Your ShelfYour Projects

To Correspondents

5%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 16, 1870

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 36, No. 9.

Read the full edition

To Correspondents.

DICKENS' WORKS.

W. C. H. of Ill., writes: “Please give through the REVIEW your opinion of the works of Chas. Dickens. Is there any merit in them? Are they worth reading?”
ANSWER.—It would be almost impossible for a person of the mental powers which Dickens possessed, not to write many things which in a literary point of view would be very attractive. But better minds have given us, in better style, enough to read, the matter of which is fact, not fiction. We therefore consider that all who have not read his works have saved the amount of time it would have taken to read them; and all who shall henceforth read them, will throw so much away. While there is more to be learned in this world, which is of real worth, than can possibly be acquired in an ordinary lifetime, it is lamentable to see persons throwing away their time, and often ruining both body and soul over novels. And, in our view, the year 1870 has not presented a more disgusting spectacle than the ado that has been made over Charles Dickens—making a god of a man who has caused such an immense waste of time over productions that are useless to say nothing harsher of them, a man who was an open foe of temperance, a caracaturist of the clergy, and who fell at last a victim to disgraceful gluttony—even religious editors flying into a passion at the bare suggestion that such a man was not a saint of the first water.

TEACHING AND BAPTIZING.

J. W. N., of Iowa, writes: A Quaker friend of mine takes the position that the word rendered baptizing in Matt. 28: 19, is not in the imperative mode, and therefore cannot express an additional command, but is merely explanatory of the meaning of the preceding verb; that is, it explains how the duty was to be performed, viz., by baptizing in the name of the Father, &c. He says the Greek does not read, Matheteusate kai baptizete autous; that is, disciple and baptize them; but Matheteusate baptizontes autous; that is, disciple, baptizing them.
He says that the duty of baptizing the nations was to be performed simply by teaching, enticing, guiding, drawing, them by the tender cords of warming, soul-melting love.
Having but little knowledge of the Greek language, I would be under obligations for any light you may see fit to give me.
Please inform me whether the word rendered baptizing expresses an additional command, and also does the commission enjoin water baptism, which my friend denies?
ANSWER.—If men were as willing to admit their own theories to be nonsense, as they are to make the Bible talk nonsense in their efforts to sustain them, we should have fewer specimens of reasoning such as the foregoing, and a less number of conflicting theories, all professedly based on the word of God. It is true the word baptizing is not in the imperative mode; and it is not necessary that it should be to express an additional command, action, or idea. The Friend spoken of, knows just as well as any one can tell him, that one of the most common constructions in the world, is the employment of the participle, as an adnominal word limiting the subject, to express additional action. If a farmer should tell his hired man to clear off a certain piece of woodland, sowing it with wheat, he would mean simply, clear off that land and sow it with wheat; and he would be so understood; and if the
hired man should stop with simply clearing the land of wood and brush, and plead as an excuse that what was said about the wheat was not in the imperative mode, and could not therefore express an additional command, but was only explanatory of the command to clear the land, he would be discharged for his evident attempt to evade his employer's instructions. But it might be said to him further, Granting that it was explanatory, granting that the sowing of the wheat was included in the instruction to clear the land, why did you not sow the wheat? for the instruction is not carried out till the wheat is sown.
So when our Lord told his followers to go and disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c., he said no more nor less than, Go and make disciples of all nations, and baptize them, &c. If I should see a house in flames, and should say to a companion, Go quickly through the city, crying, Fire! at the top of your voice, it would be precisely the same as if I should say, Go through the city and cry, Fire!; and every one would so understand it.
But grant that the word baptizing is simply explanatory of the preceding verb, telling how the discipling was to be done, like the sowing of the wheat in the clearing of the land, then the instruction is not carried out till the baptizing is performed. But does not the word mean the same thing as the preceding verb? Is not baptizo simply a synonym for matheteuo? Nothing of the kind. The two words have not a shadow of a definition in common; and this fact our friend is probably as well aware of as any one. Baptizo means to immerse or submerge in some liquid. Bible baptism is accomplished with water. Without this, our Lord's instructions are not, and cannot be, carried out. “Baptizing by Teaching!” says our friend. If so, he makes the sacred writer guilty of a gross tautology; for the very next verse, verse 20, says, “Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.” And here the word is not matheteuo, to make disciples of, as in verse 19, but didasko, which means properly and primarily, to impart instruction.
In Mark 1: 14, we read: “Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God.” According to our friend's reasoning, this does prove that Jesus said anything concerning the kingdom of God; it is only explanatory of his coming into Galilee; he preached by coming; that is, his coming was his preaching. Such illustrations as this might be multiplied without number; and it shows the absurdity of the method of reasoning under notice.
No one ever thought of construing Matt. 28: 19, in the manner of our Quaker friend, till a people arose who committed themselves to the doctrine of no-water baptism. Then the Scripture must be interpreted in accordance with that view. So it has been in all ages upon other subjects. Men have framed their theories, and then gone to work to bend the Bible to them, and make it responsible for them. This has been, and still is, the great curse of the cause of Bible truth.
W. G. BRISBIN: 2 Pet. 2: 21, has reference, we think, to final apostates. Most guilty among the lost will be those who have once had a knowledge of the truth, and an experience in religious things. It would be better for such if they had never known the way of truth. We think the word commandments in John 2: 4 refers to the commandments of God, the moral law. Col. 2: 14, refers to the law of ceremonies that pertained to the Jewish dispensation, not to moral precepts at all. The mark of the beast, we regard as that by which he signifies his authority in religious things, namely, a counterfeit Sabbath. See work on that subject, and Thoughts on the Revelation.
A. H. HALE: Paul in 1 Cor. 1: 8-10, is speaking of the trouble which came upon him in Asia. He was threatened with death, in what way we know not; but it seems to have been a very terrible one; and there seemed to be no hope of escape; but God delivered him; and from this fact Paul takes courage, trusting that as God had signally and unexpectedly worked for him, and delivered him from what seemed to be inevitable death, he would still deliver him.
S. A. J. HOUSTAIN: Let the Methodist preachers rail on against the truth, and its adherents. Their day is coming.
J. SMITH, SEN.: For information on the points you mention in your letter, see “Which? Mortal or Immortal?” published at this Office.
C. G. DANIELS: Advise with the Conf. Committee at the Ohio camp-meeting.