Earlier text: HUMILITYIn the Advent Herald of Aug. 7, and the World's Crisis of Sept. 8, 1858, we find articles against the custom of feet-washing as a church ordinance: the former by J. Litch, and the latter by B. Mathewson. These articles we have endeavored carefully to examine, to ascertain if our opponents had any valid ground of opposition to this practice. It is hardly necessary to state that the position they take is, that it is not a church ordinance but an act of hospitality. Nor are they quite willing to rest it on this ground alone; for the act being very humble as well as hospitable, it seems impossible to separate it from humility. Humility is therefore joined to the hospitality; and to these some also add equality. The sum of their position then, is this: That the transaction of our Lord, as recorded in John xiii, was simply designed to teach a lesson of hospitality, humility, and equality among the brethren; but the different mode of dressing the feet at the present day, and in this part of the world, from that anciently practiced in the East, now renders this act unnecessary as an expression of hospitality. All then that need be done to disprove the position of those who object to this practice, is to show that the act of our Lord in washing his disciples' feet, and his teaching to them on the subject, had no connection with physical uncleanness, nor with the hospitable customs of those times. This fact being established, no other signification can be given to the Saviour's act and language, but that he set an example which he designed his disciples to follow in all coming time. 1. It is claimed, first, that, in the East, where people went for the most part with bare legs, and with the feet protected only by sandals, it was the custom for individuals to wash the feet of their guests; and that on this custom, our Lord's act of feet-washing was based. In this our friends mistake. So far as we can learn from the sacred record, this was not the custom; but the custom was for the host to present his guests a basin of water and let them wash their own feet. Not such a ceremony as this took place in that upper chamber where Jesus and his disciples were assembled on the eve of the paschal sacrifice. "Abraham," it is said, "washed the feet of the angels who came to him in human form; and this is the first example of feet-washing we have in the Bible; and if we are in doubt in reference to any phrase or act, we may expect to find relief by looking to see how it was first used." But by turning to Gen. xviii, 4, we find that Abraham did not wash the feet of his guests, but only requested them to let a little water be brought that they might wash their own feet. Precisely so was it with Lot when the angels came to him. Gen. xix, 2. He besought them to turn in to his house, and wash their feet; not that he would wash them. So with Abraham's servant: water was given him that he might wash his feet. Gen. xxiv, 21. So with Joseph's brethren. Gen. xliii, 24. See also Judges xix, 21. Our Lord's act, then, was not based upon the customs of those times. 2. Whenever the Saviour, while on earth, sought to enforce by some act, a great moral lesson upon his disciples, he took occasion to do it when surrounding circumstances called for such an exhibition. We read that on one occasion he took a little child and set him in the midst of his disciples, and told them that except they should be converted and become as little children, they could not inherit the kingdom. By this act he forcibly taught them a lesson of humility and equality; and there was an occasion for this lesson; for we find that the disciples had been disputing among themselves concerning who of them should be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. But look at the transaction recorded in John xiii, as designed to teach a lesson of hospitality, and what circumstances, we ask, were there to call it forth? Had the disciples been inclined to be inhospitable, that a lesson of this kind was necessary; or were they in need themselves of some hospitality's being shown them? Nothing of the kind. Viewed in this light it becomes a strange digression from the course of events then transpiring. 3. Had the washing of the disciples' feet been in accordance with the customs of those times, they would of course have understood it; for it cannot be supposed that they were ignorant of the usages of hospitality then existing. But it seems they did not understand it. It was to them surprising and unexpected. Peter rose up in opposition and refused to have the ceremony performed on him; and Jesus expressly said to him, "What I do thou knowest not now." Surely, in view of this fact, those who regard this a mere act or lesson of hospitality, are not the ones to talk about "quintessence of absurdity," "incongruity," and "inconsistency." These epithets recoil with tenfold power upon their own heads. 4. The washing mentioned in John xiii, has no reference to physical uncleanness. When Jesus made to Peter the startling declaration that unless he washed him he had no part with him, then Peter in his usual zealous manner, was ready to submit, not his feet only, but also his hands and his head. But Jesus replied that he that is washed (or, as some translate it, has been bathing) "needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." This necessity of washing the feet comes, says Mathewson, from the fact that they were liable to be "soiled in walking from the bath." Then we must understand Christ to say to Peter that unless he washed his feet from the dust, &c., that might adhere to them while walking from the bath, he could have no part with him! That is, Peter's salvation depended on his having his feet washed from whatever it might be, by which they were liable to be soiled while walking from the bath! Does the reader perceive no "quintessence of absurdity" in such a position as this? "Ye are clean," said Christ to his disciples, "but not all." In what respect were they not all clean? The next verse explains: For he knew who should betray him; THEREFORE, said he, ye are not all clean. 5. It is argued that feet-washing cannot be an ordinance of the church; for all ordinances "typify something which is calculated to lead the mind to the great Author of our salvation." We answer: Who could perform this ordinance, as instituted by our Redeemer without having his mind called to him? It is as effectual a remembrancer of his humility, though he was Lord of glory, as is the supper of his death, or baptism of his resurrection. 6. It is said that a sense of propriety would separate the sexes in the performance of this ordinance; and that this is contrary to the spirit of the gospel. We reply that confining ourselves strictly to the example set us in the sacred record involves no breach of propriety. We have the example of females washing the feet of males, but not vice versa. This example may be followed without impropriety by any who may be conscious of a duty in this respect. 7. Feet-washing, it is said, is enumerated in the catalogue of good works; it cannot therefore be a church ordinance; for had it been, Paul would not have enumerated this one, to the exclusion of other ordinances, among good works. See 1 Tim. v, 10. Those who make this claim, in order to sustain it, must show that what might be a good work on one occasion, might not on another occasion, and under different circumstances, be a religious ordinance. This they have not shown, nor attempted to show. 8. It is objected again, that feet-washing is never mentioned as an ordinance, whereas we have frequent mention of the breaking of bread. In answer, we inquire, Is not the partaking of the cup, equally imperative with the breaking of bread? Certainly. But have we not frequent mention of the latter, without a specification of the former? We have; and the omission can be accounted for only on the ground that it is an inseparable branch of the ordinance, and is therefore included under the general name of breaking of bread. So with the washing of feet. If it was instituted at the same time, and in connection with the supper, and is enjoined in as express terms as the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine, why is it not also an inseparable portion of the ordinance, and likewise understood when we speak of the breaking of bread? With our present light we must so regard it. 9. Finally, say some, it is only an act on the part of the Saviour to show us that we must be humble. Very well: how can we better show our humility than by the example which he has set us? Said Jesus to his disciples after he had washed their feet, "Know ye what I have done to you?" And in his explanations he says: "For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done unto you." We shall ever look with distrust upon the boasted humility of that man, who is unwilling to bring it to the test the Saviour has here given us. In conclusion, we invite the honest inquirer after truth on this point, to study carefully the testimony of John xiii. In the articles above referred to, there is, throughout, a manifest evasion of this portion of Scripture, which, of all others, ought to be kept in view in examining this question. We say, then, keep in mind the testimony of Jesus on this point. Weigh well his language; study its bearing and its import. We are confident, if you do this, there is but one conclusion to which you can arrive. It is best expressed in the Saviour's own words: "If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's feet; for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you." We are equally confident, that, in your endeavors to follow this example, you will share largely in that blessing which his holy lips pronounced: "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." PENALTY OF THE GOSPEL.
By R. F. C.
The article recently published in the Review from Eld. Chadwick is an able defense of the doctrine of the destruction of the wicked; yet he conveys the idea that the second death is the penalty of the gospel.109 Although he understood the claims of the holy, just and good law of God so far as to be a Sabbath-keeper, yet he seems to have been befogged with the idea that the law was superseded by the gospel, and consequently that the penalty is the penalty, not of the law, but of the gospel. If gospel means good news, then the penalty of the gospel is the penalty of good news. Sin, then, (if there is such a thing during the gospel day, as it is called,) must be the transgression of the gospel. To illustrate this, let us suppose a case. A number of the citizens in a certain kingdom rebel against the king, and openly transgress his laws, the penalty of which is death. But the king, instead of giving orders for their immediate arrest and execution, issues a proclamation to the rebels, kindly offering pardon to all who come and confess their guilt and take a solemn oath of future allegiance to their king. A portion of them comply with these conditions and are restored to their citizenship. But the rest, neglecting to fulfill the conditions of pardon, are arrested, tried, and the penalty of death is executed upon them. Now who would think of saying that death was the penalty of the king's proclamation? It only offered life to those that were deserving of death for the violation of the king's laws. They were judged by the laws they had violated; and if the king's proclamation was brought into court at all, it was only to show that they were undeserving of mercy, because they had already rejected it, on the most reasonable terms. Again, who would presume that the proclamation of pardon abolished the laws of the kingdom? Those who obeyed the proclamation obtained pardon. They were no longer under the condemning power of the law, but under favor. Says Paul, "Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!" Sin is still the transgression of the law; and the wages of sin is death. Those who suffer the second death will suffer the penalty of the law, not of the gospel.
R. F. C.
Elmira, N. Y., Jan. 31st, 1859. THE DISCUSSION—THE SABBATH.
By J. H. W.
A FRIEND writes from Lockport, N. Y., concerning the discussion held last Fall, on the Sabbath, and makes suggestions on that subject for my consideration. He says, "I have learned through the Expositor that you have lately had a debate with Eld. Stephenson on the Sabbath question, and as they tell the story you fell in the rear." I have not seen the Expositor, and therefore know not how their "story" has been told. We have long refrained from saying anything about the discussion, and it may not be out of place now to make a few remarks respecting it; though I should prefer to have them made by others. The reason why we have kept silent is, they announced their intention to publish the discussion in a pamphlet, and we have been awaiting its appearance. We thought proper, at the time, to demur against the reception of anything they might [or could] publish as a report of the discussion, for the following reasons: 1. Our opening remarks, occupying one hour, were not heard by their reporter. 2. The reporter announced to the audience that he could not give a verbatim report, as he only understood the theory of reporting, but had no practise. 3. He afterwards stated to individuals that in addition to his being a very slow writer, we were both very rapid speakers, so that he could not follow us. 4. On my urging these objections to Eld. Stephenson, he said that they were also taking notes of the discussion, and they intended to correct his report by their notes! These we consider good and sufficient reasons for rejecting their publication, or receiving it as a report. It is suggested by my correspondent that, if I made a failure in the discussion, it was doubtless because of wrong positions taken by me, and he proceeds to make suggestions for the benefit of Adventists who keep the Sabbath, as he thinks they are endeavoring to maintain the truth by means of erroneous positions. As his remarks are concerning the Sabbath as an original institution, I will first refer to that part of the discussion more intimately connected with that point. The question debated was as follows: "The Sabbath of the fourth commandment was made at creation, and the obligation to observe it extends through the present age." In defence of the first proposition in the above we affirmed that the fourth commandment had reference to but one Sabbath; that one was the Sabbath of the Lord, and was made at creation. Proved by Deut. v; Gen. ii; Ex. xx, and xxxi. In denial he stated that "of" was a possessive preposition, and assumed that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment signified the Sabbath possessed by the commandment; that the commandment could not possess a Sabbath before itself existed. But we had no proof of the existence of the commandment till long after creation; and because it did not exist at creation it could not possess the Sabbath at creation. That the Sabbath of the Lord was made at creation he admitted, but not as the Sabbath of the commandment. We contended that this was a mere evasion of a plain truth, and further argued and illustrated the truth. Thus, we stated, that the commandment pointed only to one Sabbath; that was defined to be the Sabbath of the Lord; all the facts predicated of the Sabbath of the commandment, are predicated of the Sabbath of the Lord; but these facts cannot be predicated of two different days; hence, there is a clear identity existing. We illustrated by the scripture expression, "I am the Lord God of Abraham." Then the question arose, Did the God of Abraham exist before Abraham existed? He replied, No: not as the God of Abraham. The cause of all this sophistry and fallacious reasoning lies in this, that he confounded things with their relations, as if a thing could not change its relation, or possess a new one without becoming a new thing; as if the Sabbath of the Lord, admitted to have been made at creation, could not also be the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, without losing its identity, and becoming another Sabbath; and if so, the eternally pre-existing God could not become the God of Abraham without also becoming a new God! Mr. Stephenson complained very much of my want of conformity to the rules of logic. This was not surprising, inasmuch as I have never made those rules my study. But I remember having read somewhere that "things equal to the same things are equal to each other," or words to that effect. I presume no rule or axiom can be produced that more directly bears on this point than the above, and yet, strong as it is, it does not express all the strength of our position, for the reason that the proposition affirmed partakes more of the nature of a self-evident truth; and all must admit that it is easier to express the relation of things equal to each other, than to express the relation of a thing to itself. My ignorance of rules disqualifies me for judging, but from his very frequent reference to logic it is fair to infer that he won golden honors as a logician on the occasion; and for the gratification of himself and friends I may be permitted to say in all modesty that, being somewhat free from an envious disposition, I shall suffer no personal feelings to arise on the subject. But while he plead for logic I plead for the dictionary and the definition of terms. While arguing the question of the perpetuity of the commandment he declared that the law of this dispensation was in contrast with that of the past age. I pointed out to the audience what a law would be in contrast with the ten commandments. The same may be found in the review of Fillio, pages 27, 28. He denied the conclusion, and when I sustained it by an appeal to Webster, he made the wonderful declaration that he would not be bound by any dictionary on earth, but should use terms as they are used by the best speakers! But mark the folly of such a position. They are the best speakers who nearest conform to the standard authority; and if we deny or reject the authority, we have no means left to us of judging which is best. The arguments used by us in the discussion throughout were the same, and such as were in strict conformity with those, that have heretofore been used by us in our writings and lectures. No position was taken or argument used but what was fully coincided in by all the brethren present. On the contrary, many of his positions were altogether novel, and not only subversive of the plainest and most practical doctrines of revelation, but also subversive of the main positions so long and tenaciously held by the Editor and correspondents of the Expositor. And the Editor of that paper must yield many of his main positions, and deny things that he has so often declared to be "facts plainly stated," before he can endorse the positions taken by Mr. Stephenson. We have been, and are, anxious to learn on what ground they will unite, for we have doubted whether Mr. Marsh had humility enough to step aside for this new rival, and clear a track for Mr. Stephenson to occupy in advance. I will now briefly notice the main positions of my correspondent, and we shall see whether our case in the discussion would have been better had we occupied his ground. After stating some points of agreement between us, that the Sabbath was made for man, he continues: "Was it given to all men? Yes, if they had obeyed God instead of obeying the devil. But when they became the devil's children by obeying him, God drove them out of the garden and placed a flaming sword to keep them away from the tree of life, and of course from rest—for God said unto Adam, Cursed is the ground. (Quotes to the end of verse 19, and adds.) Here we find no promise of a rest-day. But as the prophet says, there is no peace to the wicked, for they are like the troubled sea which cannot rest." In another part of his letter the same idea is presented thus: "—that he obeyed the devil, therefore he became the Prince of this world, and man could neither rest nor live." The following errors may be noticed in the above quotations: They assume that the Sabbath was not to be observed by Adam and his posterity because not mentioned in Gen. iii. But, the scripture quoted is not a rule of obedience, but a curse for disobedience, and therefore proves nothing on the point. They assume that the Sabbath was not enjoined on, and could not be kept by, man, after the fall, because he was driven out of the garden and denied the tree of life. But, it was so enjoined on the Jews, and he confesses that the duty rests upon us now; yet the Jews were not, and we are not, in the garden, and all are yet deprived of the tree of life. They assume that God did not command his law to the wicked inhabitants of the world, after the fall. [He agrees with us on the unity of the Decalogue.] But their wickedness was sin or disobedience to the law, which could not have been the case if they had not had it. Had that been so the wicked could not have been distinguished from the just. They assume that the rest of the Sabbath was only a privilege, and not to be observed except as the reception of a promise. But, the Sabbath was hallowed, and its observance was a duty; and it is certainly unjust to say that God withheld man from duty after the fall, which is to say that God ordained that they should remain sinners because they had sinned. After again affirming that God did not give the Sabbath to man after the fall till after the exode, he says, "Yet I have no doubt some good men kept the Sabbath even through the dark ages." But on what principle did they keep it if God had withdrawn it from them? And if good men kept the law, would not all have been good if all had kept it? The only remaining point necessary to notice is the question of the Sabbath being a type of the Best that remains for the people of God. This we consider a great error. That our friends of the Seventh-day Baptist denomination should continue to hold this view after the light has shone out so clear on it, is a matter of astonishment to us. I quote from the letter as follows: "We learn that after God had redeemed his people from the land of bondage he gave them a rest-day, and it was to be a perpetual covenant or sign between God and his people throughout their generations. Ex. xxxi. A sign of what? Answer: a sign or type of the great rest-day that is appointed and remains for the people of God of 1000 years." Why refer to Ex. xxxi, and then give an answer entirely foreign to anything hinted at in the chapter? There are two ideas presented in Ex. xxxi in connection with the Sabbath as a sign. The first is in verse 13: "For it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you." And in verse 17: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested." Parallels of verse 13 are verses 12 and 20 of Exs. xx. Here we learn both the reason and the use of the sign, and this is all that we can learn on the subject from the Scriptures. When other reasons and uses are given we must regard them as mere human inventions that tend to "pervert the right ways of the Lord." Let us consider a few scripture facts in connection with the following declarations of our correspondent. He says: "If man had obeyed his Maker he would have staid in the garden, eaten of the tree of life, worked six days, and rested on the seventh day for 6000 years and then the great Jubilee of jubilees, or antitype, or holy Sabbath would have continued eternally." When God made the world he pronounced it very good, and gave it to man for his possession and dwelling place. Had man always obeyed God he would always have possessed the earth, and it would always have been very good, for no curse would have rested on man or on the earth. And the Sabbath was made for man at the same time, therefore he would always have had the holy Sabbath in a state of perpetual holiness and happiness. These are admitted facts. And what more could man have looked or longed for? And of what could the Sabbath have been a type? Not of a period of 1000 years of sanctified time, for the Scriptures reveal no such thing; certainly not of an antitypical eternity, as the last quotation makes it. But he says if man had not sinned he would have rested on the seventh day till the great Jubilee, &c. Every seventh year to the Jews was "a year of release" for the benefit of the debtor, but the fiftieth year, or jubilee, was a release of man and the land; in it the bondmen went free, and the land returned to its original owner, evidently typifying the final redemption of God's people and their inheritance, now groaning under the curse. Eph. i, 13, 14; Rom. viii, 22, 23. But if man had continued obedient, holy, happy, and his inheritance very good,110 free from all curse, and his home a garden of delights, his food the fruit of the tree of life, what would have been the nature of the jubilee? From what would there have been a release? There would have been none. If the Sabbath would have been a type under such circumstances, it would have been a perpetual type of that which man perpetually possessed from the beginning! This subject might be traced further, but we consider it unnecessary. We shall also refrain from noticing his views of the fulfillment of certain prophecies, as his conclusions grew out of the assumptions herein noticed. Of course we consider them in some respects erroneous. As a friend, and for his benefit, we would suggest that in searching the scriptures he will find it to his advantage to classify his facts, and distinguish between causes and effects, between things primary and secondary. His error in the present case is similar to that of Mr. Stephenson above stated; he has lost sight of the nature of things while tracing their relations. To correct this will be the correction of his whole theory. But while we have differed on these points, we are happy to agree with him on the main point; that is, of present duty to keep the law of God. The performance of our present duty is vastly more important than the determination of the duty of others in the past, or the precise result in the future. They are useful only as they are made auxiliary to this. And of this we may possess the joyful assurance that if we keep his commandments we shall yet have right to the tree of life and enter through the gates into the city. May we through grace keep them perfectly. “Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another.” BRO. SMITH: I have been making some efforts of late to spread the light of the present message in this region, where many profess to love the blessed hope, but few are willing to submit to the refining process through which the saints must pass in order to share in the glory at its consummation. Dec. 26th, and Jan. 2nd and 9th, I gave lectures on the present truth in a meeting-house at Lynn, where I found a small company of disciples looking for Jesus, who appeared willing to follow the Lord fully as soon as they could do it understandingly. They listened attentively to the word spoken, and saw some light on our present position. The Lord bless them, and enable them to walk in the light. From thence I went to Dartmouth, to look after the interests of the Review and Instructor, as no brethren from there attended the conferences last fall when Bro. White was on his Eastern tour. I did not expect to stop here but a few days, as I supposed there would be no chance to present the present truth in new places in this vicinity; but in this I have been happily disappointed. I arrived Jan. 14th. The weather was rainy and the traveling bad. Yet Bro. Collins' first effort to find a place proved successful in securing South Freetown meeting-house, which was well filled with candid hearers. On the evening of the 17th, Eld. Chase of the F. W. Baptist order was present, and endorsed what was said in relation to our Saviour's promise to return, and the signs that were to precede that event, saying it was Bible doctrine. Another appointment was left for the evening of the 20th. When I returned to attend this meeting, word was sent to have a meeting at the Mason meeting-house the next week. As the messenger could not stop to our meeting this evening, and wished to carry back word, we gave an appointment for the 27th, and then proceeded with our meeting, at the close of which a request was made for those that wished to hear more on this subject to manifest the same by arising. Eld. C., who endorsed the sentiments advanced the preceding evening, arose and commenced telling what he had heard this sort of people say, and how their prophecies had failed, how he drove the doctrine out of the house in 1844, and told the people not to be alarmed, that all the prophecies were fulfilled at the first advent, and even the Son of God did not know anything about it, and we could not understand those beasts and horns, &c. This testimony I suppose to have to outweigh that of Daniel, Joel, Amos, Nahum, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude, and many other inspired witnesses that testified to the truthfulness of our position, besides the historical facts that every man of his profession ought to be well acquainted with. When he had concluded, the request was again repeated for those to rise that wished to hear, when it became evident that the Eld.'s testimony was not received by all, and so an appointment was left for the 25th. After the meeting closed we received an invitation to hold meetings at the Advent chapel, at North Fairhaven, and sent on an appointment for the evening of the 26th. Our third meeting at South Freetown was well attended, and good attention paid to the word spoken, though a very few appeared a little disturbed because the law of the Lord was so perfect. At the Mason meeting-house we met a large congregation, many of which listened attentively. I have now given four lectures at the Advent chapel, which have been listened to with interest by some, who like the noble Bereans, are searching to see if these things are so. May the Lord give them his blessed Spirit to guide them into all truth. Last evening, Feb. 2nd, we gave the first lecture that has ever been given on the subject of the second Advent in the Methodist meeting-house at Fairhaven Plains, where we were blessed with the good, free Spirit of the Lord, and a good congregation, with the best of attention. Some seemed really anxious to hear more, so we left another appointment. Besides these meetings, we have attended eight meetings at private houses, and should have had more had the weather been favorable. Having heard recently from Lynn that two have commenced keeping the Sabbath, and others have a desire to hear more of the truth of the Third Angel's Message, I expect to return the first of next week, with full confidence that God will yet have a little company there that will honor him by walking in all of his commandments and ordinances blameless. And now let me say, dear brethren, that it is evident that God by his Spirit is preparing the way for the wider spread of truth here in the East, and how much your help is needed. That holy living before God and the world, and those fervent prayers and soul-stirring exhortations are as much needed now as ever. Do heed faithfully the counsel of the faithful and true Witness, consecrate your entire all to God anew, and improve faithfully this last chance for saving precious souls while the last few mercy-drops are falling, so when all is over and probation ended, you may be found of him in peace without spot and blameless. North Fairhaven, Mass., Feb. 1859.