Earlier text: God's MemorialArmstrong's Deceptive Argument.
By Editor
FOR reasons which all our readers will understand we republish that part of our article on the Anti-Sabbath book of Rev. Wm. Armstrong, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which relates directly to his professed exposition of Ex. 16. If there is a Methodist in the land who thinks that it makes no difference whether such statements as Mr. Armstrong made concerning the Scriptures are true or false, we fear he has fallen from grace indeed. Certainly there must exist a great lack of reverence for the sacred word, where such perversions are tolerated:— But it is not our purpose to review the pamphlet; to do so is hardly necessary. There are thousands of readers of this paper who can take the word of God—"the Bible alone"—and refute its main positions. Our object in noticing it is to expose one of its gross errors—one which will not be obvious to the mass of its readers. On pp. 59-61 is found the following language, being a comment on the 16th chapter of Exodus:— "My reasoning on this passage becomes almost demonstration by the fact that nowhere in this chapter does Moses call the seventh day the Sabbath, but a Sabbath, showing that the day was observed for the first time as a Sabbath. Gesenius, in section 107 of his Hebrew grammar, says: 'The article is employed with a noun to limit its application in nearly the same cases as in Greek and German, viz., when a definite object, one previously mentioned or already known, or the only one of its kind, is the subject of discussion.' In verses 23 and 29 the translators give us 'the Sabbath;' but the article the is not in the original, and the rendering should have been, as it is in verse 25, 'a Sabbath.'" "According to the above rule in the Hebrew grammar, the absence of the article 'the' would indicate that this Sabbath-day was a day not already known. Let us read the passages as Moses gave them:—'Tomorrow is the rest of a holy Sabbath unto the Lord' (verse 23); 'Eat that to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord; to-day ye shall not find it in the field' (verse 25); See for that the Lord hath given you a Sabbath, therefore he giveth the bread of two days' (verse 29). No commentary is needed on this; the language is plainly indicative of the newness of the day. Why call it a Sabbath if this day had been well known as the Sabbath? In the fourth commandment (Exodus 20: 8, 10), after this day was established and known, it is called 'the Sabbath,' but in Exodus 16, when a new cycle and a new day were given, it is 'a Sabbath.'"223 It is difficult to determine just how to characterize the statements in the above quotation. We desire to be fair, as we can well afford to be, because we have the truth. We desire, also, to exercise due charity, and to deal with all, of every denomination, with becoming courtesy. We are determined that no one shall have just cause to complain of us. But under the circumstances we must confess to being puzzled to know how to speak of the work of these authors and publishers and appear to be courteous to them, and yet be just to the cause of the truth of God. But the honor of God's truth demands that we speak plainly and sacrifice personal considerations in its behalf. We say then that, 1. The only truth contained in the above quotation is the statement that the definite article is wanting in the original in certain texts named. 2. The article is not omitted in the Hebrew of Ex. 16: 29, though the writer repeatedly says it is. His statement is not the truth. 3. Gesenius, in both his Grammar and Lexicon, gives other rules besides that noticed by Mr. Armstrong, to determine whether a noun in the Hebrew is definite or indefinite. That is to say, that the presence or absence of the definite article is not the solé or sufficient evidence as to whether a noun is definite or indefinite. In this, all Hebrew grammarians are agreed. 4. There are two methods of determining whether or not a Hebrew substantive is definite. 1. By the presence of the article. 2. By "construction." A noun may be determined to be definite as certainly and as easily in the absence of the article as in its presence, if the construction demands it. The article is then understood. 5. The word "Sabbath" in Ex. 16, and in the decalogue, Ex. 20, is definite in every instance of its occurrence. It is made definite in ch. 16:29 and 20:8, 11, by the use of the article; it is equally definite in ch. 16:23, 25, and 20:10, by construction, in the absence of the article. 6. Mr. Armstrong says the absence of the article in Ex. 16, proves that it is "a new cycle and a new day." And to make this appear to be true, he quotes verse 29 thus: "See, for that the Lord hath given you a Sabbath," and affirms in positive terms that this is the way in which Moses wrote it. But in a copy of the record given by Moses in his own tongue (in Hebrew), now lying before us, it plainly reads: "See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath." Mr. A. resorted to a mere cavil to make it appear that he had the argument on this chapter; and to keep the appearance he seemed willing to hazard a false statement on verse 29. 7. To further sustain his assumption he says: "In the fourth commandment (Ex. 20:8, 10), after this day was established and made known, it is called the Sabbath." To show the falsity of his conclusion, it is only necessary to say that the article is not used in Ex. 20:10, in the Hebrew, but it is in verses 8 and 11. Can the reader be made to believe that Mr. Armstrong's theory holds good,—that it was a new and unknown day in Ex. 16:22, 25, and a day well known in verse 29 of the same chapter, referring to the same day, and the same time and event? or that it was an unknown day in Ex. 20:10, but well known in verses 8 and 11 on either side of it? His reasoning, and that which he calls reasoning, is a mere puerility. The truth in this case is this: The construction of the language does not require the article in Ex. 16:23, 25, and ch. 20:10, the word "Sabbath" being definite without it. But the construction of ch. 16:29, and 20:8, 11, is different, and the article is inserted accordingly. 8. He who conceals the truth is often as guilty as he who tells an untruth: In the above quotation the truth is told in part, and it is evidently the intention of the writer to have the reader understand that all the truth on the subject has been told, and that his argument is as correct as a demonstration. 9. Had Mr. Armstrong told the truth and the whole truth in three particulars, namely, (1) That the article is inserted in the Hebrew of Ex. 16:29; (2) That it is not inserted in ch. 20:10; and (3) That Hebrew grammarians give other rules for determining that a noun is definite besides that concerning the use of the article, he would not have had the shadow of an argument on Ex. 16. We are compelled to believe that he willingly took the risk of his erroneous statements, because it was certain that the mass of his readers could not determine for themselves that they were erroneous. The last General Conference of the Methodists required that all their preachers shall conform to the standards of that church. We are not quite certain to what this requirement will apply, but we are certain that it will be a long day before Mr. Armstrong, or even "Rev. D. W. C. Huntington, D. D.," will compare with Dr. Adam Clarke in scholarly attainments or accuracy of criticism. On the same scripture and the same subject Doctor Clarke says:— "There is nothing either in the text or context that seems to intimate that the Sabbath was now first given to the Israelites as some have supposed; on the contrary, it is here spoken of as being perfectly well known, its having been generally observed. The commandment, it is true, may be considered as being now renewed; because they might have supposed that in their unsettled state in the wilderness they might have been exempted from the observance of it. Thus we find, 1st. That when God finished his creation he instituted the Sabbath; 2d. When he brought the people out of Egypt, he insisted on the strict observance of it; 3d. When he gave the law, he made it a tenth part of the whole; such importance has this institution in the eyes of the Supreme Being!" This testimony of Doctor Clarke is as truthful as it is explicit. He refers the Sabbath of Ex. 16 to the same day to which Gen. 2:3 refers; and he says there is nothing in the text or context to indicate that reference was made to anything which was then new. The reading of the decalogue, Ex. 20, plainly proves that the Sabbath or rest-day of the creation week is referred to therein, and not a new day first made known in Arabia. "The whole narrative implies that reference was made to an institution before known, but not properly remembered or regarded; and not to any new law given on the occasion. Neither the inquiry of the elders, nor the language of Moses, can be consistently interpreted of an entirely new institution." If this were merely a question of criticism, we should claim it against Messrs. Armstrong and Huntington, and in favor of Doctors Clarke and Scott. But it rests on weightier grounds than that. It is a question of plain facts, with the evidence all against our modern critics, who must be either ignorant of the Hebrew, or reckless in their methods of gaining a short-lived victory. We have not gone fully into the evidence to prove our position in criticising theirs, but stand ready to defend all that we have said if occasion requires. The Methodist denomination is large and influential, and has much talent and learning at its command. If we are wrong it can easily be shown. But if we are correct; if the error is on their part, then we call upon the Methodists to prove their integrity by taking Mr. Armstrong's book out of the market, and not be a party to the work of deception of which the authors of that book must stand convicted. We write with no unkind feelings. We respect the Methodist denomination, and only ask them to do themselves justice in this case, for it is important. It is no slight matter to misrepresent the word of God, and to subvert one of his commandments; for all can see that, if Mr. Armstrong's position holds good, the fourth commandment is obsolete, for it then refers to a local and national institution, with which we can have nothing to do. In that case there is no Sabbath law for this dispensation. Our neighbors cannot afford to stand responsible for such a doctrine as this. Other points in Mr. Armstrong's book are as weak and erroneous as the one we have reviewed. But we pass them by, at least for the present, as every reader can discover their unsoundness. We have selected to notice that which was hidden under the guise of Hebrew criticism, and which was therefore, the most liable to deceive the general reader. THIS passage records the vision of a roll which went forth over all the city. This roll was of immense size, being twenty cubits, or about thirty-five feet in length, and ten cubits, or about seventeen and a half feet in breadth. The angel said that this roll represented the curse which goes forth over the face of all the earth against all who steal and against all who swear falsely. Verse 3. It must therefore be the curse of the law of God which is pronounced against all iniquity. Deut. 27:15–26; Gal. 3:10, 13. It originated when God pronounced his curse upon Adam and upon the earth, and it will remain upon the earth and upon sinners till it has utterly consumed them by the fire of the last day, after which there will be no more curse. Isa. 24:6; Rev. 22:3. Only two kinds of sin are specified by the angel, theft and perjury, but these are taken as examples of all the things which the law of God condemns. Thus theft is forbidden in the second table of the law by the eighth commandment (Ex. 20:15), and swearing falsely by the name of God is forbidden by both tables, that is by the third commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” and by the ninth commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Ex. 20:7, 16. On one side of the roll the curse related to the sins against the first table of the law of God, perjury being taken as an example. On the other side of the roll the curse related to the transgressions of the second table, theft being specified as an example. Verse 3. The immense size of this roll was for the purpose, no doubt, that the acts of transgression against each table of the law might be written each under the commandment which it transgresses. Thus idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, and covetousness, must also be included with theft and perjury in this terrible curse which goes forth over the face of all the earth, to enter into the house of every transgressor, and to abide there till it utterly consumes that house. Verse 4. St. Paul speaks of self-righteousness as the most prominent of the sins upon which the curse of the law of God reposes, for it is the transgression of the whole law. He says: “As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.” Gal. 3:10. The law of God does not curse obedience but disobedience. But every act of the self-righteous man is an act of disobedience, for the law demands love in every commandment and the Pharisee gives it in not one case. Rom. 13:8–10; Luke 11:42. The Christian is redeemed from the curse of the law, that is from its just condemnation, by the blood of Christ, so that he need not be consumed by that curse at the last day. Gal. 3:13. For Christ took the curse upon himself, though innocent, that he might die in the place of the guilty. 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18. But no one can share in this redemption except upon condition of repentance, faith, conversion, and the solemn promise to refrain by the grace of God from future transgression. Acts 2:38; 3:19. The law of God is written in the heart of the redeemed, and the law of sin is removed But the angel of God said that this roll, the curse of God, should enter into the house of the sinner, and should remain there till it utterly consumes it. Zech. 5:4. No sinner can escape this terrible visitor except by repentance. The death of Christ did not destroy this curse; it only made the escape of the sinner possible. Every house where men live in sin has a copy of this great roll lodged within it, and day by day the recording angel writes upon it the sins committed in that house. If the inmates could see this roll as it enters their dwelling they would be alarmed. Still more would they be alarmed if they could see that this roll had taken up its permanent abode in their house, and that the angel of God was standing by it and writing upon it the sins which they were each day committing. Yet it is absolutely true that every house where the inmates transgress the law of God, has a copy of this roll as a permanent dweller. Not an act of injustice, of fraud, of blasphemy, of impurity, of covetousness, o cruelty, or of falsehood, will fail to be placed upon this roll and to receive at the last day its terrible malediction in the case of all who do not repent. This roll is at present invisible to human eyes, but it is none the less real on that account. At the day of Judgment, when the books are opened, the curse of the law of God will be found a terrible reality, as Christ shall pronounce these words to those on the left hand: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Matt. 25:41. Baptism.—A Review.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
A CORRESPONDENT in the East sends us a copy of the Christian Intelligencer of April 11, with the request that we notice an article which it contains, entitled, “The Mode of Baptism,” as it has troubled some honest investigators. We accordingly quote the principal part of the article and notice its statements in detail. The writer begins by expressing his regret that a certain writer of Sunday-school notes “should seem to countenance the idea that Philip baptized the eunuch by immersion, as is done in his remarks on Acts 8:38, where ‘into the water’ is emphasized by being printed in italics, and within quotation marks.” He then says:— “The Greek proposition eis signifies motion toward, and never indicates the actual going into a place unless it is repeated, once in composition with the verb, and once governing the noun. When Peter and John ran together to the sepulcher, after our Lord’s resurrection, John outran Peter, and came first to the sepulcher, eis to mnemeion, yet went he not in, ou mentoi eiselthen. The phrase, if completed, would read ou mentoi eis eis to mnemeion, as it does when Peter is described when arriving, and actually going into the sepulcher, kai eiselthen eis to mnemeion. “The same remark applies to the preposition ek, which signifies motion from, and never indicates actual coming from within a place, unless it is repeated, as before noted, in composition with the verb, as well as governing the noun. Here also a single example may suffice. Luke 4:22, ‘the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth,’ tois ekporeuomenois ek tou stomatos autou. This form of expression is invariable. “Now in the account of the baptism of the eunuch by Philip, if Luke had meant that they actually went into the water, still more that they went under the water, he would have twice used the preposition eis. But he does not. The phrase is katebesan eis to hudor, the exact meaning of which is they went down to the water. So if it had been meant that they actually came out of the water, the phrase would have been exebesan ek tou hudatos. But it is anebesan ek tou hudatos, and means exactly they came up, or back, from the water. The Revision, with all its pretensions to scholarship, has failed to note this point.” There is but one fault that can be found with this criticism, and that is that it is not true. There is an old saying that “one swallow does not make a spring.” The author of the above should have remembered this and pushed his investigations further, before he made such sweeping assertions. Because a thing occurs in a certain way once, we are not justified in saying that it will be so every time. That is the most foolish kind of reasoning. It is as if a man who had never before seen a horse, should see a span of white horses, and should then stoutly maintain that all horses are white. This is just the condition of the writer of this article; he has found that sometimes the prepositions are repeated when motion into or out of a place is meant, and makes the rash assertion that “this form of expression is invariable.” We shall see. If it can be shown that eis224unrepeated ever indicates “the actual going into a place,” then his whole argument, or assumption, falls to the ground. Turning to the lexicons we find the following in reference to the preposition eis:— “The radical signification is, direction towards, motion to, into, or on; into;”—Pickering. “1. Of PLACE, which is the primary and most frequent use, into, viz.:— “(a) After verbs implying motion of any kind, into, or also to, towards, upon any place or object.”—Robinson. “Preposition. On, into, upon,” etc.—Greenfield. “Direction towards, motion to, on, or into……In composition eis retains its chief signification, into.”—Liddell & Scott. These definitions from standard authorities are alone sufficient to settle the matter; but to make assurance doubly sure, we will quote a few examples. In all the following instances the construction is precisely the same as in Acts 8:38; the preposition occurs but once, and is not compounded with the verb:— Matt. 2:11: Kai elthontes eis teen oikian, “and when they were come into the house.” Matt. 2:12: Anechoreesan eis teen choran autou, “they departed into their own country.” Matt. 2:14: Anechoreesan eis Aiguptou, “[he] departed into Egypt.” Our critic would have us read in this instance, “he went toward, or near to, Egypt.” Matt. 2:22: Anechoreesan eis ta meree tees Galilaias, “he turned aside into the parts of Galilee.” In this last instance let us try our author’s statement that eis unrepeated always means “toward,” and never “into,” and see how it will work. We would then have it, “he turned aside toward Galilee,” but did not go into it. This is another point which “the Revision, with all its pretensions to scholarship has failed to note.” But, unfortunately for the newest version, the next verse says that “he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth,” which is a long distance inside the borders of Galilee. Passing by many similar instances, we come to Matt. 8:31, 32, another good text on which to test the definition of our new lexicographer. In the sentence, “If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine,” the preposition eis occurs but once. Perhaps, however, it will be claimed that the demons did not actually go into the swine, but went toward them, and drove them along toward the sea. Very well, we will try the next verse, and see how it fared with the swine. We read, “and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea.” The Greek is, ormeesen eis teen thalassan, the preposition occurring but once. Then according to the newest version, we must understand that the swine simply ran toward the sea, but did not go into it. The only trouble with this explanation is that the next clause says that “they perished in the waters.” Then they must have gone into the water, after all. We are strongly reminded of the proverb: “The legs of the lame are not equal.” Prov. 26:7, first clause, only. If the reader wishes to examine other texts where eis is used alone, he can try the following, and see if he thinks that “toward,” or “near to,” would improve the sense: Matt. 4:1, 12; 5:1, 25, 29, 30; 9:1; 12:9; 13:36, 47, 54; 14:22; Acts 22:4, 10, 11, 25, 24; 1 Pet. 3:22, and many other passages. Now for the other preposition. We have seen that Philip and the eunuch could go into the water, even though the narrative contains only one preposition. But having seen them in the water, we shall be obliged to leave them there, if it is true that ek never means “out of” unless it also occurs twice. Again we refer to the lexicons to settle the matter. Of the preposition ek we read:— “1. Of motion out of, forth, from forth or out of with all verbs of motion such as express taking away, separating.”—Liddell & Scott. “Its primary signification is from, out of, away from . . . from among, etc.”—Pickering. “A preposition governing the genetive, with the primary signification out of, from, of; spoken of such objects as before were in or within another, but are now separated from it . . . “1. OF PLACE, which is the most frequent use, out of, from, viz.:— “(a) After verbs implying motion of any kind out of, or from any place or object.”—Robinson. Following are a few instances of its use. We give only the English, simply stating that in every case the preposition occurs but once, as in Acts 8:38. Matt. 24:17: “Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house.” Mark 9:7: “And a voice came out of the cloud.” John 4:54: “When he was come out of Judea into Galilee.” John 13:1: “When Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world.” We quote again from the article:— “But if it be admitted that the criticism on the use of the preposition, as above, is correct, it is impossible that the inspired writers should have had at all in their minds the idea of going into, or going under the water.” But it is not admitted, for the good reason that the criticism is no criticism at all; and so we say that it is not only possible but certain that the inspired writers had in their minds the idea both of going into, and going under, the water. Even so zealous an advocate of sprinkling as Dr. Clarke, admits that the eunuch was plunged under the water. But it may be asked, “Since the preposition eis does sometimes mean ‘toward,’ as well as ‘into,’ is it not possible that it means ‘toward’ in Acts 8:38?” We reply, no; and for reasons that we shall proceed to give. If we did not know the meaning of the word “baptize,” or if this were the only place where baptism was mentioned, we might allow the claim; for, let it be distinctly understood that we do not base the argument for immersion on the preposition in Acts 8:38, or in any other place. That is only corroborative evidence; our direct proof is more to the point. And let it also be distinctly noted that the so-called argument for sprinkling is all of this nature; it is all negative. Even if the article that we have noticed were true, and allowing that Acts 8:38 should read “they went down to the water,” “came up from the water;” it would not prove that they did not also go in. The advocates of sprinkling, like our critic, labor hard to prove a point that would profit them nothing even if it were established. In conclusion we offer a few points of direct evidence:— 1. Our Saviour did not coin the word “baptize;” it was in use before the time of his first advent. 2. When he used the word baptize, to indicate an ordinance in the church, he must have used it in the sense in which it was generally used; for if he had not, no one would have known what he meant, unless he had given a new definition, which he did not do. 3. The authors of the lexicons do not make the meaning of words to suit themselves; they simply tell the meaning with which the word is used. If it be a word from a so-called “dead language,” the lexicons give the meaning which it had when that language was spoken. 4. The Greek lexicons define baptizo, of which baptize is the English form, untranslated, “to dip, to plunge,” etc. Liddell & Scott give it, to dip repeatedly, to dip under, and give as examples of its use, “over head and ears in debt,” “overwhelmed with questions.” 5. The idea of sprinkling does not attach to the word at all, except as it is forced upon it in support of a practice inherited from the Catholic Church. Whenever the idea of sprinkling is conveyed, a different word is employed. Here we can say of a truth, “This form of expression is invariable.” 6. The signification of the ordinance shows plainly the meaning of the word. Paul says: “Know ye not, that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism,” etc. Rom. 6:3, 4. That is, we show our faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, and our determination to be dead to sin, and to live in newness of life, by being “buried” in water as a symbol of Christ’s burial in the earth. Christ was completely hidden from sight in the tomb; so we must be completely submerged in the water, in order to have the symbol fit the reality. 7. This idea is established beyond cavil in the next verse: “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” The text is too plain to need comment. A seed is not planted unless it is covered up. The disciples of Christ did not carelessly throw a few handfuls of earth on his body, but reverently laid it in the ground, completely covering it from view. Then unless we are likewise completely buried, planted, submerged in the watery grave, we are not in the likeness of Christ’s death. Sprinkling has no likeness whatever to the burial and resurrection of Christ. And there it necessarily follows:— 7. That baptism is immersion and nothing else, and one who has not been immersed has not obeyed the command of Christ to be baptized. We are sure that this conclusion cannot be honestly evaded. We shall have more to say about the importance of this matter hereafter.
E. J. W.