LETTER X.

ARRIAN, from whom Mr. Wall next argues, too late to determine the matter-He may perhaps only speak of the purifications for pollutions-The Pagans frequently confounded the Jews and Christians together, as appears from Themistius; from Arrian himself; from Lucian; from Tacitus; from Suetonius -And Rigaltius understands Arrian's words so too-As do also Petavius, Lipsius, and Barthius-Mr. Wall's argument from Gregory Nazianzen, examined-This Father lived too late to determine our dispute; and does not speak of an initiatory baptism-The Scripture makes no mention of any initiatory baptism in use among the Jews-Exod. xix. 10. makes nothing to the purpose-Maimonides, his rule of interpretation false-The rabbins very bad interpreters—Sanctify does not necessarily imply washing-Nothing in the words which so much as intimates the body was to be washedThere is no mention of an initiatory baptism in any authentic ancient history; even though they had the fairest occasions, and ought not to have omitted it, if there had been any such usage-This illustrated by some instances from Josephus and Ganz-It is on many accounts very improbable that the Jews had any such ceremony-Proved from St. Paul's words; from Gregory Nazianzen; from St. Peter-Several authors of reputation, and especially the ancients, do in effect deny they knew of any initiatory baptism among the Jews-Thus St. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem-Many writers say our baptism came instead (not of baptism among the Jews, but) of sacrifices; as the recognitions-Or of the washings for pollutions, as the Apostolical Constitutions pretend-And Mr. Hill speaks to this purpose -Others more commonly say, it succeeds in the place of circumcision-The conclusion from these observations-Though the Jews could be proved to have baptized their proselytes, this does no service to that cause of pædobaptism.-For, 1. It does not appear that infants were so admitted.-2. If the Jews had such a baptism as is pretended, it is no rule to Christians; otherwise the Socinians, &c., have a good handle to lay aside the use of baptism-And there is no manner of

analogy between the pretended Jewish, and the Christian pædobaptism-3. We need only go back to the baptism of St. John; which there is more reason to think was the pattern of Christ's, than a Jewish ceremony-St. John, Christ, and his apostles, baptized no infants-A passage of Josephus to this purpose-Another from Origen-Another of St. Paul-4. At best this supposed baptism of the Jews is only a traditionary ceremony from the rabbins-Their quoting texts for it no proof of its divine institution-The rabbins do not pretend to find an initiatory baptism in the Scriptures; but confess it is only a tradition of their elders-This proved from the words of the Talmud-Which are explained by some rules of Maimonides-Exod. xix. 10. cited only by way of accommodation-It is therefore great presumption to draw a rabbinical tradition into a precedent for the Christian church-These things applied to the present dispute-The Conclusion.

SIR,

HAVING shewn that the citations from the Jewish writers prove nothing at all, and do our adversaries no service; I proceed now to Mr. Wall's other arguments, which are brought to prove, that the Jews before, and at our Saviour's time, were wont to initiate proselytes and their children by baptism.

He insists upon some words of Arrian, the philosopher of Nicomedia.

1. But first, this philosopher lived not till about one hundred and fifty years after Christa, and therefore at best will not prove that custom to have been more ancient; for he only speaks of his own time, without any reference to the past.

2. Or secondly, he may, for what appears to the contrary, allude not to any initiatory washing, but

a Euseb. Chron. p. 213.

to the frequent purifications for legal pollutions; and the hemerobaptista, or, as Justin Martyrb calls them, the ẞaTTIσтal, have their denomination from this, and from their teaching, says the Renunciation cited by Cotelerius, That no man could be saved 'unless he was washed daily;' and not because they were daily initiated. And Eusebiusd tells us, from Hegesippus, that one sect of the Jews, who were very zealous for these washings, were called peculiarly by his name. It may seem more probable too that Arrian alludes to this sect, and these washings; if we call to mind that rule of the Talmud mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot, if I remember well, That a woman baptized or washed, though for uncleanness only, does nevertheless thereby be'come a complete proselytess or Jewesse? The Talmud itself therefore determines, that washing for uncleanness does constitute a complete Jew; which is the utmost that Arrian says, and therefore it is not necessary to understand him of any other washing. But,

3. It was common for the Pagan writers to confound the Jews and Christians together; for Christ himself and his apostles being Jews by birth, and sent primarily to preach to that people, and the first churches consisting of Jews for the most part, the heathen, who were not well enough acquainted with these things, might easily suppose the Christians were only a sect of the Jews, that made a separation from

b Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 307. [sect. So. edit. Benedict.] e Codic. Regio 1818. ad Recognit. Clement. p. 499. b. Mǹ δύνασθαι ἄνθρωπον σωθῆναι, ἐὰν μὴ καθ ̓ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν βαπτίζεται. d Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 22.

e Jebamoth. fol. 45. b.

their ancient governors upon account of some particular opinions among themselves. Festus plainly takes it so when he tells king Agrippa, that Paul's accusers had only certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive, Acts xxv. 19. And elsewhere in the Scriptures the apostles are often spoken of as Jews; nay, sometimes the Christians are argued to be Jews, in the best and truest sense; He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, &c., but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, Rom. ii. 28. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, &c. Gal. iii. 29.

6

This is apparent also from many passages in the Greek and Latin authors. Themistius, citing some words from the Old Testament, calls it, the Law of 'the Assyrians; and in several other places he gives it the same name . And somewhere, as Petavius notesh, he calls it Syrian, which will be construed nothing less than calling the Jews, Assyrians and Syrians, from the country they dwelt in; and yet, at another time, by Syrians, he means the Christians, namely, in his Oration to the Emperor Jovian, where he extols the emperor's generosity and justice in permitting every one to follow what religion he thought best. For,' says he, the Syrians per'form divine worship in one manner, the Greeks in another, and the Egyptians in a way different from both: nay, and the Syrians themselves do not agree in all things; no one believes exactly as his neighbour, but this believes one thing, and that

6

6

6

' another,' &c. Here he manifestly has his eye upon the quarrels and disputes which then disturbed the Church of Christ, and made too great a noise not to be observed by the enemies of our holy profession; especially by so great a man as Themistius, who artfully improves this opportunity to insinuate how very uncertain the Christians were in their belief, thereby to possess the emperor with an ill opinion of them, to whom he was known to be very much inclined.

6

Thus Themistius, then, by the same word Syrians, means both Jews and Christians, whom he does not sufficiently distinguish from one another: for the Christians as well as the Jews appeared first in Syria, and about those parts of Asia, which were generally counted the chief nursery of that religion: and therefore Lucian says, 'From the several cities in Asia, came some who were sent from the public body of the Christiansk,' &c. And it is very probable this may be one occasion of their confounding Christians and Jews together: therefore Le Prieur says, Every body knows that the church was at first gathered at Jerusalem, and consisted of Jews; and from hence it is that in profane writers you hardly find any dif'ference made between Jews and Christians'?'

6

Galilee, the Upper and the Lower, was mostly inhabited by Jews, at least one part of it entirely, together with a large portion of the other called Galilee of the Gentiles, Matt. iv. 15, of which Strabo is understood to say, That it was inhabited by a

i Page 282. "Αλλως Σύρους ἐθέλει πολιτεύεσθαι, ἄλλως Ελλήνας, ἄλλως Αἰγυπτίους· καὶ οὐδ ̓ αὐτοὺς Σύρους ὁμοίως, ἀλλ ̓ ἤδη κατακερμάτ τισται εἰς μικρά· εἰς γὰρ οὐδεὶς τῷ πέλας τὰ αὐτὰ ὑπείληφεν ἀκριβῶς, ἀλλ ̓ ὁ μὲν, τοδὶ, ὁ δὲ, τοδί. [Orat. xii. prope f.]

k De Morte Peregrin. p. 567.

1 In Tertullian.