Earlier text: Paul's Advice to TimothyIN REVIEW No. 23, present volume, we gave an extract from a discussion on the Sabbath question, which has for some time been in progress in the Sabbath Recorder, between Wm. Armstrong, and N. V. Hull, Seventh-day Baptist. We herewith present Mr. Hull's closing article: Dear Sir,—The question under discussion between you and me these many weeks, and which I suppose will close with this article, is this: Which day of the week does the Bible teach to be the Sabbath? (As I have but small space this week, in which to say much, I ask the reader, when I refer to a passage of Scripture, not copying it, to turn to it and read it.) My position is: "The seventh day of the week is the Sabbath." Yours is: "The Scriptures do not point out a 'specific' day, but a day of rest after six days of toil; nevertheless, Divine Providence and apostolic example teach the observance of the first day of the week under the gospel." Your arguments have been: 1. The days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis, were "vast periods," and not days of twenty-four hours. 2. The present first day of the week is the Edenic seventh day, the Jews having been put back one day in the wilderness, to separate them from the heathen, who, you say, continued to keep the true Edenic day. 3. Apostolic example shows that the New Testament church kept the first day. I reply: 1. Geologists agree that the world was many ages forming. 2. Geologists do not agree in the idea of the six periods, but many later geologists say that if there are any, there are from twenty-nine to thirty-four; but many say there are no periods, but a continuous development. This division among geologists destroys all idea of certainty concerning your theory; and as the later discoveries are against you, therefore the most that can be claimed for your theory is bare possibility! 3. The Bible teaches indispensably, that the days in Genesis i, were days of twenty-four hours, by describing them as beginning with an "evening," and ending with a "morning," and afterward in the whole book interpreting this to be a day of twenty-four hours. This settles the Bible meaning of the term day in Genesis i. Your geologic theory, then, is weak, and your exegesis false! Thus ends your first INFERENCE! 2. Your inference of a change of day in the wilderness, is without either Scriptural or historic warrant, and no man ever thought of it until Dr. Jennings, in the seventeenth century, resorted to it to support some arithmetical calculation of his; and the supposed historic fact that the early heathens kept the first day as a sacred day, turns out, upon more recent and thorough research, to be without foundation, as by first-day men themselves it has been shown, that in all probability there was never any weekly observance of Sunday, for any purpose whatever, until the second century of the Christian era. Thus ends your second INFERENCE! 3. You further support your argument for keeping the first day, by quoting four passages of Scripture, and giving them such an interpretation as will make them suit your purpose. But it is pertinent to remark, that the first-day idea is not found in the passages quoted, but in the interpretation! Nor did the earlier expounders of the word offer any interpretations of this kind, this being a recent invention to stay-lath the rocking, swaying argument for the Sunday Sabbath! But to the passages—the first being Ezekiel xliii, 27. There is not a word here about Sabbatizing, but this, that the time required for the cleansing of an altar was seven days, and then on the eighth day it should be fit for use, so that daily acceptable offering might be made for the people. It is assumed, that this eighth day was the first day of the week, but without a particle of authority. Who knows on what day of the week the cleansing commenced? But without this nobody can tell on what day it ended! So expires this INFERENCE also! Your next passage is Psalms cxviii, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26. Here again you assume that the first day is meant by the phrase, "This is the day the Lord hath made." But the Psalmist is not talking of the day of twenty-four hours, but a season, a period, and that day or period the time of Christ's appearance, and the triumph of his work. Hence the church is called upon to rejoice. THERE IS NOT ONE WORD SAID IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ABOUT REJOICING IN THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK! But Christ says, (John viii, 56,) "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad." Luke x, 23, 24, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see; for I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see these things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things which ye hear, and have not heard them." Thus this INFERENCE fails you! 4. Here you begin in an ecstasy by saying, "Bless God, that in the Sabbath we may celebrate, not the finishing of redemption, but the gospel." I think, however, you had better withhold your rejoicing until you see the exact occasion for it. Does the Bible say anything about celebrating a "finished gospel" by keeping the first day of the week? Every man acquainted with the Bible knows that it does not. The gospel idea centers in the sufferings and death of Christ. THE CROSS! THE CROSS! THIS is its world's attraction. The counterpart of the death of Christ is his resurrection. Hence, to complete the thought, and symbolize both transactions, you have baptism and the Lord's supper. These tell the whole story. * 5. But you proceed to say, "That the Pentecost was that year on the first day of the week, you will not deny." Reply: The feast of Pentecost came yearly, and therefore might that year fall on the first day of the week. But did it? The weight of testimony is, that it fell on the seventh day. Hackett, a recent and discriminating commentator, says: According to the best opinion, "(mark that,) 'our Lord celebrated his last Passover on the evening which began the fifteenth of Nisan (Numbers xxxiii, 3), and hence he was sacrificed on the next day, which was our Friday; the fiftieth day, or Pentecost (beginning, of course, with the evening of Friday, the second day of the Passover), would occur on the Jewish Sabbath." Olshausen says: "The fiftieth day fell, therefore, on Saturday." These evidences, then, are against you. But upon whatever day of the week it may have fallen, it is only mentioned as a Jewish feast, and therefore the Holy Spirit only so represented it. So goes another of your INFERENCES! * 7. But you introduce one more text, from which you infer something. I quote: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye. Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Cor. i, 2. Remarks on the text: (1.) This collection was in a large number of churches. (2.) Lay by him cannot mean lay by privately, for it was to be laid by in store, that is, in the church collection. Pardon me, brother, if I had not ceased to be surprised by anything you could say, certainly you would surprise me now. You seem to rely upon bold assumption, if not on reckless assertions. You here assume, in the face of the language of the text, that this was a public collection. The only ground upon which you can possibly be excused, is ignorance of the Greek from which this is translated. But the English is sufficiently clear to forbid the assumption. The sense of the text is fairly expressed thus: "On each first day of the week, let each one of you lay by himself in store, that there may be no gathering when I come." So clear is this, that all the early translations into English, until you come to the authorized version in 1611, so far as I have seen, fully express it. Wickliff, 1380, says: "Eche of you kepe at himself, hepynge that that plecith to hym." Tyndale, 1524, reads: "Let every one of you put aside at home." The version made at Rheims, 1582, reads: "Let every one of you put apart with himself." That this is the true reading, there is no doubt. Hence there is nothing about keeping the first day of the week here, the duty ordered being to lay by themselves at home, as God had prospered them, that they might have their gifts in readiness when Paul came to take them to the poor saints at Jerusalem. Thus perishes your last INFERENCE! And now, brother, permit me to say, that every argument you have employed in this long and windy debate in favor of the first-day Sabbath, has been founded in assumption! ASSUMPTION! ASSUMPTION! Your Sunday is found outside the Bible, not in it. If at any time it seems to be there, it is only seemingly so. What a SHAM this whole Sunday-Sabbath argument is! 8. But this debate nears its close; and having shown that your teachings are at variance with the Scriptures, let us now hear their testimony on this interesting question. 1. There is a cycle of seven days, known in Scripture, not as a week, but as the week—the first seven days of time described in Gen. i, with the first three verses of chapter ii, the last of which is the divine sacred day. The Bible is the most ancient of books in the world, and opens with the dawn of present time, interweaving with the narrative of the world's birth, the birth also of the week, and so incorporating them into one as to bind them in a common destiny, like husband and wife. "What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder!" But if the week is the divinely-appointed order of historic time, so is the Sabbath-day essential to the week, as without it you have no week. It must be a Sabbath-day, as the Sabbath idea is essential to complete the thought of a finished work. Let us, then, look into the sacred volume, and see how this matter stands there. In Gen. ii, 2, 3, you have the first account of the Sabbath-day. 1. God rested on the seventh day. 2. He blessed it—spoke good of it; i. e., spoke well of it as a day of rest. 3. He then sanctified it; i. e., set it apart to be a day of rest for man. See Mark ii, 2. "The Sabbath was made for man." You next hear of it directly in Ex. xvi. The Israelites here have put upon them a large experience on this subject: 1. In the bestowment of manna, as a double quantity fell on the sixth day. 2. None fell on the seventh day, because it was the Sabbath day. 3. That which was preserved for use on the Sabbath kept in good condition, although, if an attempt were made to keep it over for use on any other day, it would spoil. Of this Sabbath, Moses says it was the one of which the Lord had said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath. This comples it with Eden. Nehemiah also bears testimony to this when he says, "And madest known unto them thy holy Sabbaths." It407 next appears in Ex. xx, 8-11. When God speaks from Sinai—1. He bid them solemnly to remember and keep the Sabbath-day. 2. He next tells them that the seventh day is the Sabbath-day. 3. He explains how this came to be. God was six days creating the world, and on the seventh day he rested. 4. Wherefore he blessed the Sabbath-day and sanctified it. From this time on through all the Bible history of the Jews, the Sabbath-day is often referred to as one of their most important institutions, its observance being commanded, and its violation vehemently condemned and fearfully punished. The Sabbath was evidently regarded by God as one of their most important laws, always having given it a special moral character, seeming to make it represent the whole of religion. 9. This brings us to Christ, the author of the Sabbath; and, 1. He tells us, at the outset of his ministry, that he came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. He says that heaven and earth should sooner pass away than that one jot or tittle of the law should fail. This was spoken of that law of which the Sabbath commandment formed one-tenth, which surely was one tittle of the law. If, then, the Sabbath-day has passed from the commandment, has not the law in so far failed, and so Christ's words also failed? Then he is not the Son of God! But Jesus further says, that all the law hangs on love to God and love to man. Then the Sabbath-day is a part of the law of love to God. Christ further says, that he is Lord of the Sabbath-day. But if the Sabbath-day is put away, how can Christ be Lord of it? Jesus indeed labored much to instruct the Jews into the true nature and proper use of the Sabbath-day. He also took special pains, and employed peculiar means, to free the disciples from the false constructions the Jews had put upon this day. At the time of his crucifixion, it is said that certain of his disciples kept the Sabbath according to the commandment. It is also said, that this Sabbath-day was the day before the first day of the week. Matt. xxvii, 1: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." 10. This brings us to the "Acts of the Apostles." This book was written by St. Luke, and gives an account of those labors of the several apostles which resulted in the organization of what are known as the "Apostolical Churches," covering the space of some thirty years, commencing with the day of Pentecost. Besides, it is the only authentic account of these transactions in the world, and is left as a precious legacy to the church. It is maintained by first-day keepers, that the seventh-day Sabbath was abolished at the death of Christ, and the first day instituted in its stead. To this book, then, should we look for the account of this transaction. Let us notice, first, the style of the book. And here we observe this strange fact, upon the supposition that the day has been changed, that the seventh day is still called the Sabbath-day, and the first day the "first day." Why is this, if the seventh day has ceased to be the Sabbath, and the first day has been put in its place? If the seventh day had become a secular day, why not give it a secular name; and if the first day had become a sacred day, why not give it a sacred name? 2. Let us now study the habits of the apostles and early believers on this subject. That the church at Jerusalem observed the Sabbath, I believe all admit; and yet she was the "mother church." What, then, must be her example on this subject? Can it be supposed, by any reflecting mind, that if the other churches had abandoned the Sabbath, there would have been no noise made about it, and no council called to consider it? VERILY NOT! But let us look into the history of this matter a little. In chapter xiii, we have an account of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas going into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and teaching the people, both Jews and Gentiles. In verse 42, it says, the Gentiles requested that the same words might be preached to them the next Sabbath-day; and at the 44th verse, it says that the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city together to hear the word. In the 16th chapter, it says, at verse 13, that at Philippi they went out on the Sabbath by the river side, and preached to the religious-minded that resorted there, and that Lydia, a merchant woman, was converted and baptized. This was the foundation of the church at Philippi. At the 3d verse of the 17th chapter, it says that Paul, according to his custom, preached on three successive Sabbaths. In the 18th chapter, it says he preached every Sabbath for a year and six months at Corinth, working at tent-making through the week, and of course working on the first day, as there is no account of meetings on that day, any more than any other secular days. Now, upon the supposition that we have traced this history correctly for twenty-five years, you have an account of the keeping of some thirteen hundred and fifty Sabbaths, AND NOT ONE FIRST DAY! What, then, becomes of your much-vaunted, first-day Sabbath? Where is your "Apostolic" example for keeping the first day of the week instead of the seventh? 11. In the 28th chapter, Paul, in his defense before the chief men of the Jews, at Rome, avers that he had done nothing against (or contrary to) the custom of the fathers. Now, had he abandoned, or taught the abandonment of, the seventh-day Sabbath and the keeping of the first day, would it not have been contrary to the customs of the fathers? And would not his enemies have seized upon this and raised a cry against him? I take it, then, as settled beyond controversy, that Paul, the other apostles, and these early churches, observed the seventh-day Sabbath. 12. I now say, in the presence of my Judge, that, in this debate, I have not striven for the mastery, but to defend the truth of God's holy word, and lead men to its observance. I know that numbers, and a multitude of voices, are against me; but I also feel that the Lord is on my side, and that if his word teaches anything plainly, it is that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God! 13. I have not the blindness not to know, that imperfections of manner have more or less attended my work, and for this I ask forgiveness. 14. And now, dear reader, I ask you one question, and put you upon your conscience in its answer: Is there not, deep down in your heart, a conviction that the BIBLE teaches that the SEVENTH DAY OF THE WEEK is the SABBATH, and that it is your duty to observe it? Alfred Center, Dec. 12, 1867. “Since all the downward tracks of time
God’s watchful eye surveys,
Oh! who so wise to choose our lot,
And regulate our ways?” Since none can doubt his equal love,
Unmeasurably kind;
To his unerring, gracious will,
Be every wish resigned. Good when he gives, supremely good;
Nor less, when he denies;
E’en crosses, from his sovereign hand,
Are blessings in disguise.” NOT OUR HOME.
By Adolphus Smith
“ARISE ye, and depart; for this is not your rest.” Micah xi, 10. In the world is tribulation, broken only occasionally by glimpses of the glory to be revealed. The whole creation groans under the heavy curse, and man has more than ever become the willing vassal of the Devil, working his satanic pleasure, and fast ripening for the judgments of God. The earth, which in the beginning was clad in Edenic beauty, whose soil was productive, and its climate salubrious, has become old and worn, waiting to be folded as a vesture, and changed by an Almighty hand. But a small portion of the earth’s surface is inhabitable, about three-fourths of it being covered with water; but in the new earth, “there shall be no more sea.” The climate of the frigid zone is inhospitable, and the heat of the torrid, hardly endurable. Of the temperate zones, only small tracts here and there are really rich in their vegetable productions. With the most desirable locations are connected some disadvantages, to escape which, man seeks a removal, sometimes resulting in sad disappointment. Those who are disposed to abandon the flesh-pots of Egypt for hygienic food, sometimes find a removal expedient to procure fruit in abundance and variety; but the caterpillar and the locust are there, and the fairest fruits decay; our earthly habitations waste away, and every pulsation of the heart warns us of approaching dissolution. It is often very difficult to procure a perfect title to earthly estate. Satan has, by fraud, obtained almost unlimited control of this earth, and the child of God finds himself a stranger here in an enemy’s land. Sometimes, through defect of title, he is driven from his earthly home, and an enemy reaps the fruits of his weary toil. There is no hope that a better state of things will exist until wicked men are destroyed out of the earth; in the meantime, trouble will increase, and the child of God suffer the ire of the dragon until, in answer to agonizing prayer, he is delivered from this corruption by the mighty power of God. As the mariner takes in sail, and makes everything snug before an approaching tempest, so the child of God, in view of the time of trouble just before us, ought so to arrange his business as not to be cumbered with earthly cares, when “that day shall come as a snare upon all them that dwell upon the face of the whole earth.” Dear brethren and sisters, will you heed the admonition, and make ready for the coming of our dear Saviour? Are you one of those who take right hold of the work and never draw back? Or is it necessary that the church drag you along as a cumbrous weight? Why do you delay the work of preparation? Do you expect to be surrounded with more favorable circumstances? Do you think a time will come when it will be easier to serve God than it now is? Or do you propose to live carelessly now, and trust to a chance of being warned just in time to make (if I may use the expression) a hasty moral toilet to meet the King in his glory? Oh! fatal delusion! “What a man soweth that shall he also reap.” Although in the latter rain, every honest-hearted one will be called to take his stand with commandment keepers, I do not believe that any one who now rejects the light, or neglects a preparation, will have any lot or part in that great work. Nor has he any right to flatter himself that God will grant him or her any especial warning. Repentance may then be unfound, though as by Esau, sought earnestly and with tears. ADOLPHUS SMITH.
Ottawa Co., Mich. A LIFE THAT IS A LIFE.
By D. F. Newton
THE HOLY LIFE, THE HIGHER LIFE—THE HIGHER LIFE, THE HOLY LIFE.
“It gives my ravish’d soul a taste,
And makes me for some moments feast
With Jesus’ priests and kings.” “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” What is it to be holy? Holiness is godliness, or being like God. It is love—“God is love, and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of Judgment; for as he is, so are we in this world.” It is loving God with all the heart, soul, and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. It is purity of thought, word, and action. The holiness we advocate, or contend for, is not absolute or infinite. “It is not the holiness that pertains to God, nor to angels, nor that possessed by Adam, before the fall, in degree. It is not absolute perfection; as that only belongs to God. It is not sinless perfection; nor even every kind of relative perfection; nor yet again, the perfection we attain to in the resurrection. It is not natural, but moral perfection; a perfection of our Christianity; a perfection not incompatible with many human infirmities; such as a dull apprehension, unsound judgment, weak intellect, fertile imagination, treacherous memory, and the like; and, of consequence, mistakes in judgment and practice. It is not a perfection that places us beyond temptation, or the possibility of falling into sin; or that does not allow of progression in holiness.” The holiness of all created intelligences is a borrowed holiness. The moon has no light in herself. The light she receives, is from the sun, the glorious king of day. The light we receive, is from the FOUNTAIN of all light. The holiness we profess, is Christian holiness, a holiness that removes all pride, covetousness, ill-temper, the fear of man, all desire of receiving or seeking honor one of another. It destroys all love of the world, extirpates all selfishness, removes all unbelief, dethrones every idol, crucifies everything that is opposed or hostile to the will of God. It is being crucified with Christ. The individual in possession of the blessing of holiness, or perfect love, can adopt the language of the apostle, “Knowing this that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.” Rom. vi, 6, “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Gal. ii, 20. It is Bible holiness, a holiness that takes God’s word for everything, for time and eternity; a state of holiness in which the heart that loves sin is taken away; a state in which we neither voluntarily sin, nor have a desire to sin; a condition in which we trust in Jesus to be kept from sin; and, being cleansed “from all filthiness,” we are prepared to obey the command, “Perfecting holiness in the fear of God;” as the more perfect the development of life, the more certain and rapid is its growth. Glance at the blessed effects of this holiness, or perfect love. God enables the happy possessor of it, through grace, to triumph over the world, the flesh, and the Devil, to fight the good fight of faith, to be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might, to be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in every good word and work. D. F. NEWTON. THAT which a man envies in another, he would be proud of it if he had it himself. THE ORDINANCE OF JOHN XIII.
Is the washing of the saint's feet a church ordinance? This point must be settled by the testimony of John xiii, 1–17. We notice that quite an effort is being made of late, by papers hostile to the views of S. D. Adventists, to prove that it is not. The ground upon which they would fain show that it is not to be practiced as a church ordinance, is the one usually resorted to, namely, that it is only an act of hospitality, a household duty, a lesson of humility, and lastly, a duty well understood to be binding upon the disciples, and not a new ordinance, because Jesus uses the word “ought,” in the expression, “Ye also ought to wash one another's feet.” We have not yet seen any argument in this direction which was not fully met by the words of our Lord in verse 15: “For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.” This confines the whole significance of the act to the occasion, and the circumstances under which our Lord performed it. Whatever it can be shown that the act was, as performed by him, that will be the measure of what it was designed to teach; nothing more, nothing less. We then inquire, Was this act as performed by the Lord to his disciples, an act of hospitality? If it was, then its object doubtless was to teach hospitality; if it was not, it was not done for the purpose of conveying any such instruction. And the proposition we lay down here is, that neither the act as performed by the Lord, nor the circumstances under which it was performed, had any connection whatever with the requirements of hospitality. 1. Those who endeavor to prove it an act of hospitality, refer to such passages as Gen. xviii, 4; xix, 2; xxiv, 32; and Jud. xix, 21. But these are against them, as they show the custom of those times to have been simply a provision of water that the guests might wash their own feet. But, says the objector, then why did Abigail propose to wash the feet of David's servants? 1 Sam. xxv, 41. We answer that no one surely will claim that she proposed to do this as an act of hospitality, but only to show her subjection to David; she was willing to become a servant of his servants. But no instance can be found where the master of the house ever, as an act of hospitality, either washed, or proposed to wash, the feet of his guests. No aid nor comfort can our opponents derive from these texts. 2. Our Lord ever took occasion to give his instruction when circumstances were such as to call it forth. Jesus had traveled with his disciples, and tarried at their homes; and if he had discovered any lack of hospitality on their part, he would have reproved them, as the occasion required. He did at one time teach them a lesson of humility by setting a little child in the midst, and enjoining upon them to become such as he. Matt. xviii, 3, 4. And what was the occasion of this? They had been contending about the question who should be greatest; and Christ, in an appropriate manner, rebuked the wrong as soon as it presented itself. He also on a certain occasion rebuked a Pharisee for a lack of hospitality; but it was when there was something to call it out. As he sat at meat with the Pharisee, a woman came and began to wash his feet with her tears, and to wipe them with the hair of her head. When feelings rose up in Simon's heart at this act, the Lord said to him, “Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house; thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.” Luke vii, 36–44. The Lord did not say to him, You did not bring water and wash my feet for me; no; why? Because that was not the custom of the times, and no such action was expected; but he did reprove the lack that there was, namely, his failure to set before him water; and he did it when the occasion called it forth. But there was no occasion for any such reproof or instruction at the time of the institution of the Lord's supper, when he gave such explicit and plain directions in regard to their washing each other's feet. It was not, therefore, designed to teach a lesson of hospitality. 3. The disciples were of course familiar with the customs of the times, and if our Lord had designed to reprove them for a failure to comply therewith, they would at once have understood it. He never gave lessons concerning the practical duties of life in such a way that those for whose benefit they were designed could not understand his design. But the disciples were at first utterly at a loss to determine what the Lord intended by washing their feet; hence he told Peter, “What I do, thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.” 4. The custom of the times was to wash before eating. Jesus performed the act after eating; after they had risen up from the paschal supper. This still further removed it from any connection with the customs of the times. 5. Peter, seeing no propriety in the Saviour's act, refused to be washed. Jesus then told him that if he washed him not he had no part with him; then Peter, with his usual impetuosity, exclaimed, “Not my feet only, but my hands and my head.” Was this an act of hospitality? But the Lord proceeds to correct Peter's extreme here, and says, “He that is washed, [or as some read, He that has been bathing], needeth not save to wash his feet but is clean every whit;” that is, he that has been bathing is physically clean; it is not for this purpose that I now apply the water; hence there is no necessity for my washing your hands and your head; I only propose to wash your feet, the significance of which, you will understand hereafter; and if you refuse this, you have no part with me. What! If you refuse to receive instruction concerning hospitality, you have no part with me? Is this our Lord's position? No; he never used such language in reference to such things. But his declaration brings up the practice of feet-washing to equal importance with partaking of the bread and wine, concerning which he makes a similar expression: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” John vi, 53. In view of all this, it is utter folly for people to talk of this being a lesson of hospitality, or of household duties. We then inquire further, Was it designed simply to teach a lesson of humility? If so, we submit that the very best way a person can show that he receives the instruction is to put in practice the directions given. But what can be said of the use of the word, “ought?” We have this to say, that a person must be hard pushed to offer such an argument as this. Our Lord bases the whole of the requirement on the act he had just performed. “If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's feet.” Because I have done this to you, ye ought to do it to one another. Not because the custom of the times or the claims of hospitality require it, but because I have done it. This is the reason he assigns. “If I, then, your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to [what? be humble, be hospitable? No; but] wash one another's feet.” This is what the Lord says. This is the specific act he points out, and says we ought to do it. Now ought we to do it, or ought we not? Who knows our duty best? Christ, or these modern interpreters? But strong as this is, the Lord does not leave it here. He continues, “For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.” What had he done to them? Performed an act of hospitality as such? Nothing of the kind. He had washed their feet, and says we should do as he had done; or, as expressed just before, wash one another's feet. Nothing could possibly be plainer. Let any one who doubts this, tell us how it should read, if the Lord did really wish to enjoin upon us to wash one another's feet. Then, shall we do as he did, and has told us to do? or shall we not? These people who get beyond the apostles and beyond the Lord, and set up a way of their own, will excuse us if we cannot put much faith in their teaching, nor esteem them very highly, at least, for their doctrine's sake. Oh! if this scripture only enjoined something which they would love to do, some popular performance, or something that would be agreeable to their pride, ambition, or love of ease, how easy it would be to understand it just as it is. But there is a cross here, and they think to dodge it, and yet, more fortunate than Peter, have an abundant part with Christ in his exaltation and glory. Do you ask what the ordinance does signify? We answer, It is a memorial of the humility of our “Lord and Master,” the Prince of glory, just as the bread and wine is a memorial of his death, and baptism of his resurrection. And in view of the plain instruction given in John xiii, it is not surprising that the ordinance was practiced in the earlier and purer ages of this dispensation, as we learn that it was, until Rome laid its polluting hands on the ordinances of the church, and either abolished or perverted them in establishing its miserable mongrel of Christianity and heathenism. Kitto's Encyclopedia says: “Feet-washing (pedilavium) became, as might be expected, a part of the observances practiced in the early Christian church. The real signification, however, was soon forgotten, or overloaded by superstitious feelings and mere outward practices. Traces of the practice abound in ecclesiastical history, and remnants of the abuse are still to be found, at least in the Romish church.” But the time has come when this age is to close with as pure a gospel as that with which it begun; the perverted or neglected ordinances of the church must be restored, and this link must occupy its appropriate place in the golden chain.