AVING carefully examined in the previous chapter the first proposition, which affirms that the Communion was observed in Apostolic times, and that records of this fact occur in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, and having found but little foundation for the latter part of the proposition, we might naturally infer that the other propositions relative to feet-washing may also lack proof. If this is the case we have reason to think a diligent investigation will discover the fact. Upon such an investigation we are now prepared to enter.

      The second proposition is as follows, namely:

      II. EXCEPTING THE TEXT IN TIMOTHY (I Timothy 5:9, 10) THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE PRACTICE OF WASHING FEET BY THE CHRISTIANS IN APOSTOLIC TIMES.

      It is supposed by some that the Apostle Paul must refer to at least three ordinances in his letter to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 11). If it were an undisputed fact that he makes use of the term ordinances in that restricted sense which is now so common, there could be but little doubt of the truthfulness of this position. He says: "Now, I praise[97] you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you" (I Corinthians 11:2). Here is a plurality of ordinances. But he did not praise them for the manner in which they observed the Agape. Neither does he say that he delivered that unto them; and the Communion they had not observed as he had received it from the Lord (I Corinthians 11:17-23). Hence, there would be no plurality of ordinances, in our sense of the term, for them to observe if feet-washing was not one of them. This is the argument; but to our mind it would not bear the test of a critical investigation, and hence we are not disposed to place much stress upon it.

      Accordingly we will concede the correctness of this second proposition; that is, except in Timothy, there is no mention of feet-washing in the New Testament after the rite was performed by Christ. But in this respect, as we have already clearly demonstrated, it stands on an equality with the Communion. For, except in Corinthians, where an abuse is corrected, there is likewise no mention of the Communion in the New Testament after Christ had commanded its observance.

      This fact gives additional force to the concluding paragraph of the preceding chapter; unless, indeed, it should become evident in some way that this reference in Timothy to the washing of the saints' feet is to a customary act of hospitality, or merely to a good a work, and not to an ordinance of religion. To this point we shall now specifically direct our attention.

      The third proposition affirmed by those who reject the washing of the saints' feet as a religious ordinance is as follows, namely:

      III. THE WASHING OF FEET IN TIMOTHY 5:9, 10, IS [98] CLASSED OTHER GOOD AND LAWFUL WORKS, AND SO IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ORDINANCE.

      In other words, it is claimed that the washing of feet in Timothy is not an ordinance, but a good work. What reasons are assigned? Simply that it is mentioned among "other good end lawful works." It is a work of hospitality, say our opponents generally.

      Our direct answer to this position is simple and brief. We affirm two propositions, which are sufficient to relieve us of the main weight of the burden of proof. These are as follows, namely:

      1. That the mention of feet-washing in the connection in which it stands (I Timothy 5:10) is in nowise inconsistent with its character as an ordinance. This we shall endeavor to prove further on.

      2. That if it is a work of hospitality simply, it is very singular that Paul should first say: "If she have lodged strangers," specifically a work of hospitality; and that he should then add: "If she have washed the saints' feet."

      It will presently appear that we need not go farther in an effort to furnish a direct answer to and refutation of this objection. A complete refutation will be found in the correct interpretation of the text in question (I Timothy 5:9, 10) as it appears in the light of authentic history. It is first requisite that we should have a better translation than that of the Authorized Version. The Revision gives it thus: "Let none be enrolled as a widow under three score years old." It is not clearly determined that this is what Paul meant. Dr. Smith says: "It is laid down in I Timothy 5:9, 10, that a widow is not to be entered on the church-roll." The meaning of the words used by Paul is not difficult to determine. They mean that a widow is not to have her name put upon the catalogue until she has reached a certain [99] age, &c. But what catalogue? We have good reasons for believing that the catalogue referred to was that of deaconesses. The wives of deacons in those times, as far as we can learn, were deaconesses as a general thing. And now says Paul: Let not any widows be thus enrolled [as deaconesses] under a certain age, &c. Of course these widows thus enrolled were thereafter also provided for by the church. Nearly all the more recent commentators take this view. Others, however, reverse the order, and hold that these widows had been deaconesses, and were now to be enrolled as beneficiaries. Even Dr. A. Clarke thinks that widow in this connection was the name of an office [deaconess], because ordinarily filled, as he claims, by widows.

      Now, according to undisputed authority:

      1. The office of deaconess existed in the primitive church from the time of the Apostles down to the sixth century, and later.

      2. According to Dr. Blackburn (History of the Christian Church) this passage in Timothy (I Timothy 5:9, 10) was quoted in the earliest post-Apostolic times as giving the duties and qualifications of deaconesses. Dr. Smith, quoting this text, adds: "These restrictions seem to have been consistently maintained in the early church." A reference to the Apostolical Constitutions shows that they are elaborately repeated as qualifications of an order of church officers. Origen and Tertullian and others show by their writings that they were in force in their times. Hence we feel justified in saying that this passage refers to the works and duties and qualifications of deaconesses.

      3. One of the commonly recognized duties of deaconesses was to wash the feet of the saints religiously; that is, of the female saints. This was sometimes done at baptism, [100] and again in connection with other services. Abundant authorities can be quoted to this effect up to the time of the Council of Elvira, A. D. 306, which expressly prohibited the religious washing of feet ; but later, in A. D. 675, we find it expressly sanctioned by the Synod of Toledo. At this time the practice was wide-spread (Dr. Smith), though probably not universal. And the women, and especially the deaconesses, officially washed the feet of women.

      Hence, it is justly claimed that Paul here (I Timothy 5:9, 10) means either that the name of no widow was to be entered on the catalogue of beneficiaries who had not been a deaconess, and that among the duties of a deaconess was the washing of the saints' feet; or, which seems more probable, that no widow was to be enrolled as a church official--a deaconess--unless she had already given evidence of her fitness for the position as required in this text. Dr. Lange says: "Almost all the older commentators are of the first opinion; nearly all the recent ones of the latter." Accordingly, Paul's language amounts to this: Let no widow be enrolled who has not served the church in the capacity of a deaconess; and the part of this service he speaks of was to attend upon the female members in the washing of feet.

      This also shows why the washing of feet is mentioned and not the Communion or baptism. These two ordinances were administered by the ministers and elders; the other one by the deacons. Hence he could not say, if she have been baptized; or, if she have partaken of the Communion; but with striking propriety could he say, if she have washed the saints' feet. It, therefore, appears very evident that the washing of feet has as much support as an Apostolic practice in the New Testament as the [101] Communion; and had it not been for the abuse of the Communion at Corinth, feet-washing would be better supported historically in the New Testament than the Communion, just as the command to observe it is clearer and more positive, as Dr. Abbott acknowledges. [102]

[TCO 97-102]