Newspaper Page Text
Opelika, Ala., June 27, 1860.
Brethren Editors —The subject of Feet Wash
ing which has of late been investigated with much
calmness and brotherly love through the columns
of the Messenger, has, I hope, been profitable and
edifying to all, without engendering unpleasant
feelings in any. I am always glad to read the com
munications of my brethren when they manifest
nothing but a desire to know and understand the
truth to the mutual harmony and edification of the
body of Christ. A letter of this character on the
subject of Feet Washing appears in the 12th No.
of the Signs, from Eld. Holloway L. Power of Tex
as. I fully agree with bro. Power, and ask the
republication of that letter in the Messenger. I
hope the brethren generally will give it a careful
reading. W.M. MITCHELL.
Nacogdoches, Tex., May 16, 1860.
Hear Brother Beebe —As several of the breth
ren have given their views respecting the washing
of one another’s feet in the Signs, and as I do not
recollect of any who advocated it as a church act,
I feel a desire to show my opinion also; as I be
lieve that no injury to the cause of Christ can re
sult from a candid and brotherly expression of our
sentiments on any subject of Christian faith and
practice, even where we may differ one from anoth
er. And I feel sure that what lam about to write
is not for the sake of the mastery, or a wish to dic
tate to my brethren, but solely with a desire to ef
fect, so far as in me lies, a oneness of sentiment and
uniformity in practice among the brethren, on a
subject upon which we have long been divided in
opinion.
That the washing of the disciples’ feet, as nar
rated by John (chap. 13.) wasa literal act,is, I be
lieve, admitted by all; that it took place in their
assembled or congregational capacity, is beyond
doubt; and that it followed immediately after the
Lord’s supper is, to say the least, highly probable,
if not absolutely certain. When we compare the
language of John introductory to feet-wasbing,
where he says, ‘‘That Jesus knew that his hour was
come, when he should depart out of the world un
to the Father,” with that of Paul, introductory to
the supper, where he says, ‘‘That the Lord Jesus,
the same night in which he was betrayed, took
bread,” &c., (John xiii. 1, and 1 Cor. xi. 23) we
are, I think, bound to the conclusion that both re
fer to the same point of time. And when we add
to this the fact that all the evangelists agree that
the apostacy of Judas was foretold during the Pass
over Supper, and that John connects the same oc
currence in his narrative of feet-washing, there
seems to be but little room for doubt on this sub
ject. And I further suggest here, that if it is con
tended that John’s account of his rising from sup
per, in verse 2d, did not‘refer to the same supper
spoken of after the washing of feet, hut to some
other supper antecedent to it, then how shall we
reconcile this with the statement in verse Ist, that
the Savior knew his hour was come, while it mu-t,
on this supposition, have been at least two days
before the Passover ?
SOUTHERN BAPTIST MESSENGER.
There is, I admit, some difficulty in reconciling
this with the supposition of the disciples, that the
Savior, in addressing Judas in the language, “What
thou doest, do quickly,” intended for him to buy
those things needed against the feast; but when it
is remembered that the eighth or last day of the
Passover was equally a holy convocation with the
first day of the feast, the difficulty will, I presume,
be sufficiently accounted for. But as the main
point as to the congregational character of the act
is settled beyond doubt, I deem it unnecessary to
pursue the argument as to the precise time, further
at present; and will proceed to examine how fa
and in what sense, it is still binding on the disci
ples of Christ “to wash one another’s feet.” That
it is still binding, in some sense, seems beyond
doubt, for the Savior, immediately on resuming
his seat after having performed the act of humility,
condescension and love, told his disciples that “As
he, their Loid and Master, had washed their feet,
they otight to wash one another’s feet;” adding that
he had given them an example that they should do
as he had done to them : “ For theseivanl was not
greater than his Lord, nor he that was sent greater
than liethat senthim. Wasanv example ever conse
crated by acts and words more striking and appro
priate? or could its perpetuity have been enjoined
by arguments more forcible and direct? Nor is
the perpetuation of the ordinance more forcibly set
forth in the Savior’s language, above quoted, than
the manner in which it was to be done—(l speak
this with all due deference for the views and feeling*
of the many esteemed brethren who, I know, differ
from me on this point.) For, as he had washed
their feet literally, as an example, and then enjoin
ed them to wash one another's feet, as he had
washed theirs, in that examp'e, T can see no wav
of escape from a literal feet-washing, corresponding
with this pattern or example.
Before examining the arguments usually brought
against feet-washing, as a church act, I will notice
what I conceive to be the doctrine contained in it
or signified by it, and to which the Savior leferred
when he said to Peter, “ What 1 do thou knowest
not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” That
Peter knew what the Savior was doing, litera'ly, is
certain ; but there was something signified in that
act which he did not then fully realize, but which
was manifest to him in his after experience. This,
I think, was the total depravity of the old man
ihe flesh— through which he was constantly sub
ject to temptation, lust and sin, and by reason there
of needed daily and pardon. That Peter
ar.d the other Apostles, except Judas, had a reveal
ed knowledge of Christ as the anointed of God. and
of the value of that cleansing of which he spoke
when he told Peter, “Except I wash thee, thou hast
no part in me,” is evident from Peter’s reply :
“Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and
my head.” And that this washing referred to the
washing of regeneration or cleansing from sin is
abo manifest, irorn Judas being an exception to it;
for as to literal washing, lie was no doubt as clean
as any of the others. But they were then babes in
the knowledge of divine things,and had many
hard lessons yet to learn relative to their own
weakness, frailties, infirmities, and the manifold
temptations which would beset them from tbo
world, the flesh, and Satan, and which would drive
them daily to Christ for pardon and cleansing; and
to encourage them to come to him in all their need,
he stooped down to wash their feet, though con
taminated by contact with the world—by this,
signifying his love toward them, and his readiness
to forgive and cleanse them from all sin. And hero
I remaik, that a knowledge of our own individua
sins and need of daily cleansing, begets that sym
pathy in us for our brethren who, like us, are
wrestling with their fleshly corruptions, which qual
ifies us to bear their burdens and imitate the Sa
vior’s compassion by fulfilling his command, “To
do to them as he has done to us”—forgive their
transgressions, as he forgives ours, and love as wo
aie loved. And when, dear brethren, we sit art each
other’s feet and wash them, and in this literal act
really show forth what we appreciate in heart—the
love and pardoning mercy of our blessed Savior
toward us. and our readiness to forgive one anoth
er, as be has forgiven us—then we shall surely ex
perience that happiness of which he spoke, when
he said, “If ye know these things, happy are ye if
ye do tin m.”
I am aware that many of the brethren think we
have fulfilled the injunction, “To wash one anoth
er’s feel,” when we exercise that meekness and
charity which the literal act was intended to signi
fy. To such I would respectfully suggest, that if
a command to peifonn a literal act can be fulfilled
by teaching aud prac ising those things signified
by that act, then may I not claim to have baptiz
ed every believer to whom I have taught the death,
burial and resurrection of the Savior, and our
cleansing in his atoning blood—these being the
things s : gnified in a literal baptism—or that I have
administered the Supper to those to whom I have
taught his expiatory sacrifice on the cross? Were
I to ask a brother if he believed in the washing of
the saints’ feet, and he were to answer, Yes, and
that he practiced it daily in acts of kindness, love
and forbeaiance toward the brethren—these being
the things intended to be signified by the literal
act —might not another brother, with equal pro
priety, claim to have been baptized, because he
believed in the death, burial and resurrection of
the Savior ? or to have partaken of the Supper, be
cause be believed in his vicarious atonement?—
these being the things chiefly signified in the lit
eral aets of baptism and the Lord's Supper: and
thus, in contending for a figurative feet-washing, in
place of the literal act, I overthrow Baptism and
the Supper.
Again, it is contended by many that feet-wash
ing, though literal, is but an act of hospitality to
siiang-rs, travelers, &c. Had this been its intent,
i hen surely Peter and the other disciples would have
needeu no after experience to enable them to under
stand its import and meaning; besides, those were
neither strangers, travelers nor visitors who were
the subjects of the first feet-washing, but the little