. 475. No doubt assistance was had in both instances; but these show what numbers may be baptized in a day.

^[4616] Apud. Theodorit. Eccl. Hist. 50:5. c. 9. This form was first changed and corrupted by Mark the heretic, and his followers, in the second century; who baptized into the name of the unknown Father of all; into truth the mother of all; into him who descended on Jesus; into union and redemption, and communion of powers: the same also first changed and corrupted the mode; taking a mixture of oil and water, poured it on the head, and then anointed with balsam. Vid, Irenaeum adv. Haeres. 50:1. c. 18.

^[4617] "Non enim aqua lavat animam, sed ipsa prius lavatur a Spiritu", Aonii Palearii Testimonium, c. 2. p. 24.

^[4618] An vero una, an trina mersione sit baptizandum, indifferens semper judicature fuit in ecclesia christiana; quemadmodum etiam an immersione an vero adspersione atendum, cum iilius expressum mandatum nullum extet; & exempla adspersionis non minus quam immersionis in scripturis possint deprehendi, sicuii enim 17. Christus in aquam ingressus, & ex ea egressus est, & Ethiops. 40. Sic multa millia uno die in ipsa urbe Jerusalem dicuntur fuisse baptizata. 47. item multi in totalbus privatis, Act. 16, & 18 1 Corinthians 1:16. ubi egressus ejusmodi in aquas vix esse potuit. Synop Put. Theolog. Dis. Thes. 19.

^[4619] Etsi non improbo ut hic quoque retineatur verbum baptizare quo plena sit η αντιθεσιω, tamen: habendam hoc loco propriae significationis rationem censeo, βαπτιζοιν enim tanquam ad tingendum. mergere est. Atque hoc sensu vore dicuntur apostoli βαπτιοθνηαι. Domus euim in qua hoc peractum est, Spiritu sancto fuit repleta, ita ut in cam tanquam in κολυμβηθραν, quandam apostoli demersi fuisse. videantur. Casaub. in Act. 1:5.

^[4620] Idyll 1. Μητι θιγηω πλανα δωρα ταγαρ πυοι παντα βεζαπται

^[4621] Antiqu. Jude 1. 2. c 3.

^[4622] Vid. Stephan. Dictionar. Geograph.

^[4623] Significat afflictionem, humilitatem & fletum, admonens nos tales requiri in baptismo & vera poenitentia, Aretius in John 3:23.

^[4624] Fuisse autem duo haec oppidaAEnon & Salim, non procul a confluente Jordanis & Jaboc tradunt geographi, quibus viciniam faciunt Scythopolim. Coeterum ex his verbis colligere licet, baptismum fuisse celebratum a Joanne & Christo totius corporis submerfione. Calvin in John 3:23.

^[4625] Hic perspicimus, quisnam apud veteres baptizandi titus fuerit: totum enim corpus in aquam mergebant, Calvin in Acts 8:38.

^[4626] Graeci legunt in hunc modum μηντι υδωρ, etc. et apparet hunc esse sensum: num quis vetare potest, quo minus aqua baptizentur ii, qui spiritum sanctum axceperunt, sicunt & nos? veluti plus sit spiritus quam aqua, cumque ille contingerit, nihil esse magni si hoc accesserit: Caeterum το υδωρ accusativus aut pendet a praepositione subaudita κατα, aut adhaeret verbo βαπτιοθηναι, ea forma qua dicimus, βαπτιζομαι βαπτισμα. Erasmus in Acts 10:47.

^[4627] Gregory Nazianzen. Basil. Chrysostome, Ambrose, Daille, Fowler, Cave, Towerson, cited by Mr. Stennett, in his answer to Ruffen,, 145, 147,156, 157. See also. Dr Goodwin's Christ set forth, Sect. 3. 60.

^[4628] Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of Infant-baptism.

^[4629] Institut. 1. 4. c. 15. s. 19.

^[4630] Loc commun.. & Explic. Catech..

^[4631] Lexic. Theolog., 222.

^[4632] Christ. Theolog. 1:1..

^[4633] Dr Gale's Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of Infant. baptism, letter 3.

^[4634] De Superstitione

^[4635] Plus autem est βαπτιζεοθαι, hoc in loco; quam χερνιπτειν, quod illud videatur de corpore uni-verso, istud de manibus duntaxat intelligendum. Neque το βαπτιζειν significat lavare, nifi a consequenti, nam proprie declarat tingendi causa immergere. Beza in Marc. 7. 4.

^[4636] Tract. Mikvaoth. c 10. f. 1, 5, 6.

^[4637] Ubicunque in lege memoratur ablutio carnis aut vestium, nihil aliud vult, quam ablutionem totius corporis, nam siquis se totum abluat. Excepto ipsissimo apice minimi digiti ille adhuc in im-munditie fua, Maimon. In Mikvaoth. c. 1, 4. in Lightfoot Hor. Hebr, in Matthew.

^[4638] In Adversar. Miscellan. p 30.

^[4639] Magnum habet convenientiam ille in maris intima infimaque descensus, ex eodem ascensus denuo in aridam, cum baptismi christiani ritu, prout is primis temporibus administrabatur. Siquidem inter baptizandum in aquas descendebant, & ex eisdem denuo ascendebant: Cujus κατααζασεωω κι αναζασεωω in Eunachi AEthiopis tinctione mentio expressia reperitur (Acts 8:38, 39). Quin &, sicuti in ritu christiano, quum immergerentur aquis obruti, & quasi sepulti & Christo ipsi consepulti quodammodo videbantur; rursusque cum emergerent, a sepulchro quodammodo resur-gere, ac cum Christo resuscitare prae se serebant (Romans 6:4, 5; Colossians 2:12). Ita maris illius aquis capitibus ipsis transeuntium altius extantibus obruti ac sepulti quodammodo poterunt videri & cruet-gere ac resurgere denuo, cum ad littus objectum exeuntes evasissent. Gatak. ibid.

^[4640] Essay to restore the Dipping of Infants in their Baptism.

^[4641] Ibid., 12, 32.

^[4642] Defence of the History of Infant-baptism,, 130, 131, 146, 147.

^[4643] It does not shock me so much, to find Mr. R. use such terms as are scarce reconcilable to good sense, as it does to find him using such expressions, and making such descriptions, as are hardly consistent with that civility and modesty, for which he would appear to be an advocate. I can bear with him, when, on this occasion, he calls thin garmentsa postureinstead of ahabit, and tells us of things that are ignominious to the honor of Christianity, being now pretty well acquainted with his stile. But I must confess myself offended with that air of levity, and those indecent terms, in which he condemns the pretended immodesty of others. For the words by which he sometimes describes the vicious acts and inclinations which he censures, seem not so much adapted to excite horror and aversion in the reader, as to defile his imagination, end to dispose him to that imprudent temper of making a mock of fin. And the true reason why I do not quote Mr. R's words at large in this place, as I do in many others, is not to evade the force of his argument, but to avoid the mode of his expression, by which he has given too much occasion of offense to virtuous minds, and perhaps too much gratified those that are viciously inclined. Stennett'a Answ. to Ruffen..

^[4644] In loc.

^[4645] De tribus Sect. Jude lib. a. c. 15.

^[4646] Judaei vero superstitiosiores non pedes tantum, sed & corpus totum intingebant. Hinc hmerobaptivai, dicti, qui quodidie, ante discubitum, corpus intingebant. Quare Pharisaeus ille, qui lesum ad coenam invitaverat, mirabatur eum, antequam totum corpus abluisset, discubuisse: οτι ου πρωτον εβαπτιοθη προ του αρισου, Luc. 11. Puriores vero a superstitione, pro universali ilia βαπτιζεω contenti erant ποδονιπτρω |, hoc est, pedilavio. Testis dominus ipse, qui alii Pharisaeo, a quo coena exceptus fuerat, objicit, sibi discubituro aquam ad pedes datam non suiffe. Luc. 7. υδωρ επι τουω ποδαω μου ουκεδωκαω. Scaliger de Emend. Temp. lib. 6 p. 571.

^[4647] Trad. Chagigah, c. 2. §. 5.

^[4648] Tract. Yadaim. c. 1 p. 1-3. etc. 2 § 3.

^[4649] Spicileg. in Mark 7:3.

^[4650] Buxtorf. Synag. Jude c. 8. & Lex. Talm. p. 1335. Pocock not. misc. p. 375. 376, 393, Scaliger. Elenchus Tritaeres. Serrar. c. 7.

^[4651] Pocock. not. misc. p. 397, 398.

^[4652] Adhibuerunt Judaei תליטנ םידי lotionem rnanuum, & תליבט םידי immersionem rnanuum & videtur vocabulum νιψωνται, apud Evangelistam nostram, priori respondere, & βαπτιζωνται postetiori. Lightfoot. Hot. Hebrews in Mark 7:4.

^[4653] Vid. R. David Kimchi & R. Solomon Jarchi in loc.

^[4654] Quinta quaestio proponitur ab Auguistino, etc. Explicat. Epist. ad Ephesians c. 5. p. 225.

^[4655] Answer to Rusen, p. 142, 143.

^[4656] Answer to Walker, p. 157, etc.

^[4657] Barnabae Epist. c. 9. p. 235, 236. Ed. Voss.

^[4658] Hermae Pastor. I. 1. 7:3, f. 7. & li 3. f. 16.

^[4659] Ignatii Epist. ad Polycarp. p. 14. Ed. Voss.

^[4660] Part I. c. 23.

^[4661] Irenaeus adv. Haeres. 1. 2. c. 39. p. 191.

^[4662] History of Infant-Baptism. part I. c. 2.

^[4663] Ον τροπον δε ανεθηκαμεν εαυτουω. etc. Justin. Apolog. II. p. 93, 94. Ed. Paris.

^[4664] Cloppenburg. Gangraena, p. 366. Spanhem. Diatribe Hilt. Sect. 27.

^[4665] Budneus apud Meshov. Hist. Anabapt. 1.4. P. 96.

^[4666] Sleidan. Comment. 1. to. p. 267, 269. Spanhem. Diatribe Histor. De Origin Anabaptist Sec. 18.

^[4667] Spanhem. ibid Sect. 11. Meshovius Anabaptist. Histor. 1. 3. c. 16, 18.

^[4668] Spanhem. Sect. 13. Meshovius, ibid. c. 2.

^[4669] Spanhem. Sect. i 1. Meshovius 1. 2. c. 4.

^[4670] Ibid. c. 15.

^[4671] Summa Controvers. I. 5. p. 356.

^[4672] Meshovius 1. 2. e. 1.

^[4673] Meshovius, 1. I. c. 2, 3.

^[4674] Inter Colomes. Collect. apud Wall's History of Infant-Baptism, part II. p. 200.

^[4675] Opera Innocent. tertii, tom. II. p. 776. apud Wall, ibid. p. 178.

^[4676] Acts and Monuments, vol. 1. p. 262.

^[4677] History of England, vol. 1. p. 233.

^[4678] Neubrigensu de Rebus Anglicanis, I. 2. c, 13. p. 155.

^[4679] Not. in ibid. p. 720-723.

^[4680] Wall, ibid. P. 175, 176.

^[4681] Hist. Eccl. Magdeburg. Cent. XII. c. 5. p. 338, 339.

^[4682] Ibid. p. 332.

^[4683] Answer to Russen. p. 83, 84.

^[4684] History of Infant-baptism, part II. p. 184.

^[4685] Ibid. p. 179.

^[4686] This is an extraneous footnote. (ED.)

^[4687] Wall, ibid. p. 172.

^[4688] Apud Wall, ibid. p. 159.

^[4689] Hist. Eccl. Magdeburg, Cent. XI. c. 5. P. 116.

^[4690] Answer to Ruffen, p. 84, 85.

^[4691] Summa Concil. p. 122, 123.

^[4692] Cent. V. c. 9. p. 468.

^[4693] History, etc. Part II. p. 275, 276.

^[4694] De Baptismo, c. 18.

^[4695] Dr. Allix's Remarks on the ancient churches of Piedmont, p. 188, 207, 210, 286. Motland's History of the evangelical Churches of the valleys of Piedmont, book I. c.3. p. 8, etc. Et Bezae Icones spud ibid. In reduction to the history, p. 7.

^[4696] History, book I. 17. p. 184.

^[4697] Remarks. etc. p. 171, 172.

^[4698] Hist. of Infant-baptism, part II, p. 179.

^[4699] Fox's Acts, and Monuments, vol. I. p. 868.

^[4700] Morland's History, etc. book I. 37. p. 34.

^[4701] Ibid. p. 38.

^[4702] Morland's History, etc. 15. p. 99, 122.

^[4703] Ibid. 60. p. 142, 148.

^[4704] Morland's History, 37. p. 43.

^[4705] Apud Hoornbeck. Summa Controvers. I. 5. P. 387.

^[4706] Morland, ibid. 37. p. 39.

^[4707] Ibid. 40. p. 185.

^[4708] Acts & Monuments, vol. II. p. 186.

^[4709] Morland, ibid. c. 4, p. 41.

^[4710] Ibid. c. 4. p. 61, 67,

^[4711] Morland, ibid. c. 7. P. 173.

^[4712] Audio in quibusdam Italiae Urbibus morem veterem magna ex parte adhuc conservari. Comment. in Aug. de Civ. Dei, Lib I. c. 27.

^[4713] History of Infant-baptism, Part II. c. 2. p. 12.

^[4714] Hebrews 13:20 compared with Daniel 9:17, Ephesians 1:13, 14 and Ephesians 4:30.

^[4715] See Exodus 1:8, 12, and 22:23 and Exodus 12:26, 27, 28, 35, 40, 50, and Exodus 14:8, 10, 22, 29; Jeremiah 1:4. and a multitude of other places.

^[4716] Misn. Kiddashin, c. 2. §. 1.

^[4717] Primum docent omnes Genres. deinde doctas intingunt Aqua, etc. Hieran. In Matthew 28:19.

^[4718] Athanas. contr. Arianos. Orat. III. p. 209.

^[4719] Institut. L. IV. c. 15 § 19.

^[4720] Adversar. Miscellan. p. 30.

^[4721] Maimon, Hilchot. Mikvaot. c. 1. § 2.

^[4722] Acts and Monuments, vol. 1 p. 154.

^[4723] Polychroncon, lib. V.c. 10.

^[4724] Ecclesiastes Hist. 1. II. c. 14. p. 77. & c. 16. p. 79.

^[4725] Reasonable Service, p. 30.

^[4726] Preface, p.

^[4727] Irenaeus adv. Haeres. 1. 3. c. 4. Cyprian. Ep. 63. ad Caecillum, p. 146. Athanas. ad Adelph, p. 333.

^[4728] Institut. Rel. Christ. 1. 1. c. 12. J. 4. p. 25.

^[4729] Of the liberty of Prophesying, p. 320, 321. Ed. 3d.

^[4730] Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 50:5. c. 23-25. Socrat. Eccl. Hist. 1. 5. c. 22. p 285.

^[4731] Euseb. lb. 1. 4. c. 14. See Bowcr's Lives of the Popes, vol. I. p. 27, 37.

^[4732] Loc. Common. p. 287.

^[4733] Euseb. ib. l 3. c. 39.

^[4734] Pirke Abot. c. 1 § 1.

^[4735] Apolog. 2 p. 62.

^[4736] Apolog. 1 p. 43.

^[4737] Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 258.

^[4738] Ib. p. 272.

^[4739] Adv. Haeres. 1. 3. c. 39.

^[4740] Ib. 1:1. c 18. & 1. 4. c. 39. & 1. 5. c. 15.

^[4741] History of Infant-baptism, p. 1. 22. p. 6.

^[4742] Reasonable Service, p. 30.

^[4743] The Dissenting Gentleman's Third Letter, etc. p. 32.

^[4744] In Rivet. critici facri, 1. 2. c. 12. p. 202.

^[4745] Hist. Pelag. par. I. 1.2. p. 147.

^[4746] Hist. Eccles. Vol. I. p. 132.

^[4747] Liberty of Prophesying, p. 320.

^[4748] Bower's History of Popes, vol. I. p. 339.

^[4749] Bower ibid. p. 329, c. 330.

^[4750] De peccator. merit. & remiss. I. 2. c. 25.

^[4751] In Aug. de peceator, originali, 1. 2. c. 18.

^[4752] Ed. Antwerp. by Plantine, 1576.

^[4753] Hist. of Infant, baptism, part I. ch. 19 p. 37.

^[4754] De libero Arbitdo, 1. 3. c. 23.

^[4755] De Peccator. nierit. 1. 2. c. 25.

^[4756] Ep. ad Laetam, t. I. fol. 19. M.

^[4757] De verbis Apostoli, serm 10, c. 2.

^[4758] De Genesi, I. 10. c. 22. De baptismo, contr. Donat. 1. 4. c. 23, 24.

^[4759] Liberty of Prophesying. p. 119.

^[4760] Ep. 106. Bonifacio, contr. Pelag.

^[4761] De Peccator. merit. & remiss. 1. 1. c. 20.

^[4762] Ibid. c. 24.

^[4763] Cyprian de lapsis, p. 244.

^[4764] Basil. de Spiritu Sanct. c. 27.

^[4765] Homil. 12. in 1 Ep. ad Corinth.

^[4766] Catechef. 12. §. 4.

^[4767] Ep. 73. ad Jubajanum. p. 184.

^[4768] Ad Demetrian, prope finem.

^[4769] De resurrectione carnis, c. 8.

^[4770] De Baptismo. c. 18.

^[4771] Ut supra.

^[4772] Homil 12. in Numeros, fol. 114. D.

^[4773] De spectaculis, c. 4.

^[4774] De corona, c. 3.

^[4775] De peccato originali 1. 2. c, 40. de nupt. & concup. 1. 1. c 20. & 1. 2. c. 18.

^[4776] Contr. Julian. 1. 3. c 5.

^[4777] Ep. 105. Bonifacio, prope sinem.

^[4778] Orat. 40. p. 657.

^[4779] Adv. Parmenian. 1.4. P. 92.

^[4780] Ep 76. ad Magnum.

^[4781] Apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 50:6. c. 43.

^[4782] Ut supra.

^[4783] Adv. Luciserianos, fol. 47. H. tom. 2.

^[4784] De corona, c. 3.

^[4785] Adv. Praxeam e. 26.

^[4786] Hist. 18.6. c. 26.

^[4787] Ut supra.

^[4788] De tempore sermo, 119. c. 8.

^[4789] De sacramentis, I. 1 c. 5.

^[4790] Ep. 70. ad Januasium.

^[4791] De baptismo, c. 4.

^[4792] Ut supra.

^[4793] De trinhate, 50:15. c. 26.

^[4794] De sacramentis, I. 3. c. 11.

^[4795] Cateches. mystagog, 2. p. 3. & 3. p. 3.

^[4796] Ep. 70. ad Januariam, p. 175.

^[4797] De resurrectione carnis, c. 8.

^[4798] De baptismo, c 7.

^[4799] Adv. Luciferianos, fol. 47.

^[4800] Comment. in Esaiam. c. 55. 1. fol. 94. E.

^[4801] De corona, c. 3.

^[4802] Adv. Marcion, 1. 3. c. 14.

^[4803] C. 5. prope finem.

^[4804] Tertullian de pudicitia, c. 9. Cyprian. Ep 59. ad Fidum, vid. Aug. contr, 2. Epist. Pelag. I. 4. c. 8.

^[4805] The dissenting Gentleman's Second Letter, etc. p. 29, 30.

^[4806] Baptism of Infants a reasonable Service, etc. p. 14, 15.

^[4807] Baptism of Infants a reasonable Service, etc. p. 16-19.

^[4808] See Pool's Annotation on Galatians 3:17.

^[4809] In ibid.

^[4810] The divine right of Infant baptism disproved, p. 56-61.

^[4811] Reasonable service, etc. p. 16.

^[4812] Reasonable service, etc. p. 19-22.

^[4813] Reasonable service, etc. p. 23-28.

^[4814] The divine right of Infant-baptism disproved, etc. p. 73-78.

^[4815] 1 Peter 2:13; Romans 13:1, 2; Titus 3:1, 2.

^[4816] See the Introductionto theBaptism of Infants a reasonable Service,etc. to which this is an answer.

^[4817] This also is an answer to what the author ofThe baptism of Infants a reasonable Servicesuggests in p. 7, 12, 16.

^[4818] Which may likewise be an answer to the same thing hinted by the author ofThe baptism of Infants a reasonable Service,p. 28. Genesis 3:15.

^[4819] Let this also be observed, together with the answer to the first argument of the author ofThe baptism of Infants a reasonable Service.etc. p. 14.

^[4820] Vide Ibid, p. 24.

^[4821] Compare Exodus 1:1, 7 with Genesis 46:5 and Genesis 45:18, 19; compare 1 Samuel 27:3 with 1 Samuel 30:6; 1 Timothy 3:3; Genesis 30:30; Numbers 3:15.

^[4822] 1 Corinthians 16:15. Let this be observed, in answer to what the author of The baptism of Infants a reasonable Service, etc. has advanced in p. 43.

^[4823] Bibliothec. Graec. I. 5. c. 1. f. 12. p. 36.

^[4824] Eccl. Hist. 1. 4. c. 30.

^[4825] Ittigius de Heresiarchis, sect, z. c. 6. p. 133. Vid. Epiphan. Haeres. 56. August. de Hares. c. 35.

^[4826] Corruption of the Father, part I. p. 6.

^[4827] Apud Rivet. Critic. Sacr. 1. I. c. 7. p. 130.

^[4828] Ibid.

^[4829] Apolog. 2. p. 93, 94.

^[4830] Reflections, etc. p. 455.

^[4831] Dialog. cum Trypho p. 316. Ed. Paris.

^[4832] Ib. p. 261.

^[4833] Ib. Apolog. p. 62.

^[4834] Adv. Haeres. 1. 2. c. 39.

^[4835] Juniores qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo, at cavcant ab illis editionibus quas impudenitimus ille monachus Feuardentius, homo projectae audaciae, & nullias fidei, faede in multis corrupit & annotationibus impiis & mendacibus conspurcavit, Rivet. Critic. Sacr. 1. 2. c. 6. p. 188, 189.

^[4836] Nos pisciculi in aqua nascimur. Nec aliter quam in aqua permanendo salvi sumus, Tertullian, de baptismo, c 1.

^[4837] Stromat 1. 4. p. 538. Ed. Paris.

^[4838] Adv. Haeres. 1. 3. c. 19.

^[4839] Ibid. 1. 1. c. 18.

^[4840] Vid. 1. 4. c. 59. and 1. 5. c. 15.

^[4841] 1 Corinthians 11:29, 30.

^[4842] History of Infant-baptim, part I, c. 3. § 6.

^[4843] Paedagog. l.. 3. c. 11. p. 246, 24.7.

^[4844] Tertullian. de baptismo, c. 18.

^[4845] See Dr Gale's Reflections, etc. p. 511. 31.

^[4846] Ex eodem Gagnaeo iterum adjicio, si non tam necesse; nam illud mitigat auctoris opinionem, etc Pamelii. adnot, p. 348.

^[4847] Designatos sanctitati, Tertull. de anima, c. 39.

^[4848] Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani, Apologet. c. 18.

^[4849] Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem qaam dilationem: sides integra lecura est de salute. Ibid. de baptismo, c. 18.

^[4850] Medulla Patrum, part I. I. 6. c. 2. p. 124.

^[4851] Interpolare enim omnia Ruffinus quaecunque suscepit interpretanda—solenne habuit. Huetii Origeniana, 1. 2. p. 116. nam ejus scripta interpretans, ita additamentis & detractionibus vexavit & corrupit ut Origenem in Origene desideres, ibid. 1. 3. c. 1. p. 233. Ruffinus Heraclii impulsu viginti tomos commentariotum Origenis in epistolam ad Romans Latinae linguae donandos suscepit: sed qua side? Sua nempe, hoc est, pessima, Ibid. p. 253. Sed Ruffini tamen persidiam denno recordemur. Ibid. 1. 2. p. 59. vide etiam, p. 35. Memincrit eruditus lector non tam illorum auctorem exislimandum esse Origenem quam Ruffinum, a quo non tam interpretati, quam recusi & interpolati sunt. Ibid. p. 124.

^[4852] Addere aliqua, videor, & explere quae desunt, aut breviare quae longa sunt, Ruffini Peroratio in Ep. act Romans fol. 224. C.

^[4853] Orig. Comment. in Matthew p. 372, 375. Ed. Huet.

^[4854] Παρατηρητεον δε οτι των τεσσαρων οερνκοτων το εν υδατι ομολοψοιν Ιωαννην ελελυθεναι βαχτιζειν, μονοω Ματθαιιοω τουτω προτεθηκε το οισ μετανοιαν διδασκων το απο του βαπτισματοω ωφελειαν εχεοθαι τνω του βαπτιζομενου. &Paulo post το δια του υδατοω λουτρον εμπαριχοντι εαωτον τη θειοτητι χααοισματων θειων αρχη κιπηψη. Origen. Comment. in Joannen p. 124.

^[4855] Comment. in Matthew p. 391, 392.

^[4856] Adv. Pelag. 1. 3. fol. 202; tom. z.

^[4857] Cyprian. ad Fidum. Ep. 59. p. 317.

^[4858] History of Infant, baptism, p. 1. 32. p. 13.

^[4859] Baptismom parvulis fidelium negant dandam Pelagiani. Danaeus de sacramentis ad cl!cem August. de Hares.

^[4860] Abutebantur hoc Apostoli dido, at dicerent infantes fidelium baptizari minime deberi, ut legimus apud Aug. de peccator, merit. & remiss. 1. 2. c. 25. Forbes. Instruct. Histor, Theolog. I. 10. c. 10. p. 5.

^[4861] L. 2. de Peccator. merit. & remiss, c. 25.

^[4862] Sermon on baptizing of Infants, p. 5.

^[4863] Sed dlsputationes quorundam, quae modo crebrescere, & multorum animos evertere moliuntur, Aug. de verb Apostol. Serm. 14.

^[4864] Vid Irenaeum adv. Haeres, 1. 1. c. 18. and I. 4. c. 59. and 1. 5 c. 15.

^[4865] Apud Rivet. Critic. Sacr. 1, 2 c. 12. p. 202.

^[4866] Medulla Patrum, par. 1. 1. 6. c. 2. p. 124.

^[4867] Origeniana. 1. 2. p. 116. 1. 3. c. t. p. 233, 253.

^[4868] Hist. Pelag. par. 1. I. 2. p. 147.

^[4869] Hist. Ecclesiastes vol. 2. p. 132.

^[4870] Tom. 3:tit. 5. c. 53.

^[4871] Mensalla Colloqu. C. 17. p. 254.

^[4872] Hist. par. 2.c.7, t.8.

^[4873] Remarks on the ancient churches of the Albigenses, c. 14. P. 123.

^[4874] Apud Allix's Remarks on the ancient church of Piedmont, c. 16. p. 143.

^[4875] Apud Allix's Remarks on the ancient churches of the Albigenses, c. 14. p. 130. c. 20. p. 189.

^[4876] Remarks on the ancient church of Piedmont, ch.11. p. 91, 100.

^[4877] De peccator, merit. 1. 2. c. 25.

^[4878] Ep. as Laetam. 1. 1. fol. 19.

^[4879] De Libero Arbkio, I. 2. c. 23.

^[4880] Sermon.

^[4881] Remarks on the ancient church of'Piedmont, c. 15. p. 138.

^[4882] History of the Waldenses. p. 8, 9.

^[4883] Apud Allix's Remarks on the ancient churches of the Albigenses, c. 22. p. 202.

^[4884] Ibid. p. 201.

^[4885] Apud Ailix, ibid. p. 202.

^[4886] History of the Albigenses, I. 1. c. 1. p. 1, 2.

^[4887] Ut supra, c. 14. p. 121.

^[4888] Apud Stennett, p. 81, 82.

^[4889] Baxter's answer to Blake, Sect. 39. 64.

^[4890] On Perseverance, p. 416.

^[4891] Vol. II. p. 113. 297.

^[4892] In Misnah Chagigah, c. 2. p. 7.

^[4893] Not. Miscell. 390, 397.

^[4894] De Emend. temp. I. 6. p. 271.

^[4895] Maimon. Maacolot Asurot, c. 17. 1. 3.

^[4896] Ib. Celim, c. 26.14.

^[4897] Misnah Mikvaot, c. 7. S. 7.

^[4898] Ib. S. 6.

^[4899] Misnah Yoma, c. 3. S. 3.

^[4900] Vol. I. p. 2047.

^[4901] Yoma, fol. 41. 1.

^[4902] Misnah Bava Bathra, c. 6. S. 8.

^[4903] The Octavo Edit. he referred to all along.

^[4904] See the divine Right of Infant-baptism examined, etc. p. 56, etc. and the Reply, p. 43.

^[4905] Verse 12.

^[4906] See Reply. p. 44-47.

^[4907] See the Reply, p. 64, 65.

^[4908] See Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 36:26, 27.

^[4909] See the divine Right of Infant-baptism examined, p. 73-78, and the Reply, p. 55-58.

^[4910] See the Reply,, 59, 62.

^[4911] See the Reply, p. 63, 64.

^[4912] Ibid.

^[4913] Liberty of prophesying, p. 320. See the Reply. 20. Argument from apostolic Tradition,, 17. Antipaedobaptism, p. 24-29.

^[4914] Matthew 19:13 and Mark 10:13, of the sense of this text see the Reply.

^[4915] See Reply, p. 11, 12.

^[4916] See the Divine Right of Infant-baptism examined, etc. 8th vol. Edit.

^[4917] De Monarchia, 50:1. p. 818.

^[4918] In voce προσελυτοι.

^[4919] Eccl. Hist. 50:1. c. 7.

^[4920] Apud Frischmuth. Dissert. de 7. Noach. Praecept. s. 20, 21.

^[4921] R. Nathan, Sepher Aruch, R. D. Kimchi, Sepher Shorash. & Elias Levita, Sepher Tishbi in voce גור.

^[4922] T. Bab. Avodah Zarah, fol. 64. 2.

^[4923] Philip. Aquinat. Maaric in voce גור.

^[4924] Maimon. Hilchot Melacim, c. 9. s. 1. &c.

^[4925] Maimon. Hilchot Beth Habechirah, c. 7. s. 14.

^[4926] T. Bab. Eracin, fol. 29. 1. Maimon. Obede Cochabim, c. 10. s. 6. Milah, c. 1. s. 6.

^[4927] Maimon. Melacim, c. 10. s. 12.

^[4928] Isure Biab, c. 14. s. 7.

^[4929] Demonstration of the Messiah, part 2. p. 176.

^[4930] Chinnuch, p. 17.

^[4931] Miclol Yophi in loc.

^[4932] Vid. T. Bab. Avodah Zarah, c. 2. fol. 27. 1. & Edzard. not. in ib. p. 292.

^[4933] Thesaur. Philolog. 50:1. p. 18.

^[4934] Philolog. Hebrews Mixt. Dissert. 21. vid. Carpzov. not. Ad Schickard. Jus Regium, p. 323.

^[4935] Zohar in Exodus fol. 36. 1. & in Numbers fol. 69. 4.

^[4936] R. Levi Ben Gersom, in Exodus 22:21. fol. 95. 2.

^[4937] Maimon. Melacim. c. 1. s. 4.

^[4938] Ibid. Sanhedrin, c. 2. s. 1. 9.

^[4939] T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 96. 2.

^[4940] Juchasin, fol. 17. 2. & 18. 1..54

^[4941] T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 104. 1. & 106. 1. & Sotah, fol. 11. 1.

^[4942] Vid. Vitringam de Synagoga vet. par. 2. 50:3. c. 6. p. 943.

^[4943] As Aristotle, Meor Enayim, c. 22. fol. 91. 2. Izates and Monbaz, the sons of queen Helena, both kings, ibid. c. 51. fol. 161. 2. & c. 52. fol. 164. 2. 166, 167. Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 26. 1. & par. 2. fol. 15. 2. Nebuzaradan, the general of Nebuchadnezzar, T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 96. 2. Antoninus Pius, the Roman emperor, T. Hieros. Megillah, fol. 72. 1. & 74. 1. Ketiah, a prince in Caesar's court, Avodah Zarah, fol. 10. 2. Juchasin, fol. 66. 2. Nero, a general of Caesar's army, from whom sprung R. Meir, T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 56. 1. Juchasin, fol. 41. 1. & 63. 2. Tzemach David, par. 2. fol. 16. 1, 2. Of the circumcision of these the Jews speak, but say nothing of their baptism.

^[4944] R. Nehemiah in T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 24. 2.

^[4945] Heptas Dissertat. par. 2. Diss. 7. de Proselytis, s. 20.

^[4946] T. Bab. Avodah Zarah, fol. 3. 2.

^[4947] Ibid. fol. 34. 1.

^[4948] Zohar in Genesis fol. 33. 1. & 40. 2.

^[4949] Medrash. apud Buxtorf. Lexic. Talmud. Colossians 411.

^[4950] T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 47. 2. & 109. 2. Kiddushin, fol. 70. 2.

^[4951] Niddah, fol. 13. 2.

^[4952] T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 94. 1. Jarchi in Exodus 18:9.

^[4953] Misnah Biccurim, c. 1. s. 5.

^[4954] Yalkut in Ruth, fol. 163. 4.

^[4955] T. Hieros. Horaiot, fol. 48. 2.

^[4956] Vid. Wagenseil. not. in Sotah, p. 754.

^[4957] Pirke Abot, c. 5. s. 22, 23. Vid. Fagium & Leusden. in ibid.

^[4958] Vid. R. David Kimchi, Sepher Shorash. rad. נה y.

^[4959] R. Levi Ben. Gersom, in Leviticus 14:33, 34. fol. 163. 3. Ez Hechayim M. S. apud Wagenseil, not. in Sotah, p. 205.

^[4960] Works, p. 201, 203.

^[4961] Annotat. On Genesis 17:12.

^[4962] Annotat. In Matthew 3:1.. 55

^[4963] Six Queries, p. 191, 195.

^[4964] De Success. ad Leg. Ebr. c. 26. de Jure Natur. et Gent. 50:2. c. 2.

^[4965] De Synedriis, 50:1. c. 2. p. 27, 31.

^[4966] Lightfoot's Works, vol. 1. Harmony and Chronicle of the New Testament, p. 9, 10, 17. Harmony of the Four Evangelists, part 1. p. 465, 466. part 2. p. 526, 527. and part 3. p. 583, 584. Vol. 2. Hor. Hebrews in Matthew 3:6.

^[4967] Sir Richard Ellys, Fortuita Sacra, p. 67.

^[4968] Targum Jon. In Numbers 11:4.

^[4969] Ibid. in Exodus 18:6, 7.

^[4970] Ibid. in Genesis 38:2.

^[4971] T. Bab. Sotah, fol. 10. 1.

^[4972] Ibid. Megillah, fol. 14. 2.

^[4973] Targum in Ruth 1:16.

^[4974] Targum in Esther.

^[4975] Chronicle, p. 18.

^[4976] Targum in 1 Chronicles 4:18.

^[4977] F. Megillah, fol. 23. 1. Sotah, fol. 12. 1.

^[4978] Lexic. in voce חבל col. 686. vid. de Dieu, append. Ad Matthew 23:15.

^[4979] Antiqu. Ebr. c. 1. s. 5.

^[4980] Wolfii Bibliothec. Hebrews p. 598.

^[4981] Zebachim, fol. 16. 1. vid. Shemot Rabba, s. 27. fol. 30. 2, 3.

^[4982] T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 94. 1.

^[4983] T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 76. 1. Avodah Zara. fol. 3. 2.

^[4984] Yalkut Chadasha tit. de David, n. 89. Apud Beckii, not. in Targ. 2 Chronicles 8:11.

^[4985] Issure Biah, c. 13. s. 15.

^[4986] Eric. Phaletran. de ablatione Sceptr. Jude c. 9. p. 431.

^[4987] Misnah, Kiddushin, c. 4. s. 1.

^[4988] πεντας Positionum ex Ling. Hebrews Chald. Syr. At. & Ethiopic Pos. 5..56

^[4989] Hist. Ethiop. 50:3. c. 4.

^[4990] Ibid. 50:3. c. 2.

^[4991] In Append. ad Matthew p. 584.

^[4992] Of the divine Original, &c. of the Scriptures, p. 343. vid. Theologoumen. 50:1. c. 1. p. 4.

^[4993] Lexic. Ethiop. Colossians 414.

^[4994] De Vita Mosis, 50:1. p. 625. De Monarchia, 50:1. p. 818. De Legat. ad Caium, p. 1022.

^[4995] Contra Apion. 50:2. s. 10.

^[4996] Antiqu. 50:13. c. 9. s. 1. So Josippon Ben Gorion, Hist. Hebrews 50:2. c. 9. & 50:4. c. 4. & 50:5. c. 23. & 50:6. c. 13.

^[4997] Antiqu. ib. c. 11. s. 3. so Josippon, ibid. 50:4. c. 9.

^[4998] Antiqu. ibid. 50:20. c. 2. s. 1. 5.

^[4999] Antiqu. c. 3. s. 1. These became proselytes in the times of Claudius Caesar, Ganz Tzemach David, par. 2. fol. 15. 2. & Juchasin, fol. 141. 1. Of king Izates, see Tacit. Annul. 50:12. c. 13, 14.

^[5000] Apud Enseb. Eccl. Hist. 50:1. c. 7.

^[5001] Vid. Maimon. Issure Biah, c. 13. s. 11, 12, & Schulchan Aruch, par. 2. c, 267. s. 9.

^[5002] Reflections on Wall's History of Infant Baptism, p. 327.

^[5003] History, Introduction, p. 49.

^[5004] De Synedriis, 50:1. c. 3.

^[5005] Misn. Cetubot. c. 1. s. 2. 4.

^[5006] Ib. Pesachim, c. 8. s. 8. the same in Misn. Ediot, c. 5. s. 2.

^[5007] Hilchot Korban Pesach, c. 6. s. 7.

^[5008] T. Bab. Pesachim. fol. 92. 1.

^[5009] Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. ut supra.

^[5010] Meor Enayim, c. 45. Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 28. 2.

^[5011] T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 99. 1. Megillah, fol. 3. 1. & Avodah Zarah, fol. 11. 1.

^[5012] Juchasin, fol. 52. 2. T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 56. 2.

^[5013] Avodah Zarah, ut supra..57

^[5014] Shemot Rabba, s. 30. fol. 131. 3.

^[5015] Zohar in Genesis fol. 28. 4. Tzemach David, ut supra, fol. 28. 1.

^[5016] Juchasin, fol. 41. 1. Ganz. fol. 29. 1.

^[5017] Juchasin, fol. 18. 1.

^[5018] Juchasin, fol. 141. 1.

^[5019] Yoma, c. 3. s. 10.

^[5020] Roshashanah, fol. 17. 2.

^[5021] T. Bab. Nedarim, fol. 50. 2. & Gloss in ibid. Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 28. 1.

^[5022] Biblioth. Rab. p. 326.

^[5023] Bereshit Rabba, s. 39. fol. 35. 1.

^[5024] Bemidbar Rabba, s. 8. fol. 190. 4.

^[5025] Bereshit Rabba, s. 46. fol. 41. 3.

^[5026] Shemot Rabba, ut supra.

^[5027] Barnabae Epist. c. 9. Ed. Voss.

^[5028] Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 264.

^[5029] Dialog. ibid. p. 350, 351.

^[5030] Ibid. p. 307.

^[5031] Comment. in Joannem, p. 117.

^[5032] Contr. Haeres. 50:3. Haer. 70.

^[5033] De Mensur. et Ponder.

^[5034] Contr. Haeres. 50:1. Haer. 20.

^[5035] Juchasin, fol. 18. 1.

^[5036] Seder Olam Zuta, p. 111. Ed. Meyer.

^[5037] Comment. in 46:fol. 30. I.

^[5038] Comment. in Esaiam, e. 56. fol. 96. B.

^[5039] History ut supra, p. 47.

^[5040] Ibid. p. 45.

^[5041] Epictet. 50:2. c. 9.

^[5042] "Quem locum frustra quidam adducunt, ut probent Judaeos ritu baptismi uti solitos fuisse, cum apertissime de christianis loquatur.58 philosophus", Oweni Theologoumen. 50:1. c. 9. p. 109. And with Dr. Owen agrees Dr. Jennings; "It is most likely," says he, "that Arrian meant Christians, in the place alledged; 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. 1. c. 3. p. 138.

^[5043] See Gale's Reflections on Wall's History, Letter 10. p. 355-362.

^[5044] Metteh Dan, sive Cosri, par. 2. fol. 18. 1.

^[5045] Vid. Wolfii Praefat. ad Bibliothec. Hebrews p. 28.

^[5046] Fabricii Bibliograph. Antiquar. c. 1. s. 2. p. 3.

^[5047] De Emend. Temp. 50:7. p. 323.

^[5048] Chronolog. Tables, Cent. 19.

^[5049] Praefat. ad Methurgeman, fol. 2.

^[5050] De Sinceritate Hebrews Text. 50:2. Exer. 2. c. 2.

^[5051] Infant Baptism no Institution of Christ, p. 23.

^[5052] T. Hieros. Yebamot, fol. 8. 4.

^[5053] Kiddushin, fol. 64. 4.

^[5054] Ibid. fol. 65. 2.

^[5055] Ibid. fol. 66. 1.

^[5056] Eruvin, fol. 22. 1.

^[5057] History of Infant Baptism, Introduct. p. 44.

^[5058] Vid. Wolfium, ut supra.

^[5059] T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 9. 1.

^[5060] Yebamot, fol. 46. 1, 2. vid. Beracot, fol. 47. 2. Avodah Zarah, fol. 57. 2. & 59. 1.

^[5061] Works, vol. 1. p. 526. vol. 2. p. 117.

^[5062] Halicot Olam, p. 201.

^[5063] T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 54. 1. Megillah, fol. 16. 2. Kiddushin, fol. 39. 1.

^[5064] Pirke Abot, c. 2. s. 8..59

^[5065] T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 71. 1.

^[5066] Chinnuch, p. 17.

^[5067] T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 46. 1, 2.

^[5068] Issure Biah, c. 14. s. 6.

^[5069] T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 78. 1.

^[5070] Ibid. fol. 45. 2. & Gloss in ibid.

^[5071] T. Bab. Yehamot, fol. 46. 2. & Gloss in ibid.

^[5072] Ibid.

^[5073] Ibid.

^[5074] T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 11. 1.

^[5075] Cetubot, fol. 26. 1.

^[5076] T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 9. 1.

^[5077] T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 46. 2.

^[5078] Theologoumen. 50:5. Digress. 1. p. 446.

^[5079] On Hebrews vol. 1. Exercitat. 19. p. 272.

^[5080] Maimon. Hilchot Milah, c. 3. s. 4.

^[5081] Chronicle of the Old Testament, p. 18. Harmony of the Evangelists, p. 465. Hor. Hebrews in Matthew 3:6.

^[5082] Pfeiffer. Antiqu. Ebr. c. 1. s. 5. "et addit; uti et ejusdem collationem; quam inter hunc proselytorum baptismum et sacramentum initiationis christianorum instituit cum magno grano salis accipiendam putamus."

^[5083] Tibullus, 50:2. eleg. 1.

^[5084] Rhenferd. Orat. de Antiqu. Baptism, p. 954. ad Calcem Oper. Philolog.

^[5085] T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 47. 1.

^[5086] Annot. In Matthew 3:6.

^[5087] Chronic. secul. 9. p. 200.

^[5088] Witsii Aegyptiaca, 50:2. c. 16. s. 10. vid. Tertullian. de Praescript. Haer. c. 40.

^[5089] Schickard. & Mayerus, apud Pfeiffer. Antiqu. Ebr. c. 1. s. 5. vid. Selden. de Syned. 50:1. c. 3.

^[5090] Ut Supra & Theologoumen. p. 447..60

^[5091] Praefat. ad Seder Kodashim.

^[5092] Mabo. Hagemara ad Calcem Halicot Olam, p. 223.

^[5093] T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 49. 2. Beracot, fol. 47. 2.

^[5094] T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 9. 1.

^[5095] Jewish Antiqu. vol. 1. p. 136, 138.

^[5096] Zohar in Numbers fol. 69. 4. Ed. Sultzbach.

^[5097] Maimon. lssure Biah, c. 14. s. 11, 12. Schulchan Aruch, par. 2. Yore Dea. Hilchot Gerim, Art. 269. s. 1.

^[5098] "Annon plane innuunt (verba Joan. 1:25) nullum fuisse baptismi usum, et receptam fuisse opinionem inter ipsos (Judaeos), nullum debere esse, usquedum veniret Christus, vel Elias, vel propheta ille?" Knatchbul in 1 Peter 3:21.

^[5099] Introduction to his History, p. 64. Ed. 2. 4to.

^[5100] Antiqu. 50:18. c. 6. s. 2.

^[5101] Eccl. Hist. 50:1. c. 11.

^[5102] Ibid. Hebrews 50:5. c. 45.

^[5103] Vet. Nizzachon, p. 195. Ed. Wagenseil.

^[5104] Vet. Nizzachon, p. 62, 64, 70, 74, 77, 150, 191, &c, vid. Maji Synops. Theolog. Jude loc. 18. s. 2. p. 266. Edzardi not. in Avodah Zarah, c. 2. p. 266. Wagenseil. in Sotah, p. 959.

^[5105] Nizzachon, p. 53.

^[5106] Ibid, p. 74.

^[5107] Nizzachon, p. 192.

^[5108] Ibid. p. 99.

^[5109] Ibid. p. 193.

^[5110] Ibid. p. 242, 243.

^[5111] Ibid. p. 251.

^[5112] Apud Wagenseil. Tela Ignea, vol. 2. p. 25, 26.

^[5113] Oeconom. Foeder. 50:4. c. 16. s. 8. p. 875. Ed. 3.

^[5114] History of the Customs of the Jews, par. 5. c. 2.

^[5115] Hor. Hebrews in Matthew 3:6. vol. 2. p. 122.

^[5116] See Wall's History of Infant Baptism, Introduct. p. 50, 55..61

^[5117] Jewish Antiquities, ut supra, p. 135. Marg.

^[5118] Jewish Antiq. p. 159, 160.

^[5119] Maimon. Melacim. c. 10. s. 9.

^[5120] T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 59. 1. Shaare Orah, fol. 18. 2.

^[5121] See Stennet against Russen, p. 103, 104.

^[5122] T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 47. 2.

^[5123] Hilchot Mikvaot, c. 4. s. 1. T. Bab. Eruvim, fol. 14. 2.

^[5124] Mikvaot, c. 1. s. 2. 7.

^[5125] Hor. Hebrews in Matthew 3:6. vol. 2. p. 119.

^[5126] "Proselytorum baptismum ante Johannem extitisse nullo testimonio certe constat", Fabricii Bibliograph. Antiqu. c. 11. p. 392. ita Deylingius in ibid. p. 386.

^[5127] On Hebrews vol. 1. Exercitat. 19. p. 272.

^[5128] Theologoumen. 50:5. Digress. 1. p. 447.

^[5129] "Omni ideo probabilitate caret sententia ista doctorum quorundam virorum de translatione ritus baptismatis Judaici, qui revera eo tempore nullus erat, in usum discipulorum suorum per Dominum Jesum facienda", Theologoum. ibid.

^[5130] Sperlingius de baptismo veterum Ethnicorum, p. 116, 117, 120, 129, 210.

↑ Back to top