PÆDOBAPTISM EXAMINED, &c. PART II. CHAPTER IV. Concerning the Modern Grounds of Padobaptism; namely, Jewish Proselyte Baptism-External Covenant-Jewish Circumcision-Particular Passages of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. SECT. 1.-Jewish Proselyte Baptism. MR. T. BRADBURY.-" I know it is said, that the Jews had a method of baptizing among them, and that our Saviour only fixed it with his disciples as he found it with his countrymen;-but the Bible itself will not allow me to think as these men do, whatever their learning is.... Nothing can be more apparent, than that the Jews expected that the person who brought baptism amongst them, must be either the Messiah himself, or one of his fore-runners. This was the question of the priests and Levites who came from Jerusalem to ask John, whether he was the Christ, or Elias, or that prophet. And they that were sent were of the Pharisees, a people diligent to know the law, and zealous to advance it. Therefore they ask him farther, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet?' And John in his answer shows us, that though the Jews mistook in a circumstance, yet they were right in their notion. I knew him not, says he, but that He should be manifest to Israel, 'therefore am I come' baptizing with water....The apostle, in his sermon at Antioch (though he abounded in Jewish learning) seems to say, that they never heard of any baptizing before John, (Acts xiii. 24, 25.) John first preached before Christ the baptism of repentance, to all the people of Israel; and as he fulfilled his course, he said, 'Whom think ye that I am? I am not he'.... From which things I conclude, that the first time that ever the church heard of baptism, was in reference to a person who was actually then among them, and after a few weeks was to be declared and shown forth to Israel....To fetch it from the Jews, and especially from those traditional services. that obtained in their church, is a wild imagination, and no better than seeking the living among the dead. They had divers washings and carnal ordinances, but our baptism was not one of them; for these were only imposed on the people till the time of reformation. And therefore, as they were all to be abolished, we cannot suppose that any of those worldly elements should be transplanted into our religion, to leave any remains of bondage upon the glorious liberty of the sons of God. Peter speaks to those that knew nothing of that ordinance, as if it were a thing entirely new among them: Repent and be baptized every one of you:' and it is said, 'We are baptized into Christ'.... Both these solemnities [baptism and the holy supper] are represented as no more than fragments of Judaism. As if there was any propriety in our Lord's telling the disciples, that 'all power was given to him both in heaven and in earth,' only to recommend a scrap of an old religion; or, as if the apostle had any need to say, he had received that of the Lord, which he received by the tradition of his fathers." Duty and Doct. of Bap. p. 55, 56, 57, 148. Necess. of Contend. for Revealed Relig. p. 50. 2. Lampe." And they asked him and said, Why then baptizest thou if thou be not the Christ?'-They who think the baptism of proselytes was used before the time of John, observe; That the messengers did not move the question concerning baptism itself, as an unusual rite; but concerning the authority with which he was vested to use it among such persons as were born in covenant with God. It is, however, not only doubtful, whether that baptism be of so great antiquity; but even if we should grant that it was then in use, I do not imagine that the Pharisees here had any thought about it....Altingius, Lightfoot, Carpzovius, Edzardus, and Danzius, have diligently handled this subject; but Wernsdorfius and others have examined their arguments, and shown the uncertainty of their hypothesis. Meanwhile, all the difficulties are not so removed, as to render either the one or the other hypothesis entirely eligible. That rite, perhaps, was the invention of the Pharisees, and so not the general practice of the Jews, but peculiar to that sect, who were fond of bathing." Comment. in Evang. secund. Joan. ad cap. i. 25. 3. Venema." Part of John's office consisted in baptizing-an external rite, then in a particular manner appointed of God, and not used before, (John i. Matt. xxii.)" Hist. Eccles. tom. iii. secul. i. §5. 4. Gerhardus, when speaking of John the Baptist and of his ministry, asks; "Who would have embraced that new and hitherto unusual ceremony, baptism, without sufficient previous information?" Loci Theolog. tom. iv. de Bap. 176. 5. Beza."Why then baptizest thou?' Hence it appears the Jews were not ignorant, that there should be some alteration in the rites of religion under the Messiah, which they might easily learn from Jerem. xxxi. John most pertinently answers, professing that he was not the author, but only the administrator of this new rite." Annotat. ad Joan. i. 25, 26. 6. Mr. Selden.-" Maimonides informs us, 'That a proselyte who is circumcised and not baptized, or bap tized and not circumcised, is by no means to be accounted a proselyte, before he be both baptized and circumcised. Nor was baptism lawful, unless performed in the presence of three men. And seeing it is a FoRENSIC act (the three men, who presided in this affair, constituting a kind of court,)-therefore, baptism was not rightly administered, either on the sa bbath, or on a feast day, or by night. In which times, nevertheless, if peradventure it be performed, the person so baptized is a proselyte.' That is, the act was not invalid, though it ought not to have been done. What is added concerning the time, relates to the particular days and hours of the court session. But if fewer than three men were present at the baptism, it was accounted vain, and not esteemed an act of initiation.... It was never repeated, not even on the posterity of those who had been thus baptized." De Jure Nat. et Gent. 1. ii. c. ii. p. 139, 142. Argent. Vid. Leusdeni Philol. Heb. Mixt. dissert. xxi. p. 144; and Dr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. Introduct. p. 50. - 7. Deylingius. "The baptism of proselytes, in our opinion, seems to have been received by the Jews after the time of John the Baptist; they being very much influenced by his authority, and greatly admiring him. Certainly it cannot be proved by any substantial testimony, that it was in use among the Jews before the time of John. There is also a great difference between the baptism of John and that of proselytes, as the latter is described in the monuments of the ancient Hebrews. For the Jewish baptism was a rite of human institution; but John the Baptist introduced his by the command of God, and substituted it in the place of circumcision....The baptism of proselytes was a civil rite, pertaining only to the political court; as Campegius Vitringa shows, in his Archi-Synagogus, p. 400. the baptism of John and of Christ, is peculiar to the Christian church, and is the mean of conferring spiritual But |
