The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1875-08-27
Sunday 8tadipg.
FEET-WASHING.
Reply to Philip No. 2.

Mr. EDITOR: We ara glad to learn that
our friend Philip isyet alive, and that
he has again resumed the discussion of
the subject of feet-washing; we had
about concluded that he had abandoned
the undertaking. So far as meeting and
parting in friendship is concerned ''P."
need have no fears on my part He ex-
presses desire that truth may gloriously
triumph over error and superstition. In
this desire l most heartily concur.
assure friend ''P. that my only motive is
the vindication of truth. He says ''he
meant something and hit something" 1
am certain understood what he meant,
and an equally sure that he missed the
mark. think our readers ea0 all see
that he has failed to adduce a single
proof that it was the custom, either in
Patriarchal or Jewish times, for the host
to wash the feet of guests. We see but
very little in his second article that is
worthy of notice; however, we may
briefly examine the Scriptures to which
lie has referred, in order to show that
they do not prove what he claims.
Concerning the Levite and his wife,
who were so kindly entertained by an
old citizen of Gibeah, we read that he
(the host) brought him into his house,
and ''they lodshed their feet, and did
eat and drink" Nov, ask the candid
reader If it is not clear that the guests in
this case, as in all the others Philip has
referred to, washed their own feet2 The
text Sam. XIV. Al, by no means proves
what he claims, but shows that the act
Abigail proposed doing was an unusual
one, and even that was never performed.
Webster defines custom ''habitual prac-
tiee;" thing may be done occasionally
and not habitually. There is not the
slightest probability that Abigail, after
she became the wife of King David, ever
washed the feet of his servants. He
speaks of a feet-washing that was pecu-
liar to the tabernacle service, Exodus
xxx. 1921. Our friend Philip is at a loss
to know whether this washing of the
priests feet had any typical Specification
or not, but thinks if it had it cannot re-
fer to feet-washing ''under the Gospel
dispensation." Iam'sorry he is not able
to decide this matter. Now, observe,
first, that as God commanded the priests
to wash their feet before entering the
tabernacle to offer sacrifice, feet-washing
existed as a divine ordinance in Jewish
times, notwithstanding Philip says to
the contrary. Second, under the Gospel
dispensation, all Christians are priests.
The Apostle Peter calls the Church ''An
holy priesthood" )" Peter, II. s. Rev. l.
6, reads thus: "And hath made us kings
and priests unto God" Now, as feet
washing existed as a religious or divine
ordinance obligatory upon the priest
hood under the law, so under the Gospel
dispensation all of Christ's followers,
being priests, are commanded to GDdSh
one dIlOtheF's feet. The reader will OBJ
serve that Philip is troubled to know
how TO apply this passage, but thinks it
can scarcely refer in any way to feet
washing under the Gospel dispensation.
am glad that friend Philip is coming
now to the Gospel; we have his promise
again that we shall see the final summing
up in due time. Indeed, we thought We
would have seen this long ago.
Truly yours,
gTNrEpTrx~