The washing of Feet and ordinances of the gospel, (IN ANSWER TO THE ENQUIRY OF BROTHER A. MOORE. 1840 (S. Trott)

For the Signs of the Times.

The washing of Feet and ordinances of the gospel,
(IN ANSWER TO THE ENQUIRY OF BROTHER A. MOORE.)

BROTHER BEEBE:—I see by the 24th number of volume vii. of the Signs, that brother A. Moore of Tennessee, wishes either your or my views of several texts and points of order, by him named. As he refers to a sentence contained in one of my communications, as the ground of his enquiries, I feel myself, more particularly, called upon to give my views on those several points of enquiry.

The first point of enquiry is whether the washing of feet be an ordinance of the gospel. To come to a correct conclusion on this point, it is necessary to decide as to what constitutes a gospel ordinance, or that which is appointed by Christ to be a standing order, to be observed by gospel churches. There are many things delivered in the New Testament, by precept and otherwise, designed as instruction and guidance to the churches, and also to the saints in their various relations and in all their deportment, but which do not properly come under the idea of gospel ordinances, or forms of worship to be observed, in the letter of them, by the churches.

In deciding on what are to be observed as ordinances, it is necessary to take into consideration the authority, vested, by the King of Zion, in the Apostles, in the case. The special authority of the Apostles to establish what belongs to gospel churches, both as to doctrine and order, is declared by the Lord in these words, Verily I say unto you that ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matt. xix. 28. Luke has it, “I appoint unto you a kingdom as my Father hath appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom, and sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Luke xxii. 29 & 30. In the commission as thus delivered, we have clearly embraced the following points: 1st. That the Apostles were to be associated with Christ in authority and dignity, in the government of the Church, signified by their eating and drinking at his table, in his kingdom, and sitting upon thrones, &c. 2d. That their authority is judicial, not legislative; they were to establish by their decisions, or by what they taught as doctrine and order in the churches, the rule of faith and practice to the churches. 3d. That their decisions were to be decisive and supreme, as shewn by a kingdom’s being appointed them, and their being seated on thrones to judge, &c. 4th. That their decisions were to be binding upon the churches of Christ, and to be the standard of gospel churches during the whole gospel dispensation, as signified by their being thus seated and judging during the time of Christ’s sitting on the throne of his glory, as well as by their judging the twelve tribes of Israel, which represents the whole visible church in all its several states and ages.

This authority of the Apostles was foretold by the Prophet when he said, “And princes shall rule in judgment.” Isa. xxxii. 1. Christ farther shows the perpetuity, force and obligation of the Apostles’ decisions upon the churches in his declaration to Peter, “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt. xvi. 19. As the same declaration was again made to all the disciples, with the exception of mentioning the keys (Matt. xviii. 18), it is evident that, though spoken in the first instance directly to Peter, the declaration included all the Apostles. The giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven was expressive of the authority which they should have over the gospel church; keys being emblematical of authority or power. See Isa. xxii. 22, and Rev. i. 18; iii. 7, and other texts. The whatsoever they should loose or bind, refers not only to the rites &c. of the law, but also to what Christ had spoken in person whilst in the flesh: for several things which Christ spake to his disciples and to the multitude, related only to them as being still under the law. For instance, the particular commission given to the twelve (Matt. x.) and to the seventy (Luke x.) related, in the form of it at least, only to the period which should intervene before Christ’s resurrection. Hence Christ himself, after his resurrection, alters it, commanding them now to go into all the world, instead of limiting them to the land of Judea, as before.—Besides now, instead of preaching saying That the kingdom of heaven is at hand, they are to preach the gospel in all its fulness and glory.—As another instance to the point, I will notice what Christ says to his disciples as well as to the multitude, Matt. xxiii. 2 & 3, “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do,” &c. And we know they bade them observe all the ceremonies of the law and traditions of the elders. But the decision of the Apostles was that the disciples from among the Gentiles should be loosed from this whole yoke of bondage, excepting certain necessary things; such as “that they were to abstain from meats offered to idols,” Acts xv. 10—29. And Paul’s decision is the same, viz: that Christ hath taken the whole handwriting of ordinances out of the way, nailing them to his cross, &c. See Col. ii. 14.—Hence as what the Apostles loosed, as well as what they bound, while ministering in the churches on earth, were loosed or bound in heaven, that is, were established as of divine authority; and as even certain things which Christ had spoken, were by apostolic authority loosed from the gospel churches from among the Gentiles, my understanding of the matter is that nothing is binding upon the churches to be observed as ordinances, but what the enthroned judges, the apostles, established in the churches by their acts or writings. That is, there must be the apostolic decision, showing the proper application of the law, as well as the command of Christ, in order to establish an ordinance as binding upon the churches. Hence the all things which they were to teach the disciples under the gospel to observe, (Matt. xxviii. 20) were all things which by had commanded them as pertaining to the kingdom of God or to the gospel dispensation.

Let us therefore, and let the churches beware that neither men nor devils fix a yoke upon us, either pertaining to doctrine or order, which we have not the apostolic decision or pattern for.—Let us also beware that we neglect not what they have bound.

If we try what are generally received by the churches of Christ as ordinances, by the above rule, we shall find the apostolic sanction fully given, or the application of the command by them illustrated.

Thus in reference to the command “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” we have, in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles the import of this command fully shown, in its bearing upon the churches, in all after ages. We have given, in the apostolic decision what the gospel is, and its contrast with the law and with the philosophy or wisdom of this world, the manner of preaching, also the different gifts for the ministry specified and their distinct stations in the churches designated.—The ordinance of baptism is also fully shown in its subjects, mode, and the doctrine of it, by the decision of the Apostles as given in their practice and writings.

The ordinance of the supper is also thus clearly established. But try, by this rule, what Christ says to his disciples after having washed their feet, viz: “If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet, &c.,” John xiii. 14, 15, and it will be found not to have been established as an ordinance in the churches by any act or writing of the Apostles. Paul once mentions the subject of washing feet, not as a command of Christ, or an ordinance observed in the churches: but simply as an act of hospitality, shown by a female to the saints; such as Abigail was willing to show to the servants of David. 1 Sam. xxv 41. The instance referred to is in 1 Tim. v. 10.

Here then I have one good reason for not admitting that there is any such ordinance established by apostolic authority as the washing of feet.

A 2nd reason is this: Admitting that Christ by what he said to the disciples on that occasion, intended to command the washing of feet as an ordinance, to be observed by the churches, and not only are the Apostles in that case dethroned from their ruling in judgement, but they are also found unfaithful to the command of Christ, wherein he said—“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;” for there is no instance in which they taught those discipled under their ministry, to observe the washing of feet, as an ordinance.

3rd. If we take into consideration the connexion of the circumstance of Christ’s washing the disciples’ feet, with the eating of the passover supper, and with the institution of the Lord’s supper, we shall have more than negative proof, that the Apostles did not receive that transaction, as an ordinance to be delivered to the churches to keep. Paul is very particular in describing to the church at Corinth what he had received of the Lord and delivered unto them, as belonging to the ordinance of the supper, yet we find the circumstance of the washing of feet equally with the parts of the passover, left entirely out of the account of that which Paul gave this church for to keep. 1 Cor. xi. 23—26. Surely this must amount very nearly to positive proof, that Paul never received the washing of feet, as an ordinance to be delivered with the supper, to be kept by the churches.

4th. The ordinances of the gospel must like the gospel, have Christ crucified for their substance. The preaching of the gospel, is the preaching of Christ crucified. In eating the supper, as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.—Christ’s death and resurrection and our likeness thereunto in experience is represented in baptism. Rom. vi. 5. But what is there in the washing of feet which shadows forth Christ crucified?—Nothing. But the enquiry may be made, What was intended to be conveyed to the disciples by the transaction of our Lord recorded John xiii. 4—17? In answering this enquiry, it will be proper to notice the several parts of the account; and in doing this, we shall see that there is much in the expressions used, to show that an ordinance or positive institution is not intended thereby to be established.

In ver. 4 and 5, we have simply an account of Christ’s preparation and beginning to wash the disciples' feet. Ver. 6 and 7—“Then cometh he to Simon Peter; and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” Is it not as manifest from these words as anything can be, that Peter did not understand that his Lord was then establishing an ordinance of worship to be observed in his church, and that Christ did not intend for him so to understand it? Else, why the expression Thou knowest not now? He certainly knew the act itself that Christ was performing. There must therefore have been something, of which this act was only figurative, which he intended thereby to teach them. In ver. 8, 9 and 10, Christ, in reply to Peter, refers to the washing him from sin in his blood, without which Peter could have no part in him. He further says He that is washed, that is, in his blood, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit. Can anyone, on a moment’s reflection, suppose that Christ intended to convey the idea that being washed in his blood, all that was further necessary was to have the fleshly feet washed in water? In cleansing the flesh from its daily pollutions, it is as necessary to wash the hands and other parts of the body, as the feet.—But understand our Lord to speak figuratively here, and to refer by the term feet, to the walk or outward deportment of the child of grace, and there is much beauty in the idea. The principal care of the child of grace, resting as he does on the blood of Christ to cleanse him from all sin, is to keep his walk or gospel feet clean.

The expression ver. 10. “And ye are clean but not all,” is explained ver. 11, as referring to Judas.

In ver. 12, Christ, after having taken his seat, says unto them, “Know ye what I have done to you?” They certainly knew the act itself; that, therefore, could not be intended; hence it was not an ordinance that Christ was teaching them. In ver. 13, 14 and 15, he explains; he says, “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well, for so I am: If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet: ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.” In this explanation, I cannot see, how much soever others may, anything that looks like instituting an ordinance of worship. In the first place, Christ lays the principal stress on the example he, being their Lord and Master, has set them—not on his command as King of Zion. In the second place, he does not explain it as anything which he thus taught them to do as expressive of their faith in him, or as an act of worship or subjection to him; but as a something that they were to do, one to the other. What then was the example he had set them? Why certainly an example of great condescension and humility, in that he, their Lord and Master, had condescended to perform for them the menial service of washing their feet. They ought therefore to condescend to each other's state, and circumstances, and to be ready to perform the humblest acts whereby they might minister to each other’s necessities or comfort. As the Apostle taught the Philippians that, “In lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than themselves;” and this after the example of Christ’s humbling himself. See Phil. ii. 3—8. Hence this doctrine of condescension as thus taught by our Lord is confirmed unto us by them that heard him, in the above and other texts; but the washing of feet is not thus confirmed. So also is the watching over and admonishing one another in love, a sentiment confirmed by the exhortations of the Apostles, by which the disciples are to wash each other’s gospel feet; an idea, as I have already intimated, which I think particularly taught by this transaction of our Lord. And the closing sentence is, “If ye know these things happy are ye if ye do them.” Ver. 17. May we thus be more attentive to the washing of our own and of our brethren’s gospel feet or walk. I have gone thus fully into this subject, that those who differ from me may know the grounds on which I refuse to admit the washing of feet literally, to be a gospel ordinance. Not that others’ practising it is any bar of fellowship to me. I view their act in this thing, though I believe they have not scriptural authority for it, very differently from the New School practices. Those who practice the washing of feet as an ordinance do it from the persuasion that the command of Christ so requires it. But the New School folks practice their plans, knowing them to be the devices of men.

The other points of enquiry mentioned by Brother Moore, I will attend to in another communication, if the Lord permit.

Yours as ever,
S. TROTT.
Centreville, Fairfax Co., Va., Dec. 30, 1839.