Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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