Your ShelfYour Projects

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55, No. 18

THERE IS BUT ONE BAPTISM

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

April 29, 1880

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · April 29, 1880

THERE IS BUT ONE BAPTISM.

[The following article is sent us by Eld. I. Sanborn. It is taken from a book which a few years ago was very popular as a convincing work on the subject of baptism. The arguments are as good now as then.]
“Now, Miss Theodosia,” said Mr. Percy, “let us begin by examining the witnesses. When we have collected all the testimony, we shall be able to sum up on the case, and you shall bring in the verdict.”
“That is right,” said she with a smile, the first that had illuminated her face since she stood by the water; ‘to the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.’ Here is the record,” handing him a well-worn copy of the New Testament.
“Well, how are we to get at the point about which we are at issue? It is agreed, I believe, that Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, in all ages, to be baptized.”
“Yes, sir; I so understand it.”
“Then it would seem that our question is a very simple one. It is whether you and I, and others who, like us, have been sprinkled in their infancy, have ever been baptized; in other words, Is the sprinkling of infants, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the baptism which is required in this book?”
“That is the question,” she replied. “I merely want to know if I was ever baptized. I was sprinkled in the church. That lady, to-day, was immersed in the river. If she was baptized, I was not. That is the point. There is but one baptism. Which is it, the sprinkling or the dipping?”
“Oh! if that is all, we can soon settle the question. Sprinkling, and pouring, and dipping are all baptism. Baptism is the application of water as a religious ordinance. It does not matter as to the mode of application. It may be done one way or another, so that it is done with the right design. I see from what your difficulty has arisen. You have misapprehended the nature of the word ‘baptize’; you have considered it a specific, rather than a generic term.”
“I don’t know, Mr. Percy, whether I quite comprehend you. My difficulty arose from a conviction that the baptism which we witnessed to-day was just such a one as is described in the Scriptures, where they went down into the water and came up out of the water, whereas my baptism had nothing about it that at all resembled the Scriptural pattern. Please do not try to mystify the subject, but let us see which was the real baptism.”
“I did not design to mystify the subject, but to bring it into a clearer light. The meaning expressed by some words is rather a result than an act. If I say to my servant, Go down to the office, he may run there, or walk there, or ride there, and he obeys me equally, whichever he does; so that he gets there, it is all that I require of him. ‘Go,’ then, is a generic, or general, word including a possible variety of acts. If I say to him, Run down to the office, he does not obey me unless he goes in this specified manner. So we call ‘run’ a specific term. That is very plain, is it not?”
“Certainly, Mr. Percy; I comprehend that.”
“Well, then, I say that ‘baptize’ is a generic term. Jesus Christ said, Baptize all nations. He does not say whether you shall do it by sprinkling, or pouring, or dipping; so that you attain the end proposed, you may do it as you please. If he had said, Sprinkle all nations; that is specific, and his ministers must have sprinkled. If he had said, Pour upon them with water, that is a specific act, and they must all have poured. If he had said, Dip them in water, then they must all have dipped. The word would have required it. But he used the general term ‘baptize,’ which signifies any application of water as a religious ordinance, and, of course, it does not matter as to the mode. You may take your choice.”
“But I should, even in that case,” said she, “feel inclined to choose the same mode that he did, and which the early disciples did. There must have been some reason for his preference. But how do you determine that the word ‘baptize’ is a generic term, as you call it, having three or four different meanings?”
“Simply by reference to the dictionary. Look at Webster; he is good authority, is he not? He defines baptism to be an application of water as a religious ordinance. What more do you want?”
“But, Mr. Percy,” said Edwin, who had been a silent but very attentive listener, “the Baptist preacher told Mr. Anxious the other day that ‘baptize’ and ‘baptism’ were not English words at all, but the Greek words baptizo and baptismos transferred into the English Bible, and not translated. He said that King James would not permit the translators to translate all the words, for fear of disturbing the faith and practice of the Church of England, and so they just kept the Greek word; but if they had translated it at all, it must have read dip, or immerse, instead of baptize.”
“Very well, Edwin; but it is not likely that the Baptist preacher is much wiser than Presbyterian preachers, or Methodist preachers, or Episcopal preachers. If ‘dip’ had been the necessary, or even the common, meaning of the word, it is very improbable that it would have remained for this unlearned and obscure sect to have discovered it. Such statements may do very well to delude their simple followers, but they cannot be expected to impose upon the educated world.”
“But, Mr. Percy, I have looked up the words in my Greek lexicon, and I find it just as he said. Baptizo does mean to immerse. Baptismos does mean immersion.”
“Oh, as to that, I suppose you got hold of a Baptist lexicon.”
“Well, here it is—Donegan’s Greek Lexicon. You can look for yourself.”
Mr. Percy glanced at the words where Edwin had marked it, and ran his eyes along the cognate words—“Baptizo, to immerse repeatedly into a liquid; to submerge; to soak thoroughly; to saturate. Baptisis or baptismos, immersion. Baptisma, an object immersed. Bapto, to dip; to plunge into the water,” etc.
He was astonished. The thought had never occurred to him before, that ‘baptize’ was not an English, but a Greek word; and that he should look into the Greek lexicon rather than Webster’s dictionary, to ascertain its real meaning as it occurred in the New Testament. He turned to the title-page and preface for some evidence that this was a Baptist lexicon, but learned that it was published under the supervision of some of the Faculty of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary at Princeton, N. J.; the very headquarters of orthodox Presbyterianism.
Here was a new phase of the subject. He could only promise to look into this point more particularly the next day; when he said he would procure several different lexicons by different authors, and compare them with each other.
“In the meantime,” said Theodosia, “there is an idea that strikes my mind very forcibly; and that is, that the Saviour himself has fixed, by his own act, the meaning of the word, as he employed it.”
“How so, Miss Theodosia?”
“Just in this way: Suppose we admit that it had a dozen meanings before he used it, and that in other books it has a dozen meanings still, yet it is certain that he was baptized. Now, in his baptism, a certain act was performed; it may have been sprinkling, or pouring, or dipping; but whatever it was, that act was what he commanded. His disciples must so have understood it. He gave (if I may speak so) a divine sanction to that meaning. And when the word was afterward used in reference to this ordinance, it could never have any other. If he was immersed, then the question is decided; baptism is immersion. If he was sprinkled, baptism is sprinkling. If he was poured upon, baptism is pouring. So we need not trouble ourselves about the lexicons, but can get all our information from the Testament itself.”
“There is a great deal of force in that suggestion, Miss Theodosia. But while it is true that we may find all the testimony we need within the record, yet it is important that we get at the real meaning of the record. And as that was written in Greek, I see no reason why we should not seek in the Greek for its true sense. If baptizo means to dip, and baptismos means a dipping, an immersion, we shall be obliged to rest our cause upon some other ground. There must, however, be some mistake about this. I will look into it to-morrow.”
“I do not care what the lexicons say,” rejoined Theodosia; “I want to get my instructions entirely out of the word of God. I don’t wish to go out of the record, as you lawyers say.”
“You are right in that; but how are we to learn the meaning of the record? If any document is brought into court, it is a rule of law, founded on common sense, that the words which it contains are to be understood in their most common, every-day sense, according to the usage of the language in which they are written. Now this document, the New Testament, it seems, was written in Greek, and we are in doubt about the meaning of one of the words. We go to the lexicon, not for any testimony as to the facts of the case, but only to learn the meaning of a very important word used by the witnesses. Matthew and several other witnesses depose that Jesus and others were baptized. If they were present in court, we would ask them what they mean by that word ‘baptize.’ We would require them to describe in other language the act which was performed,—to tell us whether it was a sprinkling, a pouring, or a dipping. But as we cannot bring them personally into court, we must ascertain what they meant in the best way we can, and that is by a careful examination of the words which they used. And we must ascertain their meaning just as we would that of any other Greek author; and that is by reference to the lexicon, or dictionaries, of the Greek language.”
“Very well, Mr. Percy; you look like a judge. But what if you find all the lexicons agree with this? What if they all say that the word means dip, plunge, immerse?”
“Why, we must either admit that those who are said to have been baptized, were plunged, dipped, or deny the correctness of the lexicons.”
“One more question. Are any of these lexicons Baptist books, made for the purpose of teaching Baptist sentiments? If so, they might be doubtful testimony.”
“On the contrary, the lexicons are made by classical scholars, for the sole purpose of aiding students in the acquisition of the Greek language. I do not suppose any one of them was made with any reference to theological questions, and probably no one of them by a person connected with the Baptist denomination. It is certain most of them were not; and if they all agree in regard to this word, it must be conceded that they did not give it a meaning to suit their personal theological views. There are a number of them in the college library, and I will examine them to-morrow, and tell you the result.”
(To be continued.)

COMING!

By Eliza H. Morton

BY ELIZA H. MORTON.
June is coming with its roses, With its breath of balm; Peace is coming with its gladness, With its holy calm. Snows of winter, with their storm-clouds, Soon will all be past; Chilling frosts and wailing wind-gusts Ne'er forever last.
Life is coming with its fullness, Years of endless bloom— Nevermore a shade of sadness, Ne'er a shroud or tomb. Funeral knells will cease their pealing When the trumpet sounds; Death will lose from out his quiver Cruel dart that wounds.
Morn is coming with its sunrise— “Wilderness of gold;” Oh, the loveliness of day-break Tongue hath never told! Gleaming sunshine with its beauty, Summer with its flowers, Soon will make this earth an Eden, Brighten all its bowers.
Love is coming with its sweetness, Tender, pure, and blest, Quelling all the heart's wild throbbings In a long, long rest; Satisfied the soul's vague yearnings, Happiness for aye, Shadows, mists, and clouds of darkness Lost in perfect day.
Christ is coming with his angels, Clothed in splendor bright, Joy is coming with the dawning Of the morning light. Thrilling music will be filling All the balmy air, When the harmony of harpers Soundeth everywhere.
Battle Creek, Mich.
Continue reading: THE SOUL