by William G. Schell Introduction... "chapter" 3 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 Savior 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” (v. 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 1 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 Savior, 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 Cor., 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.”— v. 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 Savior 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?”— 1 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 eyewitness. 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 Savior’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 Savior 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 antiordinanceism 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 things 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.— V. 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. 1 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. 1 Cor. 11:2, 23–25. We believe we have now produced Scriptures 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. 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