tional custom, received consecration from him" (John the Baptist).18

In these historical inquiries into the baptism of John, we find several important facts.

Baptism, as a religious ceremony, was in common use among the Jews in the time of John the Baptist. Why introduced among the Jews, and how long before, and by what authority, are questions not pertinent to the unfolding of our one topic. 19 It is enough here to know the fact that baptism was in general practice among the Jews before and during the time of John. It was used as an introductory rite to a new religion. The Jews esteemed the pagan Gentiles as an unclean people; yet they were constantly drawing converts from them. When one came over to Judaism, he received the baptismal cleansing. The act made him a Jew. It initiated him into a new religion. It did not admit him to Church-membership: this was the office of circumcision. When

18 "Falluntur qui ejus natales non ultra Johannis præconium extendunt. Scriptura pariter ac Josephus de hujus baptismo loquuntur, tanquam ritu dudum in ecclesia Judaico recepto."

Jo. Andreæ Danzii Baptismus Proselit. Judaic. Thesaurus Ugolini, Tom. xxii.

19 Judæi baptismos suos quotidianos ab Ægyptiis aut aliis in vicino gentibus hausisse videntur. Spencer. De Legibus Heb.: Lib 1, c.viii. sec. iii.

Antiquos enim lavandi et convivandi ritus, qui cultûs Judaici atque ethnici pars magna fuere, Christus in mysteria sua transtulit, et ad usus non multum dissimiles iis, quibus olim inveniebant, in baptismo et cœna consecravit. Do. Lib. iii., c. ii. sec. iv.

Baptismus Christianorum Ebraicum baptismum, quo tum parentes ipsorum, ut volerunt ipsi, tum proselyti Judaismo initiabantur, haud parum imitibatur; unde nec novus visus est hic ritus cum fide Christiana imbutis adhibebatur.

Selden. De Eutychii Ecclesiæ suæ Origines, § x.

the father of a family received it, the rite was also administered to his children of thirteen years and under. If an adult female became a proselyte, she also received baptism. So was the ordinance both national and common.

When John the Baptist entered on his work as the forerunner of Christ, and as introducing a new religious dispensation, he found this proselyte baptism in common use. His work was to persuade the Jewish populace to receive a higher and holier religion, to proselyte them to another system. This proselyte baptism was precisely the rite he needed to indicate the purification of his converts, and to seal them over to this new religion. This baptism John practised during the years of his ministry; and so successful was he, that it became a national proselytism. There "went out to him Jerusalem and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins."

CHAPTER XII.

THE RABBIES AND TALMUDS AS AUTHORITY.

IT

T appears that baptism was a common sacred rite among the Jews when John the Baptist began his mission in the wilderness of Judæa. The origin of the rite was so ancient among them as to be unknown. The Septuagint shows its existence in the times of Naaman, B.C. 804. When Gentiles were proselyted to Judaism they were baptized, and their children also.

Very few historical facts as old as these stand out so clearly in ancient record. Many corner-stones of empires, and foundations of dynasties, and chronological pivots, conceded and used as the best material of ancient history, have far more of the dust of ages and obscurity on them, than lies on these ecclesiastical facts. Doubts on such data must make the realms of ancient history mythical generally; and, unless one proposes to go into doubting as an historical sceptic, and for the policy of it, we see not how these facts can be set aside.

It may be objected, that we have quoted mainly Rabbies and the Talmuds, and Jewish authors, and that these are not to be trusted. Had the Jewish writer the least motive to falsify the records of his

people and Church on this subject? It cannot be shown that any gain, direct or remote, would accrue to him by so doing. Very like the objector will make the old and commonplace point, that there is much in the Talmuds that is frivolous, absurd, and even bare nonsense. Very true; this is a characteristic of those Jewish writings: but does such a quality in a work disprove its historic verity? May we deny that the man made the speech because very foolish things were said in it? May we say that a sermon could not have been truthful because it was frivolous, or not genuine because it was stupid? May we deny that men have attacked the authority of the Talmuds, because the attacks were so puerile? If nonsense in a book disproves the authenticity and genuineness, what will become of the scholastic and monkish works of the middle ages on theology and philosophy and the sciences? what of many of this age, eighteen hundred years hence?

One fact is a total refutation of the objection that the Talmuds are not to be trusted on questions of history. All ecclesiastical and exegetical writers on the authors and ceremonies and times of the New Testament, make free use of the Talmuds, where there is nothing manifestly untrue in the quotation or reference desired. Those most interested to disprove their authority on points just cited quote them on other points without any historical scepticism. One case will serve, while long chapters of illustrations could be given. In his admirable treatise on The Scriptural Law of Divorce, the Rev. Dr. Hovey, professor of theology in the Baptist Theo

logical Seminary at Newton, quotes the teachings of Hillel and Shammai. Of all the rabbinical teachers who furnished materials for the Jerusalem Talmud, these two men are pre-eminent; and the professor makes this reference to them, through the Talmud, with perfect propriety and safety. We also would like the privilege of quoting the same learned Rabbies and their co-workers in that vast thesaurus of Jewish antiquities.

Of course the Talmuds are to be used, like any other very ancient work, with a critical discretion. We use Josephus in that way, suspecting him where his Roman interests might warp him, and trusting him where known fact does not contradict him. Rawlinson convicts Herodotus of grave errors; but we rely on the great historian, nevertheless, where he is not convicted. In the same way, it is manifestly just to use the Jewish writings of the early Christian period.

We allow the authority of Josephus; yet we remember, when reading him, that he studied the gratification of the Romans quite as much as fidelity to his own people. He sought favor with those who had conquered and devastated his country, and so wrote with a mingled policy and truthfulness. All this we bear in mind; but we trust him where he is in no temptation to prove an unfaithful historian.

The editor of the Mischna lived and performed his work only about half a century later than Josephus ; and there appears to be no good reason for not receiving his writings with the same discrimination and approval. Where the Rabbies have incorporated fa