Accordingly, I observe that the Jews speak of "baptizing" their proselytes, just as Christians make mention of "baptizing" their converts. Again, during the act of baptism, the proselyte was instructed, and made to stipulate for himself by the scribes; Selden de Syned. lib. 1, cap. iii, p. 785; that the same circumstances now attend the rite of baptism, as practised among Christians, is well known; and that they have been, from very early times, the accompaniments of that ceremony, is generally allowed; see Macknight and others on I Pet. iii, 21. Again,--when the proselyte was baptized, the rite was frequently administered, not only to himself, but to his family. So also it appears to have been with the early baptism of the Christians: we read, that Lydia was baptized with her household; that Paul baptized "the household of Stephanas;" and that, when the jailer at Philippi became convinced of the truth of Christianity, he and "all his" partook together of the same ceremony; Acts xvi, 15. 33; I Cor. i, 15. Gemara Babyl. Chetub. c. i, fol. 11, &c. Wall, p. xlix. Again, the proselyte, who had entered into covenant by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice, was considered as a new man; or, to adopt the language of the Jews, as "a child new born;" Gemara, Jevamoth, c. iv, fol. 62, 1. Maim. Issure Biah, cap. 14; Wall, p. lvii: and of this new birth, or introduction to a better and purer faith, immersion in water was evidently used as the expressive sign. So it is notorious, that the genuine convert to the faith of Christ is ever represented, in the New Testament, as one regenerate, or born again; and baptism, as employed by John and

4 Even as they circumcise and baptize proselytes, so do they circumcise and baptize servants who are received from Gentiles, &c.; Maim. Issure Biah, cap. 13. "When a proselyte is received, he must be circumcised, and when he is cured, they baptize him in the presence of two wise men," &c.; Talmud Babyl. Mass. Jevamoth, fol. 47.

the apostles, was a type or representation of this regeneration. These points of resemblance between the proselyte baptism of the Jews, and the baptism of the Christians, are so important and so striking, as to render it nearly indisputable that the one baptism was borrowed from the other. Since, therefore, it is altogether incredible that the Jews should borrow one of their leading ceremonies from the Christians, whom they despised and hated, there can be little reasonable doubt that the baptism of John and the Christians was derived from the proselyte baptism of the Jews; and that, of course, the latter was of a date anterior to Christianity.

3. Our Saviour's discourse with Nicodemus is considered (and I think with justice,) to contain an allusion to the baptism of proselytes; for he there describes conversion under the figure of a second birth-a birth of "water and of the Spirit." Here there is a precise accordance with the known Jewish doctrine respecting proselytism; and, after having thus treated of that doctrine, and applied it in a spiritual sense, our Lord adverts to the want of intelligence displayed by Nicodemus on the subject, as to a surprising circumstance; “Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?"

4. Although the baptism of proselytes is nowhere expressly mentioned in the Old Testament, it was the natural, and, indeed, necessary, consequence of the admitted principle of the Jewish law, that unclean persons of every description were to be purified by washing in water, and of the custom, which so generally prevailed amongst the ancient Jews, of effecting this washing by immersion. On whatever occasion the rite of baptism was employed,-whether as a preparation for religious service, or for the removal of uncleanness, or as a type of conversion to a holier faith

-whether it was enjoined on the High Priest, or on the leper, or on the proselyte from heathenism, or on the disciple of John, or on the convert of the apostles,-it was, I believe, in all cases, a rite of purification. Thus we find, that the baptism of John excited a disputation, between him and the Jews, on the subject of purifying; John iii, 25: thus Paul was exhorted by Ananias to be baptized (or, as in the Greek, to baptize himself), and to wash away his sins; Acts xxii, 16: and thus, in apparent allusion (although in a spiritual sense) to the rite of baptism, the same apostle describes his own converts, as washed and sanctified; I Cor. vi, 11; comp. Eph. v, 26; Heb. x, 22, &c. Now, it is certain that, at the Christian era, the Jews considered the Gentiles to be unclean persons, so that they were not permitted to associate with them, or to eat in their company; see Acts x, 28; comp. John iv, 9, &c. Hence, therefore, it must have followed, as a matter of course, that no Gentile could become a Jew-could become clean himself, or fitted for association with a clean people-without undergoing the rite of baptism.

Such are the positive evidences and plain reasons which appear to prove, in a very satisfactory manner, the antiquity of the Jewish rite of baptism on conversion, and which confirm the opinion of Hammond, Selden, Lightfoot, Wall, and other learned writers, that this ceremony was perfectly familiar to the Jews, before the incarnation of our Lord. Accordingly, we may observe that, when John "baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance (or conversion) for the remission of sins," his doctrine was very far from being strange or surprising to his hearers; nor did they evince the least difficulty in submitting themselves to the ordinance. On the contrary, multitudes pressed around him for the purpose: "And there

went out to him," says the evangelist, "all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins;" Mark i, 4, 5.

66

It was the office of the Baptist to proclaim the approach of that heavenly kingdom-that more perfect dispensation-for which the pious among the Jews were so anxiously looking; and the faith, into the profession of which he baptized, was faith in the coming Messiah, the long-expected ruler of restored and renovated Israel. John, verily," said Paul, "baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus;" Acts xix, 4. On the ground of his being either the Christ himself, or Elias the expected forerunner of the Christ, no objection could be taken to his baptism by the Pharisees who came to dispute with him; for, in either of these characters, he would be the authorized minister of a new and purer faith, and, as a matter of course, a baptizer. It was because of the declaration of John, that he was not the Christ-that he was not Elias-that he was not that prophet,-and for that reason exclusively, that the Pharisees addressed the question to him, "Why baptizest thou then?" John i, 25.

And so it was, also, with the disciples of Jesus. As John baptized, on conversion, to a faith in the Messiah to come, so they baptized, on conversion, to a faith that Jesus was the Messiah. Both John and the apostles were engaged in the work of convertingin making disciples to a new system of faith and conduct, to a holier law, and to a more spiritual dispensation, and, therefore, on a well-known Jewish principle, and in conformity with an acknowledged Jewish practice, they respectively baptized their converts in water.

Secondly, with respect to the "Lord's Supper." It may be doubted whether this supper, as it was observed by the primitive Christians, could justly be considered as a direct ceremonial ordinance. But, upon the supposition that the apostles and their companions, like more modern Christians, were accustomed to practise it as a religious rite, and as a part of their system of divine worship, such an institution must be regarded as immediately connected with the Jewish Passover. The lamb eaten at the Passover, and the bread broken, and wine poured forth in the Christian Eucharist, were equally intended as types; and they were types of the same event the death and sacrifice of Christ. The two ceremonies, therefore, may be looked upon as the same in point of principle. But, it is more especially to our present purpose to remark, that the breaking of the bread, and the pouring forth of the wine, together with the blessing and giving of thanks, which distinguish the ceremony of the Eucharist, actually formed a part of the ritual order to which the ancient Jews were accustomed, in celebrating the supper of the Passover. This fact is sufficiently evident, from the narrations contained in the Gospels of our Lord's last paschal meal with his disciples, and is fully substantiated on the authority of the Rabbinical writers, who, in their minute statements respecting the right method of conducting that ceremonial Jewish supper, have explicitly directed the observance of these several particulars; see Extracts from the Talmud and Maimonides, in Lightfoot. Hor. Heb. in Matt. xxvi.

Before we draw a conclusion from the facts now stated, it may be desirable briefly to review the former part of the argument. In explaining that great law of the New Covenant, that God, who is a spirit, must be worshipped in spirit and in truth, I have adverted to the comparison so evidently instituted by Jesus