Sroselytes were baptized on their admission to udai.sm, is not in dispute. What is wanted is direct evidence that before John the Baptist made so remarkable a use of the rite, it wa-s the custom to make all proselytes submit to baptism ; and such evidence is not forthcoming.
Nevertheless, the fact is not really doubtful. It is not credible that the baptizing of proselytes was instituted and made essential for their admission to Judaism at a period subseouent to the institution of Christian baptism ; and tiie supposition that it was borrowed from the rite enjoinid hy Christ is monstrous. From the infancy of Christianity the hostility of the synagogue to the Church waa such,
240
EAPTISxM
BAPTISM
tliat the mere fact that baptism was universally known as the lite by which Oeutiles were ailmilted to the Christian comniuuity, would have made it impossible for Jews to accept it as the rite for admittini^ Gentiles to the Jewish comniuuity. A,;;ai7ist a consideration of this kind the silence of Scripture and of Josephus and I'hilo is of little weiiiht ; it Is one more instance of the danger of tlie arj^fiuuent from silence. No {)assage has been pointed out in either Josephus or Philo in which it would have been necessary, or even natural, to mention proselyte baptism ; and the same may be said of Scripture. The subject is not mentioned, because there was no need to mention it. In the MUlina it is stated that the school of Shammai allowed a Gentile who was circumcised on the eve of the Passover to wcish and partake of the paschal lamb, while the school of Hillel did not ; and this points to the wasliing of proselytes as a customary accompaniment of circumcision. But wliat may be regarded as conclusive is, that the baptizing of proselytes would follow of necessity from the regu- lations which retjuired a Jew to bathe in order to recover Levitical puritj (Lv 11-15, Nu 19). Judwtis quotidie larat, quia quotidie inquinatur, says TertuUian (De Bapt. xv. ) ; and again, Onmibus licet membris lavet quotidie Israel, nunquam tamen ■mundus est (De Orat. xiv. ). If the mere possibility of contact with pollution requires such purification, how much more would one who had lived in heathen pollution require a complete purification before be was admitted to full membership in the House oi Israel. Moreover, it should be noted that the authorities quoted above — the Sib-ylline Oracles, Arrian, and tlie Ethiopic VS — all mention baptism as the sign of change, and say nothing about circumcision. The reason for which possibly is, that, after the abolition of the sacrifices, baptism was the only rite which was applicable to both sexes ; and the large majority of proseljtep were women (Kraus, Eric. d. Christ. Alterth. li. p. 823). Every Gentile, whether man or woman, who became a Jew, was purified from heathen pollution by immersion.
About the other hypothesis there is no difficulty. A.ssume that baptism for proselytes was a well- established custom when Jolin began to preach, and we have an obWous reason why John adopted the rite. Not that this was his only reason ; but that, so far as the custom was of any influence, it was a recommendation and not an objection. And the same argument ajiplies to Christian baptism, which becomes more, and not less, intelligible when we consider that it was preceded by baptism for proselytes and the baptism of John.
LlTERATORE. — For the abundant literature on the subject, and for relcrence!^ to the Talni., see Edeislicim, Lif& ami Time^ of tlix Mf.-anah, ii. Ai»p. xii. ; .S'hurer, HJf II. ii. § SI, p. 819; Herzog, BE Hi. p. 250, 1st ed. ; lcs.s full in 2nd ed. p. SOO.
(6) The Baptism of John. — Although there is no doubt that baptism was a Jewish rite of initiation before John began to preach, yet the history of baptism, so far as direct evidence is concerned, begins with Ixim. That he who derived his title from it (6 /SaTrWfui-, Mk G"-'-''; 6 pairriffT-^s, Mt 3', Mk 8^. Lk 1^, Jos. Ant. xvill. v. 2) made use of the rite in preparing Israel for the kingdom of God, is an historical fact beyond dispute. And we need not doubt th.at in using it he was influenced by the lentical purifications enjoined by the Law and by the baptism of proselytes. But his baptism was different from both. It is evident that, if it had not had special characteristics, he would not have received a special name, and his right to administer it would not have been challenged. His baptism differed from the washings prescribed by the Law in these three respects — (1) They were acts of lustration, restoring a man to Iiis normal condition;
his was an act of preparation, leading a man to an entirely new condition. (2) The man levitically unclean baptized himself, like Naaman in the Jordan ; the penitents who came to John were baptized by him. (3) The legal washings merely cleansed from leWtical uncleanness ; his was a symbol and seal of moral purification. The moral preparation required by John is pointed out in the TT7S •'pvx^iS dtKatoavi'Tj TrpoeKKeKddapfjJpTjs of Jos. {Ant. XVIII. v. 2) as plainly as in the ^ivTia im fieraiolas of Scripture (Mk V, Lk 3'). The soirit of repent- ance was assumed with a view to remission of sins.