IV. THE OBLIGATIONS INCUMBENT UPON ALL CHRISTIANS TO PERFORM THIS HUMBLE AND SACRED SERVICE.

      These obligations are imposed upon Christians,

      1. BY THE COMMAND OF CHRIST. He, as our Lawgiver, has a right to command and to ordain such ordinances as He sees fit and proper. And whatever commands He gives and whatever ordinances He appoints, Christians are bound to observe and do. This of course will be admitted on all hands. Then the first question on the subject is, Has Christ commanded feet washing? We assert He had. He says in the words of our text, "YE OUGHT TO WASH ONE ANOTHER'S FEET" [Joh 13:14]. Here is a command, or at least what is equivalent to a command. The word "ought" in the original is opheilo, and this verb is sometimes translated must, should, oweth, is indebted, are bound, behooved, &c. (See 1Co 5:10 9:10 Php 1:18 Lu 16:5,7 11:4 2Th 1:3 2:13 Heb 2:17.) Hence the force of the term in [93] this place is to owe, to be bound, to be under obligation. It may, therefore, be taken in an imperative sense; as in Lu 24:26 Ac 5:29. In both these passages, the word "ought" is translated in German "must." With this rendering, the text will read, "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also must wash one another's feet." From this, then, we see that the word is of binding force and imposes duty. This also is clearly shown by the following texts: Mt 23:23 Lu 18:1 Heb 2:1 Eph 5:28 1Jo 2:6. And then again, Christ says, "I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you" [Joh 13:15]. This text, in connection with the foregoing texts, carries with it all the authority, and force of an obligation to observe this ordinance, arising, first, from the command of Christ, and,

      2. FROM THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST. "I have given you an example" [Joh 13:15]. What is an example? The word is used to denote a precedent for our admonition or imitation. In 1Co 18:11, it is used in the former sense, but in our text it is used in the latter. Here the Saviour becomes a precedent or pattern for our imitation, or in other words, a model for us to copy after. An example is always given to be followed. This is a mode by which Christ sought to instruct His disciples in the ways of Christian duty. This mode He adopted in the ordinance of baptism and in the ordinance of feet washing.

      Examples have a peculiar power above naked precepts. This will appear quite evident when we consider,

      1. That examples clearly express to us the nature of our Christian virtues and duties in their subjects and sensible effects. General precepts form abstract ideas of virtue and duty; but in examples, virtues [94] and duties are made visible in all their circumstances.

      2. Examples assure us that certain virtues are attainable, and certain duties possible. But precepts simply instruct us as to what are Christian virtues and duties, without any assurance of their attainability.

      3. Examples, by a secret and lively incentive, urge to imitation. We feel encouraged by the visible practice of exemplars to the performance of duty, because the duty is made more perceptible to our mind, and more easily imitable by us.

      Hence, we say again, that examples have a peculiar power and force, as a means of instruction, above mere naked precepts. For this reason, the Saviour employed the power of His example, with the authority of His precept, in the education of His disciples, and especially in the institution of His standing and commemorative ordinances. Hereby He made His precept more intelligible and honorable. Christ is a Commander, like Gideon, who said to his soldiers, "Look on me and do likewise" (Jud 7:17). And like Abimelech, who said, "What ye have seen me do, make haste and do as I have done" (Jud 9:48). And like Caesar, who called his soldiers, not soldiers, but "fellow soldiers," and whose usual word was, not "go," but "come." What, therefore, Christ has done, Christians should not disdain to do; seeing He has given them an example that they should follow his steps.

      Here then, from the two-fold consideration drawn from the precept and example of Christ, we might rest the argument, in proof of the moral and unalterable obligations imposed upon all Christians, to observe the ordinance under consideration. And we might the more readily do so for the reason that no [95] one can or ought to ask more in support of any religious duty than precept and example. But we shall proceed to argue the duty,

      3. FROM THE PROMISE OF CHRIST. He said to his disciples, at the close of the solemn service, "If ye know these things" [Joh 13:17]--that is, if you know that you ought to obey my precept and follow my example, which I have given you, then, happy are you, and happy shall you be, "if you observe and do the things I have taught you." True happiness is a concomitant, and result of a faithful performance of duty, and not of the knowledge of it. Knowledge without grace puffeth up, but submission and condescending love edify and make happy. Hence, Christians are bound to obey Christ in all things, whatever He had commanded them, that they may enjoy His favor, and receive the promise of eternal inheritance. But we argue the obligations to observe this ordinance form,

      4. THE PRACTICE OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. That the ordinance of washing each other's feet was kept by the early Christians, we learn from Paul's letter to Timothy (1Ti 5:10) and from Church history.

      We gather it, in the first place, from what Paul says to Timothy about the beneficiary widow. One of the conditions upon which she was to receive the assistance of the church was that "she have washed the saints' feet" (1Ti 5:10). Observe here, (1) Whose feet she was required to have washed, and (2) How she was required to wash them.

      1. Whose feet was she required to have washed?--Not sinner's feet, but "the saints' feet." This shows that it was not a "good work" or an act of hospitality only, as some say, but an ordinance of God. If not an ordinance, why is this distinction made between saints' feet and the feet of others? [96] No good reason, we think, can be given, except that the ordinances were appointed for the saints, and none other. If believers only have a right to baptism, then saints only have a right to feet washing and the Lord's supper.

      2. How was she to have washed the saints' feet?--Not figuratively or spiritually, but literally. Where is the proof of this? In the context. If the washing of the saints' feet is to be taken spiritually, then must the bringing up of children, lodging of strangers, &c., be taken spiritually also. But if the bringing up of children, lodging of strangers, relieving the afflicted, &c., are to be taken literally, then also must the washing of the saints' feet be understood literally.

      Now, if the washing of the saints' feet literally was a necessary qualification to entitle that widow to the alms of the church, then the apostles must have taught the doctrine of feet washing; otherwise how could that widow, or any others, have known it to be their duty? But again,

      We prove the same thing from the early history of the Church. The testimony of authentic history may always be taken as good evidence, when it stands uncontradicted. And as it stands thus in this instance, we offer in proof the following brief extracts:

      In Godfried Arnold's celebrated history of the primitive Christians, book 3, chap. 2, we find the following: "Among the services or duties which were observed by the first Christians, that of feet washing was included. In this service the Lord Jesus led the way, or went before; and after He had done it to His disciples, He said to them, 'If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet: for I have [97] given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.'"

      Calmet says that "on Good Friday the Syrians celebrate the festival of washing feet. The Greeks perform the sacred niptere, or holy washing, and in the Latin church this ceremony is practised. The bishops, abbots and princes, in many places, practise it in person."

      We read in a valuable work, entitled the History of All Religions, page 214, that "the Moravians separated themselves from the Anabaptists, in the sixteenth century, and observed many of the original acts of the apostles, such as washing each other's feet, after the manner of a sect which arose in the second century, called Apostolicals, because they observed the acts of the apostles."

      "For the observation of Augustine, that some churches in his time rejected the custom of washing the saints' feet as a solemn imitation of Christ, lest the ceremony might be supposed to have any reference to baptizing, implies that there was no other kind of washing then practised which bore any resemblance to baptism" (Calvin's Institutes, vol. 3, p. 210).

      "The pedilavium practised in early times, was actually considered by some, in the beginning of the fourth century, as a proper substitute for baptism; on which account washing of the feet by the bishops was forbidden by the Council of Eliberis" (Beth's Pedo-Bapt. Exam., p. 95).

      Again, we learn from the Martyr's Mirror, page 320, that in a very ancient Waldensic Confession of Faith, feet washing is classed among the regular ordinances of Christ. The twelfth page reads as follows, "We confess that feet washing is an ordinance of Christ, which He himself administered to His disciples, and [98] recommended by example to the practice of believers."

      Ambrose of Milan, in the fourth century, took it so, and practised it in the church of Milan.

      Austin says, "Those Christians who do it not with their hands, yet he hoped did it with their hearts in humility, had much better do it with their hands also."

V. THE BENEFITS ACCRUING FROM A PROPER OBSERVANCE OF IT.

[ORD 93-99]