by William G. Schell 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 Savior. 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 Savior 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 antiordinanceism. 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. "chapter" 1 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 catechize 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 catechizing 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, feet-washing, and the Lord’s supper commanded by inspiration, and observed by the apostolic church after the Savior’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 Savior’s death, that the Gentile nations could receive the gospel. Before the Savior’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. "chapter" 2 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 Savior. 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, feet-washing, 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 Savior. 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. This material has a copyright. For further information, contact us at: "omifren@zoominternet.net" NOTE: ALSO AVAILABLE IN BOOK FORM FROM: Reformation Publishers 222 University Drive P.O. Box 276 Prestonsburg, KY 41653-0276 Reformation Publishers Orders... 1-800-765-2464 Information... 1-606-886-7222 Fax... 1-606-886-8222 Email... rpublisher@aol.com