'

appears from Luke xi. 38. To this may be opposed what the great Scaliger" fays; "the more fuperftitious part of the Jews, not only dipped the feet but the whole body, hence they were called Hemerobaptifts, who every day before they "fat down to food, dipped the body; wherefore the Pharifee, who had invited Jefus to dine with him, wondered he fat down to meat before he had washed "his whole body, Luke xi." and after all, be it which it will, whether the immersion of the whole body, or only of the hands and feet, that is meant in thefe paffages; fince the washing of either was by immersion, as owned, it is sufficient to support the primary sense of the word contended for: and so all other things, after mentioned, according to the tradition of the elders, of which only the text speaks, and not of the law of God, were washed by immersion; particularly brazen veffels; concerning which the tradition is, "fuch as they "ufe for hot things, as cauldrons and kettles, they heat them with hot water, "and scour them, and dip them, and they are fit to be used."

This writer fays, I am ftrangely befides my Text, when I add, that "even "beds, pillows, and bolsters, when they were unclean in a ceremonial fenfe, "were to be washed by immerfion, or dipping them into water;" but I am able to produce chapter and verse for what I affirm, from the traditions of the Jews, which are the only things spoken of in the text, and upon which the proof depends for beds, their canons run thus; "a bed that is wholly de"filed, if a man dips it part by part, it is pured." Again, "if he dips the bed "in it, (a pool of water) though its feet are plunged into the thick clay, (at "the bottom of the pool) it is clean." As for pillows and bolsters, thus they fay; "a pillow or a bolster of skin, when a man lifts up the mouth of them "out of the water, the water which is in them will be drawn; what fhall we "do? he must dip them, and lift them up by their fringes f." Thus, according to the traditions of the elders, our Lord is fpeaking of, these several things mentioned were washed by immerfion; which abundantly confirms the primary fense of the word used.

(4.) The paffage of the Ifraelites through the Red-fea, and under a cloud, is represented as a baptifm, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. and very aptly, as performed by immerfion; fince the waters ftood up on both fides of them, and a cloud covered them; which very fitly represented perfons immersed and covered with water in baptifm: but what our author thinks will spoil this fine fancy, and some others, as he calls them, is, that one observation of Mofes often repeated; that the children of Ifrael went on dry ground through the midst of the fea. To which I reply, that we are not under any neceffity of owning that the cloud under

• Maimon. Maacolot Afurot, 6. 17. 1. 3.

De Emend. temp. 1. 6. p. 271. d Ib. Celim, c. 26. S. 14.

• Mifnah Mikvaot, c. 7. S. 7.

f Ib. S. 6.

which

which the Ifraelites were, let down any rain: it is indeed the fentiment of a Pædobaptift, I have referred to, and therefore am not affected with this obfervation; besides, it should be confidered, that this equally, at leaft, fpoils the fine fancy of the rain from the cloud bearing a much greater refemblance to Sprinkling or affufion, as is afferted by the writer of the dialogue; and our author fays, there was a true and proper ablution with water from the cloud,. in which the Ifraelites were baptized, and concludes that they received baptism by fprinkling or affufion; how then could they walk on dry ground?

(5.) The laft text mentioned is Heb. ix. 10. which speaks of diverse washings or baptisms of the Jews, or different dippings, as it may be rendered without any impropriety, as our author afferts; though not to be understood of different forts of dipping, as he foolishly objects to us; nor of different forts of washing, fome by sprinkling, fome by affufion, others by bathing or dipping, as he would have it; but the Jewish wafhings or baptifms are fo called, because of the different perfons, or things washed or dipped, as Grotius on the place fays; there was one washing of the Priefts, another of the Levites, and another of the Ifraelites, when they had contracted any impurity; and which was done by immersion; nor do any of the inftances this writer has produced difprove it. Not Exod. xxix. 4. thou shalt wash them with water; but whether by immersion or affufion he knows not. The Jews interpret it of immersion; the Targum of Jonathan is, "thou shalt dip them in forty measures of living water:" nor Exod.Xxx. 19. which mentions the washing of the priest's hands and feet at the brazen laver of the tabernacle; the manner of which our author describes from Dr Lightfoot, out of the Rabbins; but had he transcribed the whole, it would have appeared, that not only washing the hands and feet, but bathing of their whole body, were neceflary to the performance of their fervice; for it follows, "and none might enter into the court to do the fervice there, till he hath bathed; yea, "though he were clean, he must bathe his body in cold water before he enter." And to this agrees a canon of theirs ; "no man enters into the court for fervice, though clean, till he has dipped himself; the high-prieft dips himself five "times on the day of atonement." And the Priests and Levites, before they performed any part of the daily fervice, dipped themfelves: nor 2 Chron. iv. 6. which fays, the molten fea in Solomon's temple was for the priests to wash in; where they washed not only their hands and their feet, but their whole bodies, as Dr Lightfoot fays; and for the bathing of which, they went down into the veffel itself; and to which agrees the Jerufalem Talmud', which fays, "the "molten fea was a dipping-place for the priests:" Nor Numb. viii. 6, 7. which, had the paffage been wholly tranfcribed, it would appear, that not only the wa

66

66

terr

Mifnah Yoma, c. 3. S. 3.

Vol. I. p. 2047.

1 Yoma, fol. 41. 16

ter of purifying was fprinkled on the Levites, but their bodies were bathed; for it follows: "and let them fhave all their flesh, and wash their clothes, and fo "make themselves clean;" that is, by bathing their whole bodies, which, as the Targum on the place fays, was done in forty measures of water. Sprinkling the water of purification was a ceremony preparatory to the bathing, but was itself no part of it; and the same is to be observed of the purification by the ashes of an heifer, on the third and feventh days, Numb. xix. 19. which was only preparatory to the great purification by bathing the body, and washing the clothes on the seventh day, which was the closing and finishing part of the service; for that it was the unclean perfon, and not the priest, that was to wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, ver. 19. is clear; fince it is a distinct law, or statute, from that in ver. 21. which enjoins the priest to wash his clothes, but not to bathe himself in water; and indeed, the contrary fenfe is not only abfurd, and interrupts and confounds the fenfe of the words; but, as Dr Gale also observes, it cannot be reasonably imagined that the priest, by barely purifying the unclean, fhould need fo much greater a washing and purification than the unclean himfelf; this fprinkling of the afhes of the heifer, therefore, was not part of the Jewish washings, or baptifms, or any exemplification of them; fo that from the whole, I fee no reason to depart from my conclufion, that "the words bap"tize and baptifm, in all the places mentioned, do from their fignification make "dipping or plunging the neceffary mode of administering the ordinance of bap"tifm."

I proceed now, 6. To vindicate those paffages of fcripture, which neceffarily prove the mode of baptifm by immersion. And,

The first paffage, is in Matthew iii. 6. and were baptized of him in Jordan, confelling their fins. We argue from hence, not merely from these perfons being baptized, to their being dipped; though this is an argument that cannot be anfwered, feeing those that are baptized, are neceffarily dipped; for the word baptize fignifies always to dip, or to wash by dipping, and never to pour or sprinkle; but the argument is ftill more forcible from these perfons being baptized in the river Jordan: for either the perfons faid to be baptized were in the river, or they were not; if they were not in the river, they could not be baptized in it; if they were in it, they went in it in order to be baptized by immersion; fince no other end could be proposed, agreeable to the common sense of mankind: to fay they went into it to have a little water sprinkled or poured on them, which could have been done without it, is ridiculous, and an impofition on common. fense; wherefore this neceffarily proves the mode of baptizing by immersion; fince no other mode is compatible with this circumftance. The inftances of the

BAPTISM. blind man's washing in Siloam, and the lavers of the temple being to wash in, as difproving the neceffity of immerfion, I fay, are impertinent; fince the word baptize is used in neither of them; and besides, there is nothing appears to the contrary, that the blind man dipped himself in Siloam, as Naaman the Syrian did in Jordan; and the things that were washed in the lavers, were dipped there, fince they held a quantity of water fufficient for that purpose. The author of the dialogue afks, "Do not we commonly wash our face and hands in a bason of "water without dipping in it?" But common practice proves the contrary; men commonly dip their hands into a bafon, when they wash either hands or face; the inftance of Elifba pouring water on the hands of Elijah, doth not prove it was common to wash hands by pouring water on them; fince this is not faid to be done to wash his hands with; and fome interpreters have thought that washing of hands is not intended, but fome miracle which followed the action of pouring water, which gave Elifba a character, and by which he is defcribed.

The second paffage, is John iii. 23. John was baptizing in Enon near Salim, becaufe there was much water there. Here is not the leaft hint of John's chufing of this place, and being here, for any other reason, but for baptizing; not for drink for men and cattle, as fuggefted; befides, why did he not fix upon a place where the people could be provided with food for themselves, and provender for their cattle? Why for drink only? This is a wild fancy, a vain conjecture. The reason of the choice is plain, it was for the conveniency of baptizing, and that because there was much water, fuitable to the manner of baptizing used by John; and if this reafon given agrees with no other mode of baptizing, but by immersion, as it does not, fince fprinkling or pouring requires not much water; it follows, that this neceffarily proves the mode of baptifm by immersion.

The third text is Matthew iii. 16. And Jefus, when he was baptized, went up Straightway OUT of the water. The author of the dialogue suggested, that the Greek prepofition aro, always fignifies from, never out of our author is obliged to own, that it may fometimes admit to be rendered out of: a great condefcenfion to the learned tranflators of our Bible! Well, if Jefus came up out of the water, he must have been in it, where it is certain he was baptized; and the evangelift Mark fays, he was baptized into Jordan; not into the banks of Jordan; but into the waters of Jordan; now seeing such an expreffion as this will not fuit with any other mode of baptifm but immersion, and it cannot be faid with any propriety, that Chrift was fprinkled into Jordan, or poured into Jordan, but with great propriety may be faid to be dipped or plunged into Jordan; it follows, that this neceffarily proves the mode of baptifm as administered to our Lord, to be by immersion.

VOL. II.

3 N

The

The fourth paffage, is concerning Philip's baptizing the Eunuch in As viii. 38, 39. they went down both into the water, and be baptized him; and when they were come up out of the water, &c. The dialogue-writer would have it, that this proves no more than that they went down to the water, and came from it: but that this was not the cafe, I have obferved, that previous to this, they are said to come to a certain water, to the water-fide; and therefore after this,. it cannot be understood of any thing elfe, but of their going into it; and fo, confequently, the other phrafe, of their coming out of it. Here our author has got a new fancy in his head; that coming to a certain water is not coming to the water-fide, or to the water itself, but to the fight of it; which fense he does not pretend to confirm by any parallel place, either in facred or profane writings, and is very abfurd, improper and impertinent; fince a person may come to the fight of a water, when he is at a great diftance from it, and cannot be faid with any propriety to be come to it: what he thinks will add strength to this fancy, and destroy the obfervation I made, is, that after this the chariot is ftill going on, and several questions and answers paffed before it was bid to stand still all which is eafily accounted for, fuppofing them to be come to the water itself; fince the road, they were now in, might be by the water-fide, and so they travelled along by it, while the questions and answers paffed, till they came to a proper and convenient place for baptism, at which they alighted; befides, why should the fight of a certain water, or confluence of water, put the Eunuch in mind of baptism, if it was not performed by immerfion, of the mode of which he was doubtless acquainted? It is highly probable, that this treasurer was provided both with wine and water for his journey, which, mixed, was the usual drink of thofe countries; and a bottle of his own water would have done for sprinkling, or pouring, had either of them been the mode of baptifm used; nor would there have been any occafion for going out of the chariot and to the water, and much less into it, which the text is express for; and seeing these circumstances of going down into the water, and coming up out of it, at the administration of baptism, agree with no other mode than that of immersion, not with sprinkling, nor pouring water, it neceffarily proves immersion to be the mode of baptifm.

The laft text is Romans vi. 4. we are buried with him by baptifm into death; where baptism is called a burial, a burial with Christ, and a resemblance of his; which only can be made by immersion: but our author fays, if it is defigned to reprefent it, there is no neceffity it should be a resemblance of it; but how it can reprefent it without a refemblance of it, is not easy to say: he suggests, that though the Lord's fupper represents the death of Chrift, it is no refemblance of it. Strange! that the breaking of the bread fhould not be a refemblance of the

body