Introduction
The experience of holiness, or Christian
perfection, is the mainspring of all gospel truth. It was doubtless the
hindrance to the development of the apostasy in apostolic times mentioned by
Paul in 2 Thess. 2:7. And if the possessions of holiness by the apostolic
church kept back the apostasy so long as it was retained within the hearts of
her members, may we not well look for a return to the pure doctrines of
Christianity as we in the present reformation emanate from the dark wilderness
of the apostasy by means of our return to the experience of apostolic holiness?
Isaiah predicted that the ransomed of
the Lord should return upon the way of holiness unto Zion. Zion
is a metaphor signifying the New Testament. See Heb. 12:18-24. Therefore to
return to Zion
is to return to the true church and doctrine of Christ as set forth in the New
Testament. This prediction we are now seeing fulfilled in the breaking forth of
the light that was to shine in the “evening time.”
God has led his people out of the dark
theories that have originated under the apostasy, in respect to the holy
observances enjoined by our Saviour, and we feel it our duty to set forth the
true New Testament teaching in respect to the ordinances of Christ, that we may
if possible lend a helping hand to our much beloved brethren in Christ, who are
struggling to unlearn the dark theories they have gathered in mystic Babylon.
The word “ordinance” in this little
volume shall be applied in the sense of a ceremony, and in this light we may
consider three divine institutions of our Saviour–Baptism, Feet-washing, and
the Communion Supper.
At the close of the work we shall notice
two other scriptural commandments, the Holy Kiss and the Lifting up of Holy
Hands, which are not included in our application of the word “ordinance,” but
because generally neglected, we shall briefly consider them.
Some pretended holiness-teachers affirm
that to teach and practice the ordinances is but a hindrance to the progress of
holiness, but such sentiments cannot be imbibed by a pure heart. By urging upon
the people a strict obedience to all the Word we accelerate rather than retard
the progress of the cause of holiness; for the very principle of obedience lies
in the experience of holiness, and there is no holiness without obedience.
Peter taught that the sanctification of the Spirit was unto obedience (1 Pet.
1:2), and I should like to know how I, by teaching the brethren to strictly
obey all the ordinances instituted by our Saviour am going to retard the
progress of a sanctification unto obedience. The very experience of holiness
constrains me to teach and practice all the divine institutions of our Saviour,
and I am persuaded that those who oppose these sacred works have not the
apostolic experience of sanctification unto obedience.
Obedience is essential to prove our love
to God. “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15. “If a man love me,
he will keep my words.” Ver. 23. “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth
them, he it is that loveth me.” Ver. 21. “He that loveth me not keepeth not my
sayings.” Ver. 24. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:
and his commandments are not grevious.” 1 John 5:3. According to these several
texts they are deceived who profess love to God while possessed with a spirit
of disobedience. We are not to estimate our love from some peculiar sensation
in our bosom, but from the spirit of true obedience, without which we are
loving in word and in tongue only.
By obedience we also prove ourselves the
friends of Jesus. “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” John
15:13. How inappropriate the name of “Friends” assumed by the Quakers, who
oppose all the precious ordinances instituted by our Saviour. Such generally
make great pretensions to piety and wear a sanctimonious air to make themselves
appear sweet and pure, but if we stand upon the Word, by the standard of which
alone uprightness is to be imputed, we cannot acknowledge them true friends of
Christ.
A spirit of obedience is necessary to
prove ourselves in possession of a saving knowledge of God. “He that saith, I
know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in
him.” 1 John 2:4. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of
Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both
the Father and the Son.” 2 John 9.
We must take a radical stand upon these
plain teachings of the Bible, and let whomsoever the Word unchristianizes
become unchristianized. We cannot acknowledge those who oppose the sacred
institutions of our Saviour to be the servants of God. Neither can we
acknowledge those who teach against them to be led by the Holy Ghost. These
declarations may be by some considered harsh, but if they be carefully weighed
by those whose hearts are filled with trueness to God’s word, it will be
discovered that is only Christian loyalty.
In conclusion of these introductory
remarks we wish briefly to call attention to another false idea advanced by
those who oppose the ordinances of Christ. It is, that the ordinances always
divide the Christian people, and are the principle cause of division among
Christians. If this be true, we should like to know the cause of so much strife
and division among those who are infected with the antiordinance ideas. There
is no more dissentient spirit upon earth than that which propagates
antiordinancism. Quakerism herself, the mother of all these God-dishonoring
ordinance-opposing heresies, has been divided into several jangling factions. I
had far rather adhere to Paul’s idea of the cause of division: “Whereas there
is among you envyings, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk
as men?” 1 Cor. 3:3.
The Abolished
Ordinances
On every Bible doctrine, inspiration has
given us a few texts which seemingly contradict the general voice of the
Scriptures. This is true of every other, and none the less of the doctrine of
the ordinances. Hence, many who do not live near enough to God to receive
correct interpretations from him, who only knoweth the word of God (Rev. 19:12,
13), often, in their blindness, misconstrue these texts into a deceptive
doctrine directly opposite to the pure doctrine of Christianity. Such is the
delusion under which holiness-fighters, water-salvationists, antiordinance
people, etc., are laboring.
But the texts which seemingly contradict
the general voice of the Bible on any Christian doctrine, are not antagonistic,
but have been, by the mind of inspiration, so mysteriously arranged as to
prevent the carnal-minded man from illegally obtaining a correct understanding
of the holy Scriptures (See Luke 8:10). But they are easily interpreted in
harmony with the uniform voice of holy writ, when viewed in the true light of
the Spirit of God.
We shall proceed to quote, and show the
true meaning of the texts which fighters of New Testament ordinances wrest to
substantiate their doctrine.
“Having abolished in his flesh the
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in
himself of twain one new man, so making peace.” Eph. 2:15.
It is very evident that this text
teaches the abolition of something, but to my mind it is the wonder of the age
that intelligent and cultured human minds can see in it the abolition of any of
the ordinances of the New Testament. They could not without infernal
assistance. Now, Mr. Ordinance-fighter, if you will allow me to catechise you
upon this text, I believe, by the help of the Lord, I can make you see its true
meaning.
Q. What does this text say Christ
abolished?
Ans. “The law of commandments contained
in ordinances.”
This expression signifies the
ten-commandment code, encircled with all the ceremonies of the Mosaic system.
So the text under consideration only teaches the abolition of the Mosaic
system. No mention is made of any of the holy observances instituted by Christ.
Q. What else does Paul call that which
he says Christ has abolished?
Ans. He calls it “the middle wall of
partition” between the Jews and the Gentiles. Ver. 14. Also, in verse 15 he
calls it an “enmity” between the Jews and the Gentiles.
Here we have another key which will
unlock to our minds a true conception of that which is abolished. The law of
Moses only enjoined the Jewish nation, thus actually cutting off or separating
that nation from all others; hence was a real wall of partition between Jews
and Gentiles. The entire New Testament system is enjoined upon all nations
(Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15); therefore, can not be ranked with the abolished “enmity”
between the Jews and Gentiles.
Q. Why did Christ abolish the Mosaic
system?
Ans. “For to make in himself of twain
one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one
body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” Ver. 15:16.
It is here stated that Christ abolished
the Mosaic system, that he might effect a reconciliation of the entire human
family unto God. From this we see that the abolition took place coincident with
the great reconciliation. So we have only to learn the date of this
reconciliation, to know the date of the abolition. If we turn to Rom. 5:10, we
will see the time of reconciliation clearly set forth: “For if, when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being
reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Here we see the date of the
reconciliation fixed at the time of Christ’s death, which, as we have already
seen, is the time of the abolition.
We will now consider another
ordinance-fighters’ text: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to
his cross; and, having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of
them openly, triumphing over them in it (Col. 2:14, 15).” Now, Mr.
Ordinance-fighter, if you do not object, we will continue our catechising upon
this text.
Q. What does this text say Christ
blotted out?
Ans. “The handwriting of ordinances.”
Q. Is there anything in this text that
will give us any clue to the date of the blotting out of the handwriting of
ordinances?
Ans. Yes, it tells us Christ blotted out
the handwriting of ordinances by “nailing it to his cross,” referring thus
again to the death of Christ as the date of abolition. This is the only date of
abolition mentioned in the New Testament. Ordinance-fighters seeing baptism,
feetwashing, and the Lord’s supper commanded by inspiration, and observed by
the apostolic church after the Saviour’s death, try, in their dishonesty, to
fix the date of abolition later than the death of Christ. But all such are
teachers of error, and in the name of Jesus we defy them to substantiate by the
sacred writing of the New Testament any other date of abolition than the death
of Christ. All, therefore, that Jesus abolished, he abolished at the time of
his death. And what he did not then abolish has never been abolished by him. If
he abolished baptism, feet-washing, and the communion supper, we say amen to their
abolition. But if he abolished them not at his death, he has never abolished
them. And if Jesus has not abolished the New Testament ordinances, nobody else
has a right to abolish them, and we are not disposed to accept any of their
abolitions.
We have seen that it was “the
handwriting or ordinances’’ that Jesus blotted out and nailed to the cross at
his death. Therefore baptism, feet-washing, and the Lord’s supper cannot be
included in the code which the Lord blotted out, for none of these were in handwriting
at that time.
The very language employed by the
apostle to set forth the blotting out of the “handwriting of ordinances” proves
he had no reference to any of the New Testament ordinances. He says Christ “took
it out of the way.” By this expression we understand Paul to teach that Jesus
only abolished that which was in the way of, or a hindrance unto the great work
of redemption which he came to accomplish. This is not true of any of the
ordinances of the New Testament. It is not only preposterous, but base and
criminal even to think that Jesus would institute observances which would
hinder his work of redemption, and which he was compelled to blot out before
his plan could prove a success. Such a blunder would prove our Lord not
infallible.
The Mosaic law, having been enjoined
upon one nation only, was a real hindrance to the gospel of Christ. Under it
Jesus could only send his gospel to the Jews, and it was not until the law was
abolished at the Saviour’s death, that the Gentile nations could receive the
gospel. Before the Saviour’s death, both himself and his apostles preached only
to the Jews. He forbade his apostles to preach to the Gentiles. Matt. 10:5, 6.
But after his death had taken the law of
the Jews out of the way, we hear him commanding his apostles, “Go ye into all
the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16:15. “Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matt. 28:19.
The conclusion drawn by the apostle
immediately after he shows the blotting out of the “handwriting of ordinances,’’
proves that he had exclusive reference to the Old Testament system. He says, “Let
no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day,
or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to
come; but the body is of Christ.” Col. 2:16, 17.
If it were the ordinances of the New
Testament that Paul declares blotted out and nailed to the cross in verses 14
and 15, verses 16 and 17 would read, “Let no man therefore judge you in
baptism, or in feet-washing, or in the communion supper.” But no mention is
made of anything pertaining to the New Testament. Every thought contained in
either the text or the context proves that the apostle had exclusive reference
to the law of Moses.
Heb. 9:10 is also used in a wrested
manner by ordinance-fighters, against the New Testament ordinances. The
language of Scripture itself so clearly explains this text, that little more is
needed by way of commentation than the mere insertion of a few verses of the
context. We will insert verses 8-11.
“The Holy Ghost this signifying, that
the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first
tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for the time then present, in
which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did
the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats
and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until
the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to
come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to
say, not of this building.” Heb. 9:8-11.
“The time of reformation” mentioned in
verse 10 was the coming of Christ and the ushering in of the gospel
dispensation.
This “which stood only in meats and
drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances,” mentioned in verse 10, is
the “first tabernacle” mentioned in verse 8. The first tabernacle was the one
Moses pitched in the wilderness, which pertained to the first covenant, or Old
Testament. Verse 1. So it is very clearly to be seen that the ordinances
mentioned were those which belonged to the service of the tabernacle under the
Old Testament.
The first tabernacle is styled “a figure
for the time then present,” in verse 9. By this is meant that it was a figure,
or type, of the greater and more perfect tabernacle (the Church of God) pitched
by the Lord Jesus Christ. See verse 11 and chapter 8:2. The entire law system
was one of types and shadows, which met their fulfillment in the setting up of
the New Testament system. And while the Old Testament and its ordinances were
being taken away, the New Testament and its ordinances were being set up.
Col. 2:20 is also sometimes resorted to
by ordinance-fighters, which we might justly pronounce their last resort. I am
sure the text, together with the two succeeding verses, explains itself. Let us
quote them. “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the
world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch
not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using), after the
commandments and doctrines of men?”
The reader will observe that the
sentence is not completed in the twentieth verse, and as the twenty-first and a
part of the twenty-second verse is in parenthesis, we must read the parenthesis
to find the end of the sentence. We can find no proper end of the sentence
until we reach the interrogation point at the end of the twenty-second verse.
Dropping out the parenthesis, for the sake of connecting both ends of the
sentence, the question reads “Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the
rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to
the ordinances, after the commandments and doctrines of men?”
The reader will quickly comprehend that
this makes no reference to ordinances enjoined by the Lord, but to ordinances
after the commandments and doctrines of men; that is, such ordinances as are
gotten up by men.
When the New
Testament Came into Force
“And for this cause he is the mediator
of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of
transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might
receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there
must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of
force after men are dead otherwise it is of no strength at all while the
testator liveth.” Heb. 9:15-17.
The apostle here shows that as the will
of a man comes into force at his death, so the New Testament came into force at
the death of the Saviour. This is the same date at which the Old Testament was
abolished, as we have seen in the preceding chapter.
The claim of ordinance-fighters that
baptism, feetwashing, and the Lord’s supper are not to be observed in the new
dispensation, because they were instituted under the Old Testament, and before
the New Testament came into force is a very weak argument, because the whole
New Testament system was, and of necessity had to be, introduced before the
death of the Saviour. As we have seen before, the New Testament came into force
at the death of Christ, in the same sense that a man’s will comes into force at
his death, and it would hardly be proper to say an addition to a will would be
legal after the testator’s death.
Mark shows that the introduction of the
New Testament commenced with the baptism of John. The following are his words: “The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God…John did baptize in the
wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
Mark 1:1-4.
Jesus also taught, “The law and the
prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God
is preached.” Luke 16:16.
Taking all the aforesaid thoughts into
consideration, we are enabled to see that the doctrine of the New Testament was
introduced between the time when John began to cry in the wilderness, “Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” and the crucifixion of Christ. As the
ordinances of baptism, feet-washing, and the Lord’s supper were instituted
during that time, they are of the New Testament.
The Three New
Testament Ordinances
— Baptism
—
Water baptism is one of the ordinances
of the New Testament, and not, as some affirm, of the Old. We find no trace of
it, as practiced by Christians, in the Old Testament. There is no inspired
proof of its existence earlier than John the Baptist; with whose preaching, as
we have seen in the previous chapter, begins the introduction of the gospel.
But concerning John’s baptism, was it
from heaven, or of men? Matt. 21:25. It was not of his own invention, because
John testified that some one had sent him to baptize. John 1:33. From whom did
John receive his commission? “There was a man sent from God whose name was
John.” John 1:6.
The baptism of John was approved by all
the persons in the godhead. It was approved by Christ when he received baptism
at the prophet’s hands. It was approved by the Holy Ghost when he descended
upon the Saviour at the time of his baptism, in the visible form of a dove. It
was approved by the Father when he spoke concerning his Son on the occasion of
his baptism, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
But Jesus did not only approve the
baptism of John, he was himself the institutor of a baptism now known as
Christian baptism, which, though not differing from the baptism of John with
respect to its mode, is administered for a different purpose. We read of Jesus
administering baptism in John 3:22. He did not baptize with his own hands, but
by proxy. “Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus himself
baptized not, but his disciples).” John 4:1, 2.
While the law of Moses was still
standing, baptism, as well as all other principles of the doctrine of Christ,
was taught and administered unto Jews only. If, therefore, baptism had been, as
the ordinance-fighters affirm, abolished at the death of Christ, no Gentile
would ever have received it.
But ordinance-fighters are mistaken. We
find Jesus forty days after his resurrection, upon the mount of Olives just
before his ascension, commissioning his ministers to preach and administer
baptism unto all nations. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” Matt.
28:19. “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16:15, 16.
Opposers of the ordinances are often
heard saying that the baptism Jesus commissioned his ministers to administer to
all nations is spirit baptism. This must be considered an error, for three
reasons.
1. There is nothing in the contexts to
show that the word “baptize” is used in a metaphoric sense, and in such cases
it must always be taken in a literal sense.
2. It is to be administered by men, and
men cannot baptize with the Holy Spirit. Holy men can pray for, and lay their
hands upon, and exercise faith for those who are seeking, but God only can
impart the Holy Ghost.
3. The apostles understood the
commission in a literal sense, because we see them throughout the book of Acts
continuing to preach and practice water baptism.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter taught
baptism, as follows: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38.
That he here enjoined water baptism, is
evident from the fact that he makes a distinction between baptism and the
reception of the Holy Ghost. In obedience to Peter’s teaching, the three
thousand converted on the day of Pentecost proceeded at once to be baptized. It
was water baptism that those converts received on that day, because they did
not receive the Holy Ghost until a later date. See Acts 4:31.
After the persecution had driven nearly
all the members of the church from Jerusalem, we read that “Philip went down to
the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.” Acts 8:5.
“But when they believed Philip preaching
the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were baptized, both men and women.” Vs. 12.
The baptism they received at the hands
of Philip was of water, because the language immediately following shows that
they had not received the Holy Ghost. “Now when the apostles which were at
Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them
Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might
receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.”
Verses 14-17.
No man of candor can fail to see in the
above, that the Samaritans received water baptism. They were converted and
baptized in a meeting held by Philip, and received the Holy Ghost in a meeting
held by Peter and John.
Surely none can deny that the eunuch was
baptized in the water. The words of Scripture are sufficient to settle this
point. “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the
eunuch said, See here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip
said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and
said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the
chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and
the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water,
the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and
he went on his way rejoicing.” Acts 8:36-39.
It is also very evident that water baptism
was administered in the case of Paul. For after Ananias had laid his hands on
Paul for the reception of the Holy Ghost, he commanded him to arise and be
baptized (Acts 9:17, 22:16). And we read of him, that “he received sight
forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.” Acts 9:18.
As his baptism took place subsequent to
his reception of the Holy Ghost, how could we draw any other sensible
conclusion than that it was a baptism by water?
The next instance of the teaching of
water baptism in the inspired records, we find in the tenth chapter of Acts. It
is best set forth in the words of Scripture itself.
“While Peter yet spake these words, the
Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision
which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the
Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them
speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid
water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as
well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.”
Verses 44-48.
That Peter here taught water baptism to
Cornelius and his household is too clear to be denied by any one. They had
received the Holy Ghost after which Peter asked, “Can any man forbid water,”
etc., and then he commanded them to be baptized.
But the ordinance-fighters claim that
about this time Peter received different light, by which he saw that previous
to this time he had been in error on the ordinance question, and that after
this date he ceased to teach and administer water baptism. This they gather
from his words before the church at Jerusalem, when they held him at fault for
preaching unto the Gentile household of Cornelius. The following are the words
they thus wrest: “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said,
John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed
on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand God?” Acts 11:16,
17.
These words the antiordinance people
regard as Peter’s confession that he had done wrong in teaching Cornelius and
his household to be baptized, when nothing of the kind is hinted at.
In the first place let it be remembered
that Peter was not faulted by the church for teaching Cornelius to be baptized,
but as Cornelius was a Gentile, they faulted him, saying, “Thou wentest in to
men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” Ver. 3. At that date the church in
general had not learned that Gentiles as well as the Jews were entitled to
salvation. This is more clearly set forth in verse 19 – “Now they which were
scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far
as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the
Jews only.” Thinking, as the above clearly shows, that none but Jews were to be
saved, they thought Peter had committed an offense when he carried the gospel
to Cornelius.
In defense of what he had done, Peter
related to them how God had showed him with the vision of the sheet knit at the
four corners that Gentiles as well as Jews were entitled to salvation (verses
4-10); and how God had commanded him to go and preach the gospel to Cornelius
(verse 12); and how an angel had appeared to Cornelius, and commanded him to
send for Peter. Ver. 13. Then he told how, while he was preaching to Cornelius’
household, God poured out the Holy Ghost upon them. Ver. 17. After that he
asks, “What was I, that I could withstand God?” Not intending by these words to
convey the idea that he had withstood God when he had commanded Cornelius and
his household to be baptized; but that he would have withstood God, had he
refused to preach the gospel to that Gentile family.
Verse 18 shows that Peter’s defense
satisfied his accusers, and is further proof that the point in question was not
water baptism, but the salvation of the Gentiles.
“When they heard these things, they held
their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles
granted repentance unto life.” Ver. 18.
Neither do Peter’s words in verse 16, “Then
remembered I the word of the Lord,” etc., show, as they affirm, that Peter on
that occasion found out that he had been wrong in teaching baptism, for
immediately after these words came to his mind, which was at the time the Holy
Ghost fell upon Cornelius and his household (Read carefully verses 15, 16), he
commanded them to be baptized in water (Acts 10:44-48).
Another point worthy of mentioning here
is, that nineteen years after these words of the Lord came into Peter’s mind,
in his first general epistle, he teaches water baptism to be an essential
ordinance of the New Testament. See I Pet. 3:21. So it is very evident that
Peter never received any new light on the subject of baptism, causing him to
turn antiordinance. But evidences from every direction prove the Quaker
theories false.
We will cite one more instance of the
administration of water baptism. We read of twelve brethren at Ephesus who were
converted and baptized by Apollos, a disciple of John. Acts 18:24-28; 19:3, 7.
Apollos at that time knew nothing of the coming of the Saviour, because we read
of him, that he knew “only the baptism of John.” Acts 18:25.
After Apollos had closed his meeting and
had left Ephesus, “Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus;
and finding certain disciples [They were those twelve converts of Apollos], he
said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they
said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto
John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of
repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which
should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands
upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and
prophesied.” Acts 19:1-6.
The foregoing language shows clearly
that the twelve Ephesians had been baptized unto John’s baptism, but now they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; that is, received Christian
baptism, and apart from both these baptisms, when Paul laid his hands upon them
they received the Holy Ghost. Surely none would deny that water baptism was
applied in their case.
We sometimes hear ordinance-opposers
say, “Water baptism is of John, therefore, properly ended with John’s mission.”
We will admit that John’s baptism did end with his mission. But the fact that
the Ephesians were rebaptized under Paul’s instructions, and perhaps by his own
hands, when they heard his explanation of the difference between John’s baptism
and Christian baptism, proves that the renowned apostle himself understood that
there was a water baptism that did not begin and end with John the Baptist.
Ordinance-fighters make a great hobby of
Paul’s words in the first chapter of 1 Corinthians. But, as with other
Scriptures, they place a different construction upon them from that intended by
Paul. Surely it would not be sensible to conclude that this great apostle
taught against baptism in his first epistle to the Corinthians, when his Roman
epistle, written a year later, clearly sets forth baptism as a Christian
ordinance. See Rom. 6:4. Paul did not say, “I thank God that I baptized none of
you, but Crispus and Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14)” because he had received new light on
the subject of baptism, but he himself assigns his reason for so saying, with
his very next breath: “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own
name.” Ver. 15.
His words, “Christ sent me not to baptize,
but to preach the gospel” (verse 17), prove nothing in favor of the
antiordinance heresy. If he was not sent to administer baptism, he was sent to
preach the gospel, and was therefore sent to preach baptism, for baptism is a
part of the gospel. If he had never baptized a single individual by his own
hands, yet preached baptism, the arguments still lie on the side of baptism.
But Paul testifies in the contest that he did baptize Crispus and Gaius, and
the household of Stephanas. This proves that, though he was not especially sent
to baptize, whenever there were no other brethren present to administer
baptism, he did the work himself. So in this, as in all other instances, the
Quaker theory fades into oblivion.
Heb. 6:1, 2 is also used by
antiordinance people against the doctrine of baptism. The text reads as
follows: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go
on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead
works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on
of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”
By carefully studying these verses in
connection with the last three verses of the previous chapter, we clearly see
that Paul classes the doctrine of baptism with the first principles of the
doctrine of Christ; but no more so than repentance, faith toward God,
resurrection of the dead, and the eternal judgment. If therefore Paul is to be
understood to teach against baptism in Heb. 6:1, 2 then also we are to
understand him to teach against the resurrection of the dead, the laying on of
hands, and the general judgment; and also repentance and faith toward God. This
would make him a rank infidel. Surely ordinance-fighters have not fully
analyzed this twist of the inspired writings before they advanced it.
Observe also that Paul tells the
Hebrews, “Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles
of the oracles of God.” Heb. 5:12. So Paul thought it was necessary that the
Hebrew brethren have the doctrine of baptism with the other Christian doctrines
mentioned above, taught to them again. This does not sound very much like a
refutation of baptism. Nay, it establishes it more and more as a Christian
ordinance.
The true teaching of Paul unto the
Hebrews, in the texts cited above, might be summed up as follows: The Hebrew
brethren had been converted, but had not gone on unto perfection; that is, had
not been sanctified (Heb. 10:14). Paul urges them to “go on unto perfection.”
It appears also that they had to some extent strayed away from the doctrine of
baptism, and the other very essential doctrines of Christianity, hence it
became necessary that these doctrines be taught them again. How any man can see
in this the least argument against water baptism is a mystery to me.
We believe that we have now produced
abundant evidence to convince any teachable person that baptism is an ordinance
of the New Testament, and we leave the subject with you in the fear of God.
— Communion
—
The word “communion” is applied by the
apostle Paul to an ordinance of the New Testament which was instituted by the
Saviour the night of his apprehension, which ordinance is also denominated, “The
Lord’s Supper.” The following are Paul’s words: “The cup of blessing which we
bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we
break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” I Cor. 10:16. Nothing is
more evident than that Paul here refers to the observance by the apostolic
church of the very commemorative ordinance instituted by our Lord the night he
was betrayed by Judas, of which he says they all partook. Verse 17.
The account of the institution of this
ordinance has been handed down to us by four of the inspired writers – Matt.
26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-29. Matthew was an eye
witness. Mark and Luke were apostolic men; hence, received the account from the
apostles. Paul testifies that he had received his information from the Lord.
They all agree as to the constituents and design of the institution. They tell
us that Jesus instituted it of the product of the field, and the fruit of the
vine, and that it is a monument erected in remembrance of his death.
Ordinance-fighters argue concerning the
communion supper as they do concerning baptism, that, inasmuch as it was
instituted before the Saviour’s death, which abolished the Old Testament and
brought the New Testament into force, it was of the Old Testament and ended
with it. We have shown in a previous chapter that with the same argument we
could as successfully argue the abolition of the entire New Testament, for
while it was not committed to writing, it was all introduced before the Lord’s
death; and now we will proceed to show the foolishness of the argument in
reference to the ordinance under consideration.
This ordinance, as we have seen, was to
be observed in remembrance of the Lord’s death. How then say the Quakers that
it belonged to that dispensation which was brought to an end with that event?
Can an event be commemorated before it transpires? If the communion supper was
abolished at Christ’s death, the New Testament is mistaken in its teaching that
it was intended by the Saviour to be observed in remembrance of his death.
Our Quaker friends may pause when they
come to this point and ask, “Can it be clearly proved by Scripture that the
eating of the bread and drinking of the wine were intended by our Lord as a
commemoration of his death?” To answer this question we have but to call the
reader’s attention to the commandment of the Lord with which he enjoined this
ordinance upon us – “This do in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19. – What
particular event in his life did Jesus mean the communion supper should
commemorate? “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the
Lord’s death till he come.” 1 Cor. 11:26. Mark well the words: “till he come,”
which show that this ordinance is to be observed right up to the very second
coming of Christ.
If the Quaker theory be true, this text
should read: “As often as they ate that bread, and drank that cup, they did
show the Lord’s death till he died.” A Quaker Bible would contain some strange
readings.
Again, if the theory of antiordinancism
is correct, this ordinance was abolished no later than twenty hours after it
had been instituted, and the apostles had not a single opportunity of obeying
the commandment, “This do in remembrance of me.” Surely Quakerism is a mass of
confusion.
The most substantial argument which we
can offer to prove the communion supper of the new dispensation, is the very
words Jesus uttered on the occasion of its institution. These words have been
carefully penned down by all of the four inspired writers who have left us a
record of the event. The following are their respective accounts.
“For this is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Matt. 26:28.
“And he said unto them, This is my blood
of the new testament, which is shed for many.” Mark 14:24.
“This cup is the new testament in my
blood, which is shed for you.” Luke 22:20.
“This cup is the new testament in my
blood.” 1 Cor. 11:25.
Is it reasonable that we should believe
the ordinance-fighters’ saying that the communion supper is of the Old Testament,
when the Word of God four times tells us it is of the New Testament?
We will now proceed to the consideration
of another antiordinance dodge. After they have been driven by the multiplicity
of scriptural evidences, to the admission of the fact that Jesus instituted the
communion supper for, and enjoined it upon New Testament saints, we often hear
them assert that it is to be observed only in a spiritual sense. Then they fly
to some passages of Scripture teaching a spiritual feast, promised by Christ to
his faithful followers, saying, “These set forth the true supper of the Lord.”
The following are among the principle texts thus used by them.
“Behold, I stand at the door, and knock:
if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup
with him, and he with me.” Rev. 3:20.
“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink
his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh
is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and
drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent
me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat
manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.” John
6:53-58.
That these texts teach a sublime
spiritual feast to be enjoyed by faithful Christians, is indisputable. But they
afford us no proof that there is no literal ordinance called the Lord’s Supper.
We should apply such texts as speak of spiritual things, to spiritual things;
and such texts as speak of literal thinks to literal things. It is both
erroneous and absurd, to attempt to identify Scriptures which speak of literal
things, with those which speak of spiritual things.
The Bible student will observe the
following clear distinctions between the feast of the foregoing texts and
the ordinance
instituted by our Lord the night of his betrayal.
1. The one is spiritual, the other
literal.
2. The Scriptures which record the
spiritual supper will not admit literalizing, while those Scriptures which
record the literal supper will not admit spiritualizing.
3. The Scriptures which speak of the
spiritual supper are addressed to sinners, while those which speak of the
literal supper are addressed to Christians.
4. The spiritual supper is a continuous
feast. When we open our heart unto him who stands and knocks at the door, he
does not come in as a guest to dine with us and then depart, but he says, “We
will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” John 14:23. The literal
supper is to be eaten at intervals. “This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in
remembrance of me.” 1 Cor. 11:25. “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink
this cup,” etc. Ver. 26.
5. The terms “Lord’s supper” and “communion”
are applied to the literal ordinance, but never to the spiritual feast of the
soul.
6. Of the literal supper men may partake
unworthily (1 Cor. 11:27), but of the spiritual supper none but the worthy can
partake (I Cor. 10:21).
Can the communion supper, in any case,
be observed in a spiritual manner? No, because the institution of it was
literal. A spiritual observance can never be reckoned in obedience to a
commandment to imitate a literal exemplification. Had Jesus exemplified in a
spiritual manner the communion supper (a thing indeed impossible), it would
have been of a spiritual nature and could have been observed only in a
spiritual manner. Or if, when he had literally exemplified this ordinance, he
had made the statement that he was intending only to teach a spiritual lesson,
he would have instituted a spiritual ordinance, and we could, without
difficulty, have understood that it was to be spiritually observed. But he gave
us no such instructions, but when he administered literal bread and literal
wine, he commanded, saying, “This do in remembrance of me,” which commandment
can only be obeyed by partaking of literal emblems such as Jesus administered.
The apostolical church believed the
communion supper to be a literal institution, because they taught and practiced
a literal ordinance. An ordinance meeting held by them is upon record in the
New Testament.
“And upon the first day of the week,
when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready
to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” Acts 20:7.
The breaking of bread mentioned above,
signifies the observance of the communion supper. Some suppose this text to
teach a weekly observance of the ordinances by the apostolic church. But
whether this be true or not it is evident that the text proves at least one
observance of a literal Lord’s supper, thirty years after the death of Christ,
which is abundant proof that the apostles understood Christ’s institution of
the communion supper literally.
Paul in his first epistle to the
Corinthians (A. D. 59), classes the ordinance of communion with the ordinances
of the New Testament, which he commanded them to observe. I Cor. 11:2, 23-25.
We believe we have now produced
Scriptttres to convince any teachable mind that the literal communion supper is
an ordinance instituted by Christ, and we turn our attention to the third
ordinance of the New Testament.
— Feet-Washing
—
We now come to consider the ordinance
which has been spurned and scorned by modern professors more than all the rest
of the commandments of our Saviour. Many who faithfully labor to refute the
false arguments offered by antiordinance people against the Lord’s supper,
employ the same antiordinance arguments against the ordinance of feet-washing.
The most prominent religious sects
disdain the ordinance-fighter’s argument that the communion supper was of the
Old Testament, yet they do not scruple to offer the same antiordinance theory
against the observance of the ordinance of feet-washing.
The saying of the Quakers, that the Lord’s
supper is to be spiritually observed, they regard as an outrage on the Bible,
yet the same proof is among the first objections they raise against literally
obeying the Lord’s command to wash one another’s feet.
How inconsistent to raise objections
against an argument offered by another against one institution, and employ the
same argument yourself against another institution of the same rank.
Many other objections are raised against
feet-washing, both by those who reject the ordinances and by those who profess
to believe in them. These we will refute in this chapter.
The institutions of the ordinance under
consideration is recorded in the thirteenth chapter of John. For the
convenience of the reader, we will insert the entire account, dividing it into
verses as in the Bible; thus making it possible to find any quotation,
hereafter referred to, at a glance.
John 13:1-17
1. “Now before the feast of the
passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of
this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he
loved them unto the end.
2. And supper being ended, the devil
having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;
3. Jesus knowing that the Father had
given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to
God;
4. He riseth from supper, and laid aside
his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
5. After that he poured water into a
basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel
wherewith he was girded.
6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and
Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
7. Jesus answered and said unto him,
What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
8. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt
never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part
with me.
9. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not
my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
10. Jesus saith unto him, He that is
washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are
clean, but not all.
11. For he knew who should betray him;
therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
12. So after he had washed their feet,
and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye
what I have done to you?
13. Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye
say well; for so I am.
14. If I then, your Lord and Master,
have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.
15. For I have given you an example,
that ye should do as I have done to you.
16. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The
servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he
that sent him.
17. If ye know these things, happy are
ye if ye do them.”
One of the principle objections raised
against the ordinance of feet-washing, by those who trample upon this humble
ordinance, is that Jesus did not intend the washing of his disciples’ feet by
himself as an example to be imitated by us. This false argument is best refuted
by Jesus’ own words in verses 14, 15. “If I then, your Lord and Master, have
washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given
you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” Do not these words
clearly show that Jesus taught feet-washing as a thing to be observed by
Christians? The fact that Jesus denominated the washing of his disciples’ feet
an example proves it to be intended for imitation, for nothing can be properly
called an example that is not intended for imitation. But says one, “These
words are not imperative.” It is true that they are not written in the
imperative, but in the potential mode, but this is no proof that feet-washing
is not obligatory upon Christians, because duties are often set forth in the
potential mode in the New Testament.
John says, “Beloved, if God so loved us,
we ought also to love one another.” I John 4:11.
James says, “Go to now, ye that say,
To-day or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and
buy, and sell, and get gain …for that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we
shall live, and do this, or that.” James 4:13-15.
Paul says, “So ought men to love their
wives as their own bodies.” Eph. 5:28.
Everybody acknowledges a duty in each of
these verses, yet they are not set forth in the imperative mode, but in the
potential, the same as feet-washing. How inconsistent to say “Ye ought to love
one another” implies a duty, and “Men ought to love their wives” implies duty,
but “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet” implies a nonessential! Such is
the dilemma into which men are driven when they endeavor to explain away the
ordinance of feet-washing. The fact is, both ought and should always imply
obligation. Webster’s Dictionary, discussing these two words, says, “Both words
imply obligation…Should may imply merely an obligat
