The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1875-09-17
Sunday 1eadipg.
For the JefIersouian.
FEET-WASHING.


4
likes it or not; it is evidently true l
am inclined to think that if he could be
persuaded that our readers do not see
his failure, he would care but little
about it. We call attention to a few
points in his last article.
First: "Feet-washing obtained as a
custom, etc, and then again he says,
a little further on, IL have not in any of
my articles claimed that this was the
CUSTOM" How We are to reconcile such
contradictory statements, / confess |
cannot tell. 1t is certainly clear that he
has tried to prove that it was the Gus
tom, both before, and at the time the
Savior was on earth, for the host or their
servants to wash the feet of guests. Ev
cry reference he made to Scripture, ex-
cept perhaps one or two, was for this
purpose. We have given due attention
to all the passages he has quoted, except
the one in Luke VII. ,3644 Concerning
this text remark: The act the woman
performed was an unusual one indeed.
There is something very extraordinary
about it. Jesus was well pleased with
her. He addressed Simon after this
manner: ''SimOn, seest thou this wo-
man2 l entered into thine house; thou
gavest me no 1oGter for my feet AS
much as to say, lyon did not as much
as comply with the usual custom of the
country in furnishing me, as your guest,
with water that l might wash my feet.
The woman you call a sinner has done
much more. "She has washed my feet
with her tears and wiped them with the
hair of her head" Surely there can be
no proof found here that it was the Gus
tom for the host to wash the feet oftheir
guests.
There is, at least, strong inferential
proof that the custom was for the host
to furnish the water and the guests
washed their own feet. Jesus did not
say, ''Simon, thou didst not wash my
ffeet, but "thou gavest me no water for
jmy feet"
Peter was Jew, and certainly under
stood Jewish customs. He refused at
first to let the Master wash his feet, but
Jesus said to him, ''What / do thou
knOl0est not nom, Jut thou shalt kRol0
hereafter" If Christ was praeticing an
old Jewish custom, is it not strange that
Peter did not understand it,
The quotation from Smiths Bible
Dictionary proves nothing. eff the host
actually performed the office for his
guest" Smith does not affirm that the
host performed the office, but he says
'fU." Ifs" and probabilities" will
not answer where proof is needed. We
demand the proof in this case. No man
ever has, nor ever will, prove that it was
n custom, either under the Old or the
New Testament, for one to wash the
feet of another as an act of hospitality.
My friend thinks he set a trap and some
hOdy walked into ii. j have heard OF
persons being caught in their own trap.
So in this case. think ''Pbilipn set
trap and caught ''Philip." | should
think he would not be very well pleased
with his game. Ii matters not to me ia
this ease if God did command the priests
to wash their hands. He commanded
them also to wash their feet; hence /
claim that feet-washiDg existed as n
Di1iHe Institution for the Priesthood in
''Jewish times" But ''P." says feet
washing chad no reIigious Specification
whatever beyond its being good work"
(See his first article, near the close.)
Now, before dismiss this point, 1
want to say that the advocates OF wash
ing the saints feet as divine ordinance
lose nothing in the argument by admit
ing that it was Jewish custom for the
host to wash the feet of guests. Jesus
had a perfect right to make as many
church ordinances as he pleased out of
Jewish customs. And il he saw fit to
do so 1--WE do not say he did his follow
ers are bound to obey all his command
ments whether taken from old Jew
ish customs or not. want our readers
not to forget that ''P." has endeavored
to prove by the word of God that it was
the custom in ''PatriarehaI' Jewish"
and gospel times" for the host or their
to wash the feet Of guests. /
claim the ancient as well as The present
custom was for the host to furnish the
water and the guests crashed their oeCls
feet This is the difference between ms.
Now let the candid reader 20 to tine
Book and decide for themselves See
Gen. IS: 4; 10: 2; "a: 31-32; 43: n.
Judges 10: 81; Sam. 25: Al; Luke z:
Al
4 am not n little surprised to see my
friend admit four very important points
in favor OF feet washing as a divine or
dinance. He admits that Christ did
wash the disciples feet, that he did
command them to do the same, that it
was intended to teach them a lesson of
humility, and that it was to be perpet-
uated as long as the Church Gr christ
remains ! am glad there is so little
difference between Us. His proof for
all this would je gathered largely sup
pose from the 18th chapter Of JOhD-a
good place to go for proof He however
seems to think there is one point OF di-
ference, that is, as to whether feet-w'tsh-
ing should be practieed a. a religious
ordinance in the public assembly. Here
he calls on me to affirm Hay position, but
he must remember that he has the al
firnative. II you think it wise and safe
to 20 ahead, do so.
Men sometimes place themselves in an
awkward position as my friend ''P- " adj
mits he is now in before the public, but
he ought to know who to blame for that.
Jesus said to the disciples, having a ref
ereuee to fvet-washing: IF ye know
these things, happy are ye who do
them" Does "P" practice what he ad-
nits Jesus eOmmands2
Respectfully,
SINCERITY.
ONCE upon a time there lived an old
couple known far and wide for theirdo-
rnestic difficulties. Suddenly they chang