« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
Waters of Palestine. MR. Sawyer says, p. 11, “During a large part of the year, and in many parts of the country, water is extremely scarce," so that immersion could not be performed. Deut. viii. 7: "For the Lord thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths, that spring out of the valleys and hills." Palestine is about 200 miles long and 80 wide ; bounded on the west by the Mediterranean sea. The springs of Jordan lie west of the city of Dan, in' the north of Palestine. The lake Phila is 12 miles south of Dan; 15 miles further south is lake Samechon, 7 miles long and 4 wide : 28 miles further soutla is the sea of Galilee, 13 miles long and 5 wide; and still further south is the Dead Sea, 76 miles long and 18 wide, (Josephus' War, Book 4, chap. 8, sec, 4,) or 24 miles long and 7 wide, (Brown's Bible Dictionary.)
The Rivers of Palestine are the Jordan, 160 miles long, 30 yards wide, and so deep that a miracle was , wrought to let the Jews cross it; Joshua iii. 14–16:
2 Kings ii. 14; the river Kishon Judges iv. 7--13; the river Aaron, Deut. iii. 16; the river Gad, 2 Sam. xxiv. 5; the river Jabock, Joshua xii. 2. The BROOKS Cherith, 1 Kings, xvii. 3; Eschol, Numb. xiii. 23, 24; Jeruel, 2 Chron. xx. 16: Besor, 1 Sam. xxx. 10, Kidron, 2 Sam. xv. 23: John xviii. · 1; Gaash, 2 Sam. xxiii. 30; Kishon, 1 Kings xviji. 40. “And in a country so abounding with hills." as Canaan, it is probable that valleys and brooke were seldom separate.” (Brown's Bible Dictionary.) There were also many Pools, as the Pool of Samaria, 1 Kings xxii. 38; the Upper Pool, 2 Kings xviii. 17 : the King's Pool, Neh. ii. 14; the Lower Pool, Isa. XXV. 9, the Old Pool, Isa. xxii. 11; the Pool of Bethesda,
vs cross.on Judges
John v. 2, which Maundrell says is 120 paces long and 40 wide; and the Pool of Siloam, John ix. 7-11, nearly the size of Bethesda. “Besides all these public conveniences for immersion, there were many mikwaoth or collections of water in the form of bathinghouses, for the purification of unclean persons and vessels, required by the law of Moses, (See Levit. xv. 16: Numb. xix. 7, 8, which was always by iminersion.”—J. S. C. F. Frey, a Jewish Rabbi, Essay om Bapt. p. 109.
“ The Spring (Siloe) issues from a rock, and the pool, or rather two pools of the same name, (Siloam) are quite close to the spring; here you find a village called Siloam. At the foot of this village is another fountain, denominated in Scripture, Rogel; opposite to this is a third which receives its name from the blessed Virgin- -we have nothing left of the primitive architecture of the Jews at Jerusalem, except the pool of Bethesda. This is still to be seen near St. Stephen's Gate, and it bounded the Temple on the north."--Chateaubriand's travels, p. 311, 31% -353.
Dr. Gill has conclusively proved that there were twelve large reservoirs for immersing, within the
Temple. These, together with the pool of Bethesda, adjoining the Temple, and other waters above named, not only served for the baptizing of converts on the day of Pentecost, A. D. 33, but were absolutely necessary for the multitude of Jews assembled (Acts ii. 5-11) to bathe in, according to the law of Moses; (Lev. xvi. 4: xvii. 14–16: xxii. 6: Deut. xxiii. 11;) which bathings Mr. Sawyer assures us, p. 1,“ were of daily occurrence among the Jews, in every period of their national existence.” Hence he who pleads that Jerusalem and the surrounding country was so destitute of wa ter that immersion could not be performed, must be ignorant of Bible and geography; for both represent
Palestine bountifully furnished with conveniences for immersion, and it is certain that the Apostles and John used them; for we find them baptizing in Jordan, and at Eanon, because there was sdata noa, much water there. And we have no evidence that the water was brought to the candidate in a bowl or basin; but the candidate went to, and into the water, as the Baptists do now. Matt. iii. 16: John iii. 23: Mark i. 10: Acts viii. 36--39.
SECTION I V.
Of Sprinkling and its Origin. The word Pavrica from Parvw, is translated sprinkle. Therefore if this were the action of baptism, we should have it in plain English, Matt. xxviii. 19, “ Go teach all nations, sprinkling them, &c;" but the word sprinkle, is in no instance connected with baptizing, nor is the sprinkling of water without putting ashes, blood, or some other substance in it, found in the Bible. Blood, Lev. vii. 2: xiv. 7–51: xvi. 14: Heb. ix. 13 -19: xi. 28 : xii. 24: 1 Peter i. 2. Ashes, Ex. ix. 8–10. Ashes and water mixed, Num. xix. 13–18, 19, 20, 21. Oil, Lev. xiv. 16-27. Dust, Job ii. 12. Not named, Isa. lii. 15: Heb. x. 22. Water, (Spirit of God,) Ez. xxxvi. 25. The Spirit and its graces are represented by water at Isa. lv. 1: John iv. 14 : vii. 37, 39 : Rev. xxii. 17. The first appearance of pouring for baptism, was in the eighth century, when baptism was considered necessary to salvation by all the Roman Catholics. As there were frequent cases of unbaptized clinics, (sick persons,) who were much distressed, lest dying unbaptized they should be lost, the monks invented pouring water on them. A. D. 753, Pope Stephen III. was driven from Rome
by Astulphus, king of the Lombards, and put himself under the protection of Pepin, king of France. During Stephen's residence in the monastery of St. Dennis, some monks of Cressy, in Brittany, proposed to him 19 questions, one of which was, “ If pouring water on. the head of the sick and dying would be baptism ?" To which he replied, that “In such cases of necessity, pouring should be baptism." From this decision arose the private baptism of the sick by pouring, but immersion, trine or single, was still universally administered to the healthy. But it soon became a question what degree of sickness should prevent immersion; and as many infants died soon after they were born, and some even before, the doctrine of baptismal salvation drove the priests and monks among the midwives, and introduced indecencies which I forbear to mention. The want of water at hand, and the want of suitable tubs to dip in, together with other eircumstances not necessary to name, led the priests to plead for pouring instead of dipping ; but this doctrine of Rantizing was so repugnant to the feelings of the Catholics themselves, that they never obtained a public act in favor of it, till A. D. 1311, when the council of Ravena, (in Italy,) by the Pope's authority, declared dipping or sprinkling, indifferent. While the Catholics had the control of England, they uniformly im mersed; and the Episcopal Rubric which was estab. lished by law in Elizabeth's reign, reads, " Then the priest shall take the child into his hands and shall say unto the Godfather and Godmother, name this child And naming it after them, if they certify that the child may well endure it, he shall dip it in the wa. ter, discreetly and warily, saying, N., I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, amen. But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it.-British Rubric, under baptism.
During the bloody persecution of Mary, Queen of England, A. D. 1554-8, many English and Scotch Protestants fled to Gerniany for refuge, and there formed a society. In A. D. 1556, Calvin published a book for the benefit of these Protestants, entitled, “The form of prayers, and administration of the Sacraments, approved by the famous and Godly learned man, John Calvin.". The form of baptism prescribed by this was, “ The priest shall take the water in his hand and lay it on the child's forehead, saying, I baptize thee, &c."
John Knox with other refugees, returued to Scotland, A. D. 1559, and brought with them Calvin's book and new doctrine of sprinkling, and it was established by law with the rest of their creed, A. D. 1560 ; and from Scotland it spread into England and America. But still the law of the church of England enjoined dipping, and in the Presbyterian assembly of 49 Divines, convened at Westminster, (near London, A. D). 1643, the subject was keenly debated for several days, and finally decided by a vote of twenty-five for sprinkling, and twenty-four for immersion. And even this small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly."--Dr. Brewster's Ed. En. Art. Bapi.
“The custom of sprinkling children instead of dipping them in the fount, which at first was allowed onJy in case of weakness or sickness of the infant, has so far prevailed, that immersion is at length quite excluded. What principally tended to confirm the practice of effusion or sprinkling, was that several of our Protestant Divines, flying into Germany and Switzerland during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and returning home when Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal for the Protestant churches beyond the sea, where they had been received and sheltered; and having observed that at Geneva and some