Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

52 Eeet Washing*. Opelika, Alh., Match 26, 1860. Brethren Beebe & Purinoton —ln all that I have heretofore written for the Messenger, I nevei have felt inclined to write specially on the subject *f Feet Washing, but now, since reading the letters of my highly esteemed and beloved brethren Trotl and Weston that subject, I feel a little disposed to rrite, and leave it entirely at your discretion wheth er you publish it or not. I have a very high regard for the brethren who have wiitten in opposition to the observance of Feet Washing literally as a religious duty; I es teem them as brethren and would not designedly say one woid to wound their feelings, but while 1 esteem them highly and know that I am infeiiorto them in point of understanding and ability, yet I am told “not to think of men above that which is wiitten.” I have somewhat carefully noticed the writings of our more northern brethren in opposition to Feet Washing tor a number of years past, but instead ol their writings shaking my faith in regard to it as a Christian duty, they have rather mote strongly confirmed me in it. This has caused me to think somewhat seriously upon the sul j.-ct, to know how far tradition, or long established custom may lead us iu religious things. It is regularly practiced by the brethten and sisters of the Old Baptist order in this country to “wash one another’* feet,” as they believe in obedience to the example and command of Christ. John xiii. 14. While at the North the old order ol Baptists, holding as we do, that the “ Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice,’’ do not practice Feet Washing, because they say they do not believe that it was designed to be liter ally observed. Custom ceruiinly has much influ ence in directing our course über in one instance or the ether. I can hardly think that the Lord has given hischildreu in one locality a clearer un derstanding on this subject than he has in another. The word of God is the same, and if that word has been opened to our understanding it is understood alike by all, hence one thing is certain, some of us are wrong and are either doing too much, or else like some of old, we “ have not ail obeyed the gos pel” in attending to certain gospel duiies. - It must be admitted that Christ Jesus did liter ally wash his disciples’ feet. This he did., not merely in the manner ol ancient Jewish custom, to get water for traveling strangers to wash their own feet, to remove contracted filth, for had the washing been in that sense, Peter as a Jew, certainly wuu and have undeistood it and not have ol j-cted to it.— Christ told him, “What I do iliou knowest noi now, buttbou shall know hereafter.” Such a thing as this was before not known to “wash one auoth ei s feet. Tile Jewislf disciples doubtless were ac quain ed with the practice of procuring necessaiv accommodations for traveling stiangers to wasn their own teet, but they did not wash the traveler’?- feet and then the traveler in return wash their feel, and besides this act of Jesus war confined to hi> disciples, “wash one another’s feet.” lam aware that something more is signified by it beyond the literal act of washing. It is a lesson of deep hu- SOUTHERN BAPTIST MESSENGER. mdity and love, placing all upon a level. It it is simply as an act of hospitality to traveling breth ren to lender them more comfortable when they lodge w.kh us, why should ihe traveling brother be required .in return to wash our feet ? This would not look so much like hospitably to a weary trav eler to impose on him the duty to wash our feet af:er we bad been trudging about our domestic duiies all the day. And besides, I would ask broth er West, who says he has “ conclusive evidence ’ that it was intended as an act of hospitality to t raveling brethren, if you and the northern brethren who ojip<>e feet washing af>ei the manner we practice it in the south. I a.*k, do you wash the traveling brethren’s feet ? If you do not, do you not neg lect to do even what you understand is intended by the example and command of Christ! *• If you know these things, says Christ, happy a-re ye if you do them.” The happiness doe* not consist simply in knowing, but in knowing and doing. I think if ever I have enjoyed myself religiously and my soul been truly humbled within me in the ob servance of any religious duty it lias been in wash ing my brother’s feet as I have considered in obe dience to the example and command of Christ, and in seeing the brethren wash one another’s feet.— If what I have realized in this is merely “animal excitement,” as brother Trott seems to imply might be, then 1 fear that much of my religious enjoy ments have onlv been animal excitement. I 1 ei j >yed the answer of a good conscience in being baptized, and when I was led into the water my : mind was caught away to Jesus who gave the ex j ample of baptism, and I felt willing to be cut loose from all the world if I could fallow him. When the time came with the Church for feet washing, I felt too unworthy for any of God’s children to wash my feet, and thought surely none of them would stoop so low. One of the brethren addressed me very tenderly, and said, “Bro. Mitchell, may I wash your feet.” I began to prepare for it, he poured walei into a bason, gilded himself with a towel, droj ped upon his knees before me, and began to wash my unworthy feet. In a moment my mind was caught awav to the blessed and lovely J esU s “washing his poor disciples’ feet,” and I then saw and felt something in regard to it that I never bad known anything about before. I have often real ized the same since that time. [ think I have seen chtisiians in observing this duty as humble as lit tle children. I have seen the master wash the ser vant’s feet, and thank God that he vv a * counted wort hy to wash the feet of one of the humblest ami poorest of God’s children. I know of no religion denomination in this country that -wash one anolb er’s feel” except the old order of Baptist*. W„t tend to it as we consider in obedience to ChrUi though we have to bear the scoff, and sneers, aim •eptoaoh of many with whom w are surrounded. A Deacon of the Missionary Baptist Church or. reading brother Troll’s letter on feet washing, as I am in formed, greatly exulted in i, and said it’ w H precisely what lie believed,and doubtless he thou,r|, he had a weapon furnished from our own tanks'. ppose our practice Ido not blame brother Trot; however, or bo. West, for writing what they be ‘ieve to be truth, and 1 still have, as [ ever hr had, Christian fellowship for them, and if they will come south I will give them a hearty welcome * and if they will attend our meetings in time of Feet Washing, and would suffer one so unworthy as I am to wash their feet in token of love and fellow ship for them, I certainly feel willing to do it. It is, however, humiliating to mv proud nature, but thank God, I hope be lias sufficiently humbled me by his grace that I desire no higher honor in thi* world, nor in His church, than to be kept by his love and mercy so that I may have a name and a place among his poor and afflicted people, and b counted worthy to wash their feet, especially tbs feet of hi* ministering servants. Here perhaps I ought to stop, but l wish to no lice the principal argument and objection of breth ren against the subject. I notice that it is very common from brethren of late to quote Matt, xix 28 e shall sit upon twelve thrones judging th* twelve tribes of Israel.” Tnis is applied to the Apostles as the “ enthroned judges” to judge and •decide bn reference to all matteis of doctrine and order in the gospel church or spiritual Israel. I do not object to this application of the text. lam willing to abide their decision, though they art four or five Apostles from whom we have no letters in the New Testament; what they taught th* churches by word was doubtless in harmony with what is written. After the resurrection of Christ he appeared again according to promise to his Apostles. ll* lets them know that there is no power in heaven or earth but what is vested in himself, and for that reason he could speak with authority, “ Go ye, theiefoie and teach all nations, baptiz ng them in the name ol the Fathei, and of tlieS >n, and of th* Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe ail thing! whatsoever I here commanded you,” &<•. This com mand did not rest upon the beloved Apostle John alone, but alike upon all of them. What had J u> commanded them ? Did he not command them, the Apostles, to wash one anothei’s feet ? Did b not Bay to them if I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought to wash one anoth er s feet ? Is not this strong argument ? Is it not plain, unambiguous reasoning? that is easily un derstood and could not require that the Apostle* should write much to establish the churches in th* practice. “For I, says Christ, have given you an example that ye shoul i do as I have done to you.” 11.. w could the Apostles “uo as” their Lord had done to them unless they followed the verv ideiHl cal example that they saw with their eyes ? How could they do as he did if they did not literally wash one another’s feet as they saw him do to • hem ? Our northern brethren as well as others at ’he south sometimes quote John xvii. 23, 24. “Inou hast loved them as ihou hast loved me. — fhou lovedftL me before the foundation of the world.” Ttiey therefore contend (and so do 1) that God oved his people as he looid his only S<u, in the veiy same manner, and with the very same love. •>o in rtleterice to feet washing, the Apostles must do as he had done to them. Must doit in the same manner.