The Sabbath-School

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Sep 6, 1883

The Sabbath-School.

Lesson for Pacific Coast.—Sept. 15.

NOTES ON THE LESSON.

Immediately after the council at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, accompanied by Judas and Silas, who were prophets, and delivered to the church the decision of the apostles and elders. After performing his mission, Judas returned to Jerusalem, but Silas chose to remain in Antioch. “Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.” V. 35.

Among the others who were at Antioch was Peter. This we learn from Galatians 2. At this time an incident occurred that ill accords with the Catholic dogma of the supremacy of Peter in the church. From Paul's statement to the Galatians we learn that Peter, in accordance with the decision of the council at Jerusalem, and with his practice before that time (Acts 11:3), mingled freely with the Gentiles, and ate with them. But as soon as some Jews came down from Jerusalem, “he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.” Gal. 2:13.

This was not done for the purpose of saving a weak brother from stumbling, but from fear of the accusations which the Jews might bring against him. It was a slight manifestation of the spirit which had moved him to deny his Lord. His act was contagious, many of the Jews doing likewise, and even “Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” “They walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” Then it was that Paul “withstood him to the face,” saying before them all, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Having thus fully exposed Peter's dissimulation, he showed that forms and ceremonies are lost in faith in Christ.

It is not likely that there were any hard feelings on either side. Paul simply did his duty, and Peter readily acknowledged his fault. But how can our Catholic friends harmonize this affair with the theory that Peter occupied the same position in regard to the early church that the pope of Rome does to the Catholic Church? Imagine Cardinal Newman addressing Leo XIII. as Paul did Peter. If he should dare to do such a thing, it is very certain that the pope would not take it so meekly as Peter did.

From the account of the dispute between Paul and Barnabas, Dr. Barnes draws the following lesson:—

“This account proves that there was no collusion or agreement among the apostles to impose on mankind. Had there been such an agreement, and had the books of the New Testament been an imposture, the apostles would have been represented as perfectly harmonious, and as united in all their views and efforts. What impostor would have thought of the device of representing the early friends of the Christian religion as divided, and contending, and separating from each other? Such a statement has an air of candor and honesty, and at the same time is so apparently against the truth of the system that no impostor would have thought of resorting to it.”

We have here an opportunity to test the value of mere apostolic example for any custom. Peter dissimulated, and Paul and Barnabas indulged in heated contention. Now many profess to base their observance of Sunday on the example of the apostles. To be sure they cannot prove that any of the apostles ever kept Sunday, since the Bible nowhere intimates that they did, but no matter; that does not affect the popular claim. They can point to one religious meeting held on Sunday, Acts 20:7, and Paul was there. From this they build up the following: “The apostles kept Sunday (as we infer); the majority of the world now keep Sunday, therefore it must be right.” Reasoning on the same scale, we derive this: “The apostles contended (as we know); an overwhelming majority of the world also dispute and quarrel to a greater or less degree; therefore quarreling is right, and we ought to engage in it.” The truth is, it is not the apostles' practice, but their teaching, that we are to follow; and even their teaching would be invalid if it did not agree with that part of the Scripture that was already written. It is easy to find a precedent for any wrong practice, if that is all that is desired.

It would seem that one would need only to read the arguments in favor of infant baptism, drawn from verses 15 and 33 of chapter 16, to be convinced that that custom has no solid foundation whatever on which to rest. For instance, Dr. Barnes says on verse 15:—

“‘And her household.’ Greek, her house (ho oikos autees), her family. No mention is made of their having believed, and the case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. For (1) her believing is particularly mentioned. (2) It is not intimated that they believed. (3) It is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she believed. It was the offering of her family to the Lord. It is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized on the faith of the parent.”

But what right has the Dr. to say, “household or infant baptism”? Is a household necessarily composed exclusively of infants? If “household” and “infants” are, as he implies, synonymous terms, then wherever the word occurs it means only infants, to the exclusion of adults, and that is absurd. A household is simply those dwelling under the same roof; and, although Dr. Clarke says, “We can scarcely suppose that the whole families of Lydia and the jailer had no children in them,” we have known of many households in which there was not a child under ten years of age, and such cases were not considered remarkable. Dr. Clarke seems to have forgotten that although infants are children, children are not necessarily infants. We firmly believe in the right of children to be baptized when they are old enough to express a desire for that ordinance, but this is not infant baptism.

But, leaving conjecture, what warrant is there for saying of the household of Lydia that since “it is not intimated that they believed, it is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she believed”? Christ in commissioning the apostles said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” The apostles placed believing and baptism together, as is shown by Acts 2:38 and 8:37. John the Baptist also refused to baptize the unbelieving and unrepentant Pharisees and Sadducees. Matt. 3:7-10. To suppose that they baptized any who did not believe, is to claim that they violated their commission. And even if they had done so, what profit would it have been to those so baptized? Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The mere ceremony of baptism confers no blessing on any. For an unbeliever to be baptized is solemn mockery. Those who do not believe will be lost whether they have been baptized or not. The terrible delusion of the ancient Jews, and of the modern Catholics as well, was in ascribing virtue to a round of ceremonies performed without one thought of that which they symbolized. Protestantism has largely followed in the same path, and as a consequence the church is burdened with nominal professors, who have no just appreciation of the principles of the gospel, and who base their hope of salvation on the mere fact that they have been baptized.

After all, Dr. Clarke, in his comments on verse 32, dares make no stronger statement in favor of infant baptism than that “it is pretty evident that we have in this chapter presumptive evidence that children were received into the church in this way,” i. e., by infant baptism, so called. One would hardly expect that that sage conclusion was preceded in the same paragraph by this statement concerning the jailer. “And it appears that he and his whole family, who were capable of receiving instruction, embraced this doctrine, and showed the sincerity of their faith by immediately receiving baptism.” From this we conclude that the Doctor found it difficult to bring his reason and his prejudices into harmony.

We can only ask, in leaving this subject, Why do the advocates of infant baptism indulge in such absurd conjectures, which, as we have seen, often directly contradict the Scriptures, if they have any direct Bible authority to offer in support of the custom?

It is sometimes asked, “Why did Paul rebuke the damsel possessed of the spirit, since she told nothing but the truth?” We answer, For that very reason. Had she heaped abuse upon the apostles, it would not have been half so damaging to them. For (1) the Jews who were in the city would conclude from her testimony in favor of the apostles that they were moved by the same spirit that she was, and would therefore be hardened against the gospel; and (2) the Gentiles would also naturally conclude that the teachings of both were a part of the same system, and that therefore they had nothing to learn from the apostles. Her testimony was calculated to bring the gospel into bad repute. The truth always suffers more from the professed friendship of wicked men than from their enmity. A man who professes Christianity, and still lives contrary to its teachings, brings reproach upon it; and the more loudly he declares his belief, the more does the cause suffer. Christians may well rejoice when they are the subjects of calumny by wicked men.

The only record we have of Paul's singing was when he was in the jail at Philippi, lying on the cold floor, his back bruised and bloody from the “many stripes” it had received. At midnight they “prayed and sang praises unto God.” With what propriety he could afterwards exhort the Philippians to “be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God,” and what weight his testimony must have had. He had set them an example of “rejoicing in tribulation.” Without any misgiving he could say to them, “Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and seen in me, do;” and we are not surprised that the believers at this place were the most faithful of any of Paul's converts. They had prayed for light, before Paul was sent to them, and they did not refuse to accept it when it brought persecution.