Review and Herald, Vol. 52, No. 1. (6/27/1878)

Review and Herald

Jun 27, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 27, 1878

General Articles.

By Ed. W. H. Littlejohn

THE REJECTED ORDINANCE.

BY ED. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

(Concluded.)

Passing now from the region of debate concerning the nature and object of the transaction described in the thirteenth chapter of John, where is introduced that most incomprehensible humiliation on the part of our Lord, as brought to view in the washing by him of the disciples’ feet, we proceed to consider the bearing of this transaction upon the matter of Christian duty subsequently to that time.

Evidently the persons in question apprehended but imperfectly the significance of the scene in which they were actors. Christ realized this, and therefore he said, “What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.”

From this it is fairly deducible that what was done was of such a nature that its influence and effects would be felt subsequently. Everything connected with that extraordinary transaction was of a character to make the most profound impression, and to provoke reflection and study into its design.

Nor was this reflection and study to prove fruitless. Ye shall know hereafter, said the Saviour. We think that promise has already been fulfilled; and, as we have argued thus far in this article, that the Lord made it too clear to admit of doubt that what he did was designed to create an institution for the use and benefit of those who should come after him. That this was so as it regards the twelve, we have the authority of his own words for believing. “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.” These declarations are explicit. With what Christ had outwardly done, they were well acquainted. Now, he enjoined, go, and do likewise to one another. No ingenuity in construction can evade the obvious and natural conclusion from these words that the ordinance originated was not to perish with its institution.

The apostles were not to be satisfied with simply contemplating the nature of the work which Christ had done for them, but they were strictly commanded to do to each other the very thing which he had done to them. No duty ever devolved upon them which was enforced by a clearer statement of obligation. “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet,” said the Saviour. It was just as certain, therefore, that they were to imitate his example as it was that the work in question had been performed by him upon them. That this work, however, had been actually done, there was, with them, no room for doubt. They had both seen and experienced it. This being the case, there was no room left them for debate; what they had seen performed, they were as certain that it was their duty to repeat as they were that they had ever witnessed it at all.

The final declaration of Christ, also, emphasized that which his positive command had embodied. He did not say to them, Happy are ye because ye have witnessed these things; but his declaration was: “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them;” i. e., action, and not knowledge simply, was the important thing. The blessing which was to be secured to them was not to come alone through the channel of acquaintance with what the Lord had accomplished upon their persons, but through that of doing to each other what he had done to them. With the lapse of time, the scene which they had witnessed in that upper chamber would gradually have faded from their memory. It needed to be commemorated in order that the benefits to be derived from it might be lasting in their character. By each one of the twelve, as he should participate personally in imitating and perpetuating the occurrences of that night, would all the advantages be realized and enjoyed in their fullness. At each recurrence of the solemn celebration, the individual actors would have most vividly portrayed anew before their minds the great condescension of the Master, and thereby they would individually receive a blessing which might properly be represented as rendering them “happy” indeed.

Thus much for the duty of the apostles. Further space need not be devoted to its consideration; for if the Lord failed to make it manifest, then language has lost its force, and can no longer be relied upon as a medium through which to enjoin obligation.

Passing, therefore, from the apostolic twelve, we inquire whether Christians generally are not in duty bound to obey the same injunction which the Saviour directed to those who were honored with a position nearest his person.

As it regards this question also, we think there is little room for doubt.

First, because, as all will admit, the Saviour selected the twelve as a sort of miniature church, through which, for the purpose of convenience, he conveyed his will and his commands to those then living, outside of the apostles, and to those who should follow them in subsequent ages. Through them has come to us nearly all of the instructions which fell from his lips for our benefit. On one occasion he said to them, “What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.”

Again, on the very evening on which the ordinance of feet-washing was created, there sprang into existence another sacrament of equal importance, which is at the present time universally celebrated. We have reference to the Lord’s supper. The circumstances attending the origin of both were nearly identical. They came into existence the same evening, in the same room, were administered to the same persons, and were enjoined by the same Lord.

If there be any difference as it regards the obligation of either, that difference is in favor of the more unpopular ordinance; for it was of this that the Lord said to Peter, that, unless he submitted to it, he should have no part with him. Also it was of this that he said, “Ye ought to wash one another’s feet.” Whereas, he simply remarked of the other, “As oft as ye do this, do it in remembrance of me.” Those facts being true, the same logic which would prove the perpetuity of the Lord’s supper—which was at the outset celebrated by Christ and the apostles alone—would also perpetuate the ordinance of feet-washing; and, therefore, as Christians generally acknowledge that it is their duty to observe the former, they should either concede that they have been mistaken in that, or else admit that consistency demands that the latter be regarded as equally binding.

Secondly, we conclude that Christians in our time are as much in duty bound to participate in the ordinance of feet-washing as were the apostles; because, reasoning from a general stand-point, we are as much interested as they were in the principle which the ordinance was created to illustrate. That principle was the duty of humility as enforced by the example of Christ. Said he: “The servant is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them;” i. e., if I, your Lord and Master, I by whom and for whom all things were made that are made; I who am the only begotten Son of the Father, have so far humiliated myself that I have been willing to kneel before you, and in the bathing of your feet have performed the service of a servant and a menial, surely you, who are in common but servants to me, ought to be willing so far to humble yourselves as to do unto one another that which I have done unto you.

What a sublime lesson.

The King of glory so destitute of pride and exaltation that he could even wash the feet of sinful, erring man.

How important that this lesson should be learned by all.

With what overwhelming force is taught by it the brotherhood of mankind, the wickedness of pride, and the propriety that each should minister to the other.

In no other way could this lesson have been imparted so successfully.

But were the apostles the only ones who needed its instructions?

Were they less fraternal, more proud, or more unwilling to minister to one another than we are?

Beyond all question, at the time under consideration they were vastly more humble than the average Christian at the present hour.

This being true, however, the conclusion is unavoidable that if they needed the ordinance, we need it in a ratio greater by tenfold.

By parity of reasoning, therefore, it was designed for us, because Christ well understood what our situation would be, and the presumption is, that, having done what he did to meet the needs of one class, he perpetuated the duty of exemplifying the transactions of that hour, in order to meet the greater necessities of those of us who were to come after.

Were we to pass from the discussion of general principles in their bearing upon the issue before us to the question as to whether the New Testament throws any further light upon the matter of the perpetuity of the ordinance save that which is found in the command of Christ, we should enter a field not wholly destitute of the confirmatory proofs which we seek.

The apostle Paul, in addressing Timothy respecting the propriety of supporting certain widows by the charity of the church, commends one class as being worthy of maintenance at their hands. Guarding with jealous care the fruits of the liberality of his brethren, and being unwilling that they should be consumed by any except those of the most undoubted merit, he writes as follows: “Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.” 1 Tim. 5:9, 10.

In this passage the obvious allusion is to one who, possessing those other Christian graces necessary to the development of a symmetrical character, was also one whose humility and sincerity had been proved by the high test of a willingness to carry out the behest of the Saviour brought to view in the words, “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.”

Such was the nature of the obligation imposed by this precept, and such was the mind which its fulfillment betokened, that Paul felt that he would be perfectly safe in recommending the individual possessing it as worthy of material aid. He well knew that the dishonest, the insincere, and the hypocritical would be very slow to carry out an ordinance which had in it so large a demand upon the graces of meekness and ingenuousness.

Reasoning from this stand-point, therefore, we reach two conclusions. In the first place, it becomes clear that the apostle placed a very high estimate on obedience to that institution which the Lord inaugurated on the eve of his departure from this world, in order to commemorate that lowliness of heart which enabled him to perform the most menial offices for the benefit of others. In the second place, it is evident in the side-light thus thrown upon the subject, that in the year of our Lord sixty-five,—thirty odd years this side of the passover supper,—Christians were still celebrating with great solemnity the event which took place in that chamber at Jerusalem in which the Lord, in the attitude of a servant, condescended to wash with his own hands, and to wipe with the towel with which he was girded, the feet of his attendant disciples.

But, if this be true, we have again reached, through the practice of the church, the same decision at which we had arrived by inductive argument. That is, we are brought once more to the conclusion that the sacrament of feet-washing is still binding upon all, since we find it in use among the churches thirty odd years this side of the boundary line of this dispensation; for since that period, all will admit our relation to that subject has been in nowise affected by any change of doctrine or duty.

If we had found no trace of the practice in the meager record of current events which the New Testament brings to view, that would in nowise invalidate the necessity of performing an office which rests squarely on a positive command. But, having the command, and then finding a usage approved by the highest authority known to the church, which harmonizes perfectly with our interpretation of the law, the question of the necessity of our obedience to the same is not only emphasized, but also settled beyond dispute.

Thus, reader, we have canvassed this subject as fully as the circumstances of the case seem to require.

By the positive precept of Christ, by numerous inferential arguments so strong as to amount to actual demonstration, and by the practice of the first generation of

Christians, there has been brought home to your door an obligation which, although heretofore not understood by you, has now become plain and unmistakable.

It only remains, therefore, to inquire, What disposition will you make of this matter?

Returning to the point whence we started, how does your heart appear to you, when upon it is thrown the flood of this new light?

Do you discover in it any disposition to evade the requirements of the situation, or to shrink from them.

Is the consecration as complete, after all, as you had hoped it was?

Or is God bringing you now to a point where you can discover your own lack, and where, if obedient to him, you will be able to attain to a deeper experience than you have ever reached before?

I beg of you to move cautiously over this ground, for here are quagmires and quicksands which have swallowed up many an unwary traveler.

Be not deceived. It is not a matter of indifference whether or not we walk in the light. As it was of old, so it is now. He that refuses to do this, sooner or later will grope his way in moral darkness. “While ye have light, believe in the light [said the Saviour], that ye may be the children of light.” In these words are brought to view, as existing within the individual himself, the power to believe or disbelieve the truth. If we are honest in heart, we may “know of the doctrine.” The danger is that where knowledge brings with it unpleasant duty, we may deceive ourselves by requiring more testimony than the case demands. Where no additional responsibility is incurred, and where the matter is one of sentiment rather than of practice, we reach conclusions with comparative ease. The instance before us, however, is not of this sort. The thing required furnishes us with something to do, as well as something to believe. Experience has shown that the dangers of the situation lie in the direction of an unwillingness to perform the act required. For some reason, there is in the minds of many persons a repugnance to carrying out the practical features of the sacrament under discussion which is exceedingly strong. That this should be so with the natural heart, it is not difficult to comprehend. Not so, however, with professing Christians, who claim to have mortified the flesh. The former, being unregenerate, have never learned to humble themselves; but the latter are but poor scholars in the school of Christ unless they have learned the absolute necessity of self-abasement.

So far as the action of washing the feet of a brother is concerned, it is true that when performed in the manner in question it is a work which is humiliating in its nature; but does this really render it objectionable? It seems to us that this is very far from being the case. If in any way the humiliation involved dishonor, the situation would be different. This cannot be, however, since Christ himself gave us the example, and he never would have done anything that was wrong in the abstract. Where, then, does the cross enter? Manifestly in the tacit confession involved in the action which we put forth. In washing the feet of another, we virtually say to him, “My brother, I am willing, for Christ’s sake, not only to regard you as fully my equal, but also to sustain to you the relation of an abject servant to his superior.” If there be pride in the heart, this will be an unpleasant task. If you be a rich man, and that brother a poor man, again the deed will greatly mortify the flesh. If you be learned, and he be unlearned, the situation will be trying. Nevertheless, if the true spirit of the gospel be in our hearts, these difficulties will vanish like the dew before the rising sun. Paul declared that there was a saying that was worthy of all acceptance; i. e., “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” Again it is said, Let the rich rejoice that he is made low. Jas. 1:10. And once more: “Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.” Rom. 12:16.

In fine, the Scriptures abound everywhere in declarations to the effect that we ought to be willing to humble ourselves at all times, regarding others as better than ourselves.

By one who understands his own heart, this will not be looked upon as a difficult and unreasonable requirement, since, being acquainted with his own sins and ignorant of those of his neighbor, and feeling that there is no defense for his past course, he will naturally come to view those around

him as really more deserving of the divine clemency than himself. To him it will be rather a pleasure than a burden to perform any action which shall in any way develop in himself a spirit of contrition, and furnish to others proof of his lowliness of mind. But convince him that Christ has gone before and set an example which he is expected to follow, and he will not stop to debate the question whether in any way he may be doing those things which by the more haughty in spirit may be regarded as a violation of the proprieties of cultured life. With him sentimentalism is past, and the struggle for life has become so real and all-absorbing that mere conventionalisms have lost their power to separate him from Christ. With him, the popular whim which attaches a taint of degradation to the person who is religiously employed in the washing of feet, will have little or no weight. Discriminating between solid argument and mere sophistry, he will discover that the washing in question is not for the removal of the filth of the flesh, but as a type which has a reflex influence by calling attention to what the Saviour has done in his own person; thereby developing in the disciple that grace which would make him compare in loveliness of heart with his great exemplar.

All the unpleasant associations in the minds of the prejudiced against the ordinance as being one to be employed merely for the purposes of physical cleanliness, will be removed when he learns that all who participate in it, following the example of Peter, have previously purified the person for the occasion by the employment of the requisite ablution.

Those objections, also, which arise in the mind of many because of the mistaken notion that the ordinance is entered upon by the sexes promiscuously, will be dispelled when he ascertains that everything is done decently and in order, the males administering the ordinance to males, and females to females, under circumstances calculated to secure the strictest propriety in all particulars.

In fine, he will instantly perceive that all of the arguments which are brought to bear upon the subject by those who object to the suitable commemoration of one of the most striking events in the life of Christ, fall so far short of accomplishing the end desired, and are so radically defective in their nature and construction, that they serve to establish, rather than to undermine, his new convictions. They will appear to him like the most tenuous cobwebs stretched across the pathway of truth, hardly tangible enough to be felt, and destined to be swept away by the advancing foot of the first passer-by. All of them will be found to have their origin in a mistaken conception of the facts, or in a disposition to evade a duty by an unwitting appeal to prejudices altogether unworthy of a Christian man. To all of them he will make but the one answer: the command and the example of the Son of God are with me authority of too high a nature to be set at naught by a logic sadly defective in its character, or by a caprice, which, if it would reflect on the ordinance at all, would also reflect on Him by whom it was created.

The more he shall consider the matter of the sacrament, and the important lesson which it teaches, the more profound will be his assurance that it meets us in our fallen natures right where we are, and where we most need help.

Should it ever be his fortune to enter the room where the humble followers of Jesus, acting upon the instructions of the Master, are practically illustrating the value of the institution which originated with him, he will appreciate, as never before, the power of the dramatic in religion. As with streaming eyes and hearts that are bowed down with a solemn sense of the work in which they are engaged, one after another girds himself with the towel, and, in imitation of the Lord, kneels to administer the ordinance to a brother, he will be overwhelmed as never before with a sense of the condescension of Him whose glory filled the heavens, and yet who, laying it all aside, clothed himself with a form of flesh and actually performed the office of a servant to servants. While his eye runs over the emblems now upon the table, of the Lord’s broken body and shed blood, as well as the visible appliances connected with the ordinance of condescension, the scene enacted in that upper room at Jerusalem eighteen hundred years ago will be revived before his fancy with a vividness and power which mere words could never impart. With a grateful heart, and an almost crushing sense of his own unworthiness, he will thank God for the perpetuity of an emblematic scene which overwhelms him with a deeper sense of the self-abnegation of the Master than ever had taken possession of his mind before.

May God grant, candid reader, that your experience may prove to be of the kind spoken of above, and that—putting aside, as unworthy of a moment’s thought, all suggestions which are dictated by the fear of man or the love of applause—you may walk in the light which now shines upon your pathway, content to know that this light comes from Heaven, and that the path which it illuminates will lead you to a deeper experience in the things of God, and to a more profound sense of your own unworthiness and of his goodness.

Suffer no false issue to be presented before your mind. Remember that the question resolves itself simply into this: When the Lord said, “Ye ought to wash one another’s feet,” did he mean to be understood as saying ye ought not to wash one another’s feet? Or did his words accurately express the thought that was in his mind?

If you shall decide that the first position would dishonor the Master by reflecting upon his ability to employ language that was calculated to convey correctly the lesson which he designed to teach, then your duty will be plain. Then those other words, so searching and so just,—“if ye love me keep my commandments” (John 14:15),—will furnish you with a key to help which will unlock every problem relating to the course you ought to pursue in the future.

The Majesty of the Creator.

By Arthur Lockhart

“Great is our God, and of great power,”—Psalms.

The Lord is still his people's trust ; Jehovah! he alone is great ; Beneath him empires sink in dust, And princes yield their idle state.

The Lord is great! On every hand Heaven rings with triumph and acclaim, And earth, redeemed, in every land Exalts the universal Name.

On chords by the Creator strung, The storm's rude hand an anthem plays ; And the green forests throb with song, And tremble with spontaneous praise.

The rolling floods, and all that go Through their lone depths, hoarse tribute bring ; And mountains, from their peaks of snow, Their awful songs of thunder sing.

'Mid starry clusters of the skies, Or brightening suns, or twilights dim,— Where'er we turn our wondering eyes,— We something find to speak of him.

The simplest flower its magic feels, Where'er his quickening life is poured ; And every flaming orb reveals The glory of its sovereign Lord. —Rev. Arthur Lockhart.

THE FATHERS—TRADITION.

By R. M. Kilgore

The early fathers are universally appealed to at the present time to support the tottering Sunday institution when the weapons of divine truth are turned against it. Failing to find in the word of God any divine authority for Sunday-keeping, its advocates hide behind tradition; and with a great flourish of trumpets, they hold up the fathers as the great ultimatum to settle minds troubled with doubts, and to decide all these controverted subjects.

While the Jews were zealously regarding the traditions of the elders, they forgot their obligation to God and made void the commandments of the Most High. Their worship was in vain, because they taught for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15: 2–9.

The traditions that have their origin with the inspired apostles and prophets of God we are told to hold in sacred reverence. 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2 (margin); 2 Thess. 3:6. But of those which are not traceable to this divine source, we are solemnly admonished to beware, Col. 2:8; and there are now no traditions which can be traced to that source.

The Roman Catholic Church finds tradition a necessity. Its life depends upon it. In this the Catholics are consistent, since they declare that the decrees of their councils, and the testimonies of all the fathers of the church, are of equal authority with the Bible. The Protestants, say they, are inconsistent; for while they cry, “The Bible, and the Bible alone,” they will adopt and practice that for which there is no scriptural authority; that which can be known only by their traditions.

In the Catechism of the Christian Religion are these questions:—

“Ques. Is the authority of tradition equal to that of Scripture?

“Ans. It is God who speaks in both cases, and of course the authority of the former is equal to that of the latter.

“Q. Is tradition necessary?

“A. Its necessity is evident from Scripture, evident from the testimony of all the fathers of the church, and even from the practice of those who reject it. Protestants, who reject tradition, baptize infants, and administer this sacrament by infusion, they keep the first day of the week, they work on the seventh day. The English Church observes festivals. Now the Scripture does not order any of these things; they all rest on tradition. Protestants eat blood and strangled meat, though it is expressly forbidden by Scripture. They do not wash one another’s feet, though it is expressly commanded in the same divine book; and yet, that it is lawful to do the former and neglect the latter, can be known only from tradition.”

If the testimony of the fathers will support the Sunday institution, it can also be arrayed on the side of other doctrines which Protestants ignore and treat as heretical, so that if one is proved to be of divine origin because the fathers say so, the others are also divine.

Ignatius, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Augustine, and other saints of the early church, are brought to the witness stand to testify concerning the early observance of the first day as the Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s day. The Protestant world having searched for some divine authority for this practice and failed to find it in the Bible, has really adopted St. Augustine’s rule: When any doctrine or practice of the church cannot be traced to its origin, and no time can be pointed out when it commenced, it is, therefore, it must be, grounded on apostolic tradition.

In the Catholic Christian Instructed I find the following questions and answers by these venerable fathers:—

THE POPE.

“Q. How do you prove that the pope, or bishop of Rome, is the successor of St. Peter?

“A. 1. Because the church never acknowledged any other for her chief pastor. 2. From the current sense of the holy fathers and councils that have acknowledged the supremacy in the See of Rome and her bishops. See St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans; St. Irenæus, 1. 3, c. 3. 3. [St. Cyprian, St. Optatus, and St. Jerome are also quoted.]”

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

“Q. How prove you that the practice of praying for the dead is as ancient as Christianity?

“A. From Tertullian in his book of the Soldier’s Crown, chap. 3, where he reckons on the oblations for the dead upon their anniversary days amongst the immemorial traditions observed by all Christians. See also St. Cyprian, Epistle 66; St. Cyril of Jerusalem; also St. Chrysostom, in his Epistle to the Philippians, tells us, that it was ordained by the apostles that the dead should be commemorated in the sacred mysteries; and St. Augustine says that it was a practice received from the fathers, and observed by the universal church. And it appears from St. Epiphanius that Arius was ranked amongst the heretics by the church in the fourth century, for denying that the prayers of the living did the dead any good.”

PURGATORY.

“Q. What grounds have you for purgatory, from perpetual tradition?

“A. Because the Jewish Church long before our Saviour’s coming, and the Christian Church from the very beginning, have offered prayers and sacrifice for the repose and relief of the faithful departed, as appears from innumerable testimonies of the fathers, and from the most ancient liturgies of all Christian churches and nations; Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Armenians, Nestorians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Indians, Mosarabes, &c.; which consent, so ancient and universal, of all ages and all nations, before the pretended Reformation, is a most convincing argument that this practice came by tradition from the apostles, and consequently that the belief of a purgatory is an apostolic tradition; for what sense could there be in praying for the repose and relief of the souls of the faithful departed, if there were no middle place, but all went straight to Heaven or hell?”

This is certainly well authenticated, if antiquity and majorities prove a doctrine to be true.

“Q. How is it proved that sacrifice can be offered for the souls in purgatory?

“A. By testimony of all the fathers of the church.” Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine are quoted. [Here they apply the rule of the latter referred to above.]

“Q. Had the ancients these different modes of offering the holy sacrifice?

“A. St. Justin Martyr mentions the order of solemn mass. Tertullian does the same. It is found in the apostolical institutions. The practice of low mass is equally ancient. See Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Augustine. See, in a word, all the fathers of the early and pure ages.”

These might be extended to an indefinite length. If we take these authorities to prove one doctrine, why not accept all they teach? While so many are ready to ride these old stagers into court, and cry, “The fathers, the fathers,” we prefer to stand on the sure foundation occupied by the apostles, and call upon the grandfathers of the church, seeking for the “old paths” and the “good way” in which they walked.

R. M. KILGORE.

Continue reading: Sabbath School Department