VI. ANSWERS TO POPULAR OBJECTIONS, URGED AGAINST THE ORDINANCE OF FEET WASHING.

      The usual and most popular objections to this ordinance, which have come under our observation, are the following,

      1. THAT FEET WASHING WAS AN ANCIENT JEWISH CUSTOM, and that Christ did it in conformity to that custom. This objection we hold to be entirely unsusceptible of proof. [360] It cannot be shown that feet washing was a prevailing custom among the Jews, and that Christ observed it as such. We admit that the washing of feet, like the washing of the face and hands, was in vogue among them; but then, the custom was for each one to wash his own hands, face and feet, as it is among us. To prove this fact, we here quote and present the following texts. The first passage in point on record we find in Ge 18:4. "Let a little water be fetched, and wash your feet." Thus said Abraham to the angels, or three men, who paid him a visit. In a similar way, Lot addressed the two angels who came to Sodom in the evening, saying, "Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet" (Ge 19:2). Again, when Eliezer, Abraham's servant, who was sent out to seek a wife for Isaac, his master's son, came to the house of Bethuel, in the city of Nahor, in Mesopotamia, Laban, Rebecca's brother, said to him, "Come in, thou blessed of the Lord; and he gave him straw and provender for his camels, and water to wash his feet and the men's feet that were with him" (Ge 24:31,32). We are also told that when Joseph's brethren went down to Egypt the second time to buy corn, and were invited to dine with Joseph, the ruler of his house "gave them water, and they washed their feet" (Ge 43:24).

      Again, we read in the book of Judges, that a certain Levite went to Bethlehem to bring home his wife, and that on his return he was hospitably entertained by an old citizen of Gibeah, who brought him into his house, "and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink" (Jud 19:21). We are also informed in Lu 7:44, [361] that Jesus said to Simon, the Pharisee, with whom He dined, and where a woman washed and anointed His feet, "I entered thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet."

      Now these passages fully refute the objection as alleged above, and show conclusively that the custom was for guests to wash their own feet, and not the customary office performed by servants or by the host.

      The text 1Sa 25:41, and which is the principal one relied upon, does by no means prove it; but shows the act that Abigail proposed doing was an unusual one, and even that act was never performed.

      But admitting it was a custom in ancient times, to wash feet at public entertainments, or when lodging strangers, would that excuse us from doing what Christ taught and did? Had He not a right to make an ordinance out of a custom? If therefore He has ordained the washing of feet as an ordinance in His Church (for this is the point on which the subject turns), then we are bound to do it, and we have no right to creep out from its obligations, because it was an ancient custom.

      Besides, the Saviour's declaration, "What I do, thou knowest not now," and Peter's surprise and objection, as found in the context [Joh 13:6-8], furnish additional proof of the same fact. So that in reality, there is nothing valid in this objection. But it is objected,

      2. THAT FEET WASHING, AS PERFORMED BY CHRIST, WAS A MERE ACT OF CIVILITY, and that He did it on the ground of necessity and utility. This objection is brought against this ordinance by Elder John L. Dagg, D.D., President of the Mercer University, Ga., who in an article on the washing of the saints' feet, published in the Southern [362] Baptist, says, "The apostles had bathed themselves before sitting down to the paschal supper, and therefore did not need any washing, except the feet. On this need, small as it may appear, the Saviour placed the fitness and propriety of the act which He performed.--He therefore who washes the feet of a saint when those feet do not need washing, is as if he gave a cup of cold water to a disciple who is not thirsty." J.C. Goulden says, "It was a real service. The disciples' feet needed washing, and therefore Christ did it for them."

      Now, we ask, where is the proof of all these assertions? In the absence of proof, assertion says nothing pro or con on any subject, no matter who makes it. If therefore Dr. Dagg, or anybody else, can prove the assertion, that "the apostles had just bathed before supper, and therefore did not need washing, except the feet," let him tell us where and what the proof is. And if on this "need" the Saviour placed the fitness and propriety of the act which He performed, when He washed the disciples' feet, let him also inform us where the evidence of that opinion is to be found. Then perhaps we will concur with him in the opinion, "that to wash a saint's feet when they do not need it, is as useless as to offer water to one who is not thirsty." But until this proof is furnished, we shall continue to deny the truth of his assertions, and the validity of this objection. Besides, if this objection is true, then it may be alleged that Christ gave the disciples the Lord's supper also on the same ground, that is, because they were hungry and thirsty. And hence, to give saints bread and wine when they are neither hungry no thirsty, is as useless as winter clothes in midsummer. [363]

      But neither the one nor the other is true. Again, it is objected that the service of feet washing as performed by Christ, was not intended to be a standing formal ordinance in the Church,

      3. BECAUSE IT DOES NOT, LIKE BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER, TYPIFY CHRIST, OR BECAUSE IT IS NOT A SACRAMENTAL ORDINANCE. This objection is founded in error. It is not true that feet washing does not typify Christ, like baptism and the Lord's supper. All persons can see this, who understands its design. What does baptism represent? It represents and shows forth the burial and resurrection of Christ. What does feet washing represent? It represents and shows forth the humility and love of Christ. What does the Lord's supper represent? It represents and shows forth the sufferings and death of Christ. Hence we plainly perceive the one ordinance typifies or represents Christ as much as another. They are all monumental, if no sacramental ordinances. Feet washing is as much a memorial of the humility and love of Christ, as baptism is of the burial and resurrection of Christ, or as the Lord's supper is of the sufferings and death of Christ. This objection is also invalid and futile. It is further objected that feet washing is no Church ordinance,

      4. BECAUSE ITS CHIEF DESIGN WAS TO ENFORCE A CERTAIN CLASS OF MORAL DUTIES, AND THEREFORE MUST BE TAKEN FIGURATIVELY, AND NOT LITERALLY. This objection is partly true, and partly not true. It is true that the Saviour did design to teach his disciples a moral lesson, and enforce the observance of a certain class of moral duties. The duties He designed to teach, inculcate and enforce, are humility, kindness and love. But these duties He intended [364] to teach and enforce by giving them a visible, memorial and symbolical ordinance, which would impress and keep them before their minds from year to year, and from age to age. This was its chief design, and so far the objection is true.

      But it is not true that this service is "no standing ordinance in the Church, and that it must be taken spiritually, and not literally." Now, we say feet washing is a church ordinance. We have proved this fact, beyond the possibility of contradiction, under the first head of our discourse. There also, the proof will be found, that this ceremony is to be taken literally, and not spiritually, as Jesus very clearly explained to them, as soon as He resumed His seat at the table (Joh 13:13-15). It is still further objected,

      5. THAT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE APOSTLES AND FIRST CHRISTIANS PRACTICED FEET WASHING AS A DIVINE ORDINANCE. In answer to this objection, we say,

      1. It is not necessary to the validity of a religious rite or duty, that we should have the example of the apostles and primitive Christians. The example and command of Christ are all-sufficient for this purpose.

      Hence, the command of Christ given to His apostles, to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" [Mt 28:19], is deemed quite sufficient to warrant us in the use of the form, although we have no evidence on record that the apostles and first ministers ever used it.

      Again, why is the Lord's prayer in such general use, in the absence of all proof that it was used by the primitive Christians?

      Now, if all parties are willing to use the form of [365] baptism, as given by Matthew, and the Lord's prayer, as given by Christ, without evidence of its use by the primitive church, why should they not be willing also to practice feet washing, without proof that the apostles and early Christians observed it?

      2. But then, we say, it is not true that we have no proof of this rite being in practice among the first Christians. The case of the widow mentioned in 1Ti 5:10, as we have shown before, is proof positive that there was such a practice in the church at Ephesus; and if in one apostolic church, then doubtless in the rest also. This ordinance is also objected to,

      6. BECAUSE IT HAS A FORMALIZING TENDENCY. This is one of Rev. J.C. Goulden's objections. He says, "Whenever we adhere to ceremonies, merely as such, losing sight of their end or spirit, we will always attach to them more importance than they deserve; and hence such things exert a very pernicious influence upon the real interests of religion, leading, as they do, to the substitution of the form for the power of godliness." There is a good deal of truth in these remarks. But then, are they not just as applicable to other ceremonies--such as baby sprinkling, confirmation, love-feasts, &c., as well as feet washing? Are there no formalizing tendencies in those ceremonies? If so, why not object to them also, on the same ground? Yea, more, why not object to them, because they are without divine warrant? They are not founded upon precept, example and promise, as is the ordinance of feet washing. Yet, against these human ceremonies, there are no objections filed, no apprehensions felt that some persons might attach more importance to them than they [366] deserve, or that they might exert a pernicious influence upon the interests of religion. Such an objection as this, comes with an ill grace from the "church of the catechism," where adherence to ceremonies has both a formalizing and Romanizing tendency. Again, this ordinance is objected to,

      7. BECAUSE NO CHURCH, IT IS SAID, RECEIVES FEET WASHING AS A SACRAMENTAL ORDINANCE. If it be true that no church receives feet washing as a sacramental, that is, an oath-bound ordinance, there are nevertheless many churches which always have, and which we trust always will receive and observe it as divinely instituted and symbolizing ordinance. From its first institution down to this period, it has been regarded as a religious duty by the humble and faithful followers of Christ, in different countries, and in various communities. All this is a plain matter of history, which needs but to be mentioned, to convince the intelligent and well-informed. Who does not know that feet washing is practiced in our country by different denominations; such as the Mennonites, Moravians, Free Will Baptists, Christians, Disciples, United Brethren, River Brethren, and others, as well as the Church of God? Hence, therefore, this objection is the offspring of ignorance. But again, this ordinance is still further objected to,

      8. BECAUSE IT TOOK PLACE UNDER THE LAW, and has therefore passed away, like the passover, John's baptism, and the tradition of the elders.

      As Christ is our passover, we need no Jewish passover, and as we have the institution of Christian baptism, we have no need of John's baptism. And as to the tradition of the elders, Christ positively repudiated [367] them, whereas feet washing He has expressly commanded to be observed.

      But does not this objection lie with equal force against baptism and the Lord's supper? If one was instituted and practiced under the law, then were the rest also; and by the same rule of logic, all must pass away. However, the objection is founded upon false premises, and by consequence the conclusion is false also. Lastly, feet washing is objected to,

      9. BECAUSE IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL. Men, it is asserted, may go to heaven without it. Thousands, it is said, have lived and died happy, and gone to heaven, who never practiced feet washing as a religious ordinance. Therefore it is not essential. Now this may all be true, and yet those who neglect it, on the ground of non-essentiality, may be excluded from that blissful abode. And why? Because man is responsible for what he has, and not for what he has not. God may wink at men's ignorance, because they have no means to be informed; but whether He will excuse those who willfully shut their eyes, and love darkness rather than light, is a grave and serious question.

      We might with the same propriety assert, that there are thousands of Quakers in heaven, yea, and thousands who were not Quakers, who never observed any memorial and symbolizing ordinance. But would this be a lawful excuse for us, or for others of the same opinion, to neglect what we know to be a standing, formal and symbolizing ordinance of the Church? No, verily not.

      The main question therefore on every religious subject, with the real Christian, is, or at least ought to be, What is the will of God? not, What is essential? what [368] may I not do and yet go to heaven? Christians don't want to go to heaven by way of disobedience, but by the way of obedience. They obey God, not for the sake of getting to heaven, but rather from a principle of love, and because it is right, and their duty to do so. These are the true motives to obedience. And hence, the questions, What is essential? What is non-essential? weigh but little with the Christian. All he wants to know is, What is my duty? What does God say? If He has made this or that my duty, either by precept or example, that is enough for me. This is the language and governing consideration of the Christian. And no wonder it is so, for it is written, "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father, who is in heaven" (Mt 7:21). If then, feet washing is an ordinance of the New Testament, it is a part of the will of God, and if a part of the will of our Father in heaven, it must be observed. This is the main question. The whole matter turns upon this point.

      Here then we close our discourse. We have fairly and fully investigated and discussed the subject under consideration. We have shown: (1) That feet washing is a memorial ordinance of the New Testament. (2) The proper time and manner of observing it. (3) The object and design of the institution. (4) The obligations resting upon all Christians to perform this service. (5) The benefits arising from a proper observance of it; and, (6) We have answered the popular objections against it.

      Nothing more therefore remains for us to do, save the giving of a brief word of exhortation.

      1. Let us say to our brethren in the ministry: Preach [369] the word. Keep back no part of the counsel of God. But go, stand up, and speak to the people all the words of this life. If feet washing is an ordinance of God, then preach it and practice it, regardless of the smiles or frowns of the world. Remember that the vows of God are upon you, that you are bound to teach the observance of all things whatever Christ has commanded you, and that no one can neglect to do so with impunity.

      2. To the membership of all the churches, we say, "Hear ye, and understand what the will of the Lord is." To this end, "search the Scriptures." These are and must be the Christian's sole and infallible rule of faith and practice. If you will walk in Christ's ordinances, and keep His commandments, you will have a right to the tree of life, and you shall enter in through the gates into the city. But if you know His will, and do it not, you shall be beaten with many stripes. "For Moses truly said to the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you of your brethren, like to me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say to you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul that will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people" (Ac 2:22,23). [370]

[DPS 360-370]