In the preceding chapter we considered the church of the New Testament.
The Lord Jesus built his church and instituted some ordinances, which he
commands the church to faithfully keep. The keeping of the commandments of
God is proof that we love him: “For this is the love of God that we keep
his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” 1 John 5:3. “He
that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.”
John 14:21. “If a man love me he will keep my words.” Ver. 23. “He that
loveth me not keepeth not my sayings.” Ver. 24.
We may profess great attainments in the divine life and wonderful devotion
to God, but the proof is obedience to his commands. We have learned of
people who have become so holy that they were raised above or passed
beyond a great portion of the Bible and are not required to keep it. We
have heard of but few things so ridiculously foolish. The better and more
holy we become, certainly the more of the Word of God we will practise in
our life; and who on earth can live a more perfect Christian life than he
who lives in obedience to every word of the Bible? When one gets in
possession of something that exempts him from obedience to the Scriptures
he gets in possession of some very mysterious thing. The only way to
heaven is by the commandments of the Bible. “Blessed are they that do his
commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life and enter in
through the gates into the city.”
We will consider some ordinances and ceremonies which belong to the church
of God as recorded in the New Testament so plainly that a wayfaring man
though a fool need not err therein.
Baptism.
“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” John 1:6. In the
thirty-third verse this same John declares that God sent him to baptize
with water. Of the books written on this subject there is scarcely an end.
The controversy is very great, and so often very ridiculous.
Lexicographers have defined and analyzed the word baptize in its different
forms. Liddell and Scott, Robertson, Parkhurst, Scapula, Stokins, Calvin,
Luther, Campbell, Gill, Stuart, Vitringa, Brenner, Paulus, and many others
of great erudition have defined the word, and to sum them all up we find
the primary meaning is “to dip, to immerse, to plunge in water.” Many of
the English translators of the New Testament always render _baptizo_,
immerse or dip, as “John the immerser,” or “John the dipper.”
This brief reference to the expositions of the learned must suffice for
this work. It is with pleasure we resort to the plain and simple teachings
of the Scriptures.
Baptism A New Testament Ordinance.
All Jerusalem, and Judea, and the region about Jordan, were baptized of
John in Jordan. Mat. 3:5, 6. Jesus baptized by proxy. John 4:1, 2. He
commissioned his ministry to preach baptism unto all the world. “Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Mat. 28:19. “Go ye into
all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16:15, 16. Those who have undertaken
the dangerous and Christ uncommissioned task of freeing Christians from
the obligations of this ordinance, hold high aloft the following texts:
Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14, 15; Col. 2:20. Since the Savior’s commission to his
disciples was forty days after his resurrection, such teachers are driven
from this position, and to substantiate their doctrine they flee to a more
fatally exposed one when saying that the baptism of this commission was
the baptism of the Spirit. It is a pity that precious time must be taken
for the correction of such erroneous teaching. How can men baptize with
the Holy Spirit? God alone can do that.
It is evident that the apostles understood this baptism to be with water,
since they taught it and practised it throughout their ministry. We shall
take time and space to refer to but two or three instances of the
administration of this ordinance recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. The
first is that of a Christ commissioned preacher by the name of Philip, who
was sent by an angel to preach the gospel to a Scripturally ignorant man
of Ethiopia. Unlearned as he was, he readily understood from the preaching
of Philip the importance of water baptism; therefore when they came to a
certain water he said, “See here is water; what doth hinder me to be
baptized?” Acts 8:36. By reading the following verses you will learn that
this man was baptized in water and God witnessed to his approval by
sending him rejoicing on his way. Obedience to the commands of God brings
a joy to the Christian heart.
The second instance of baptism to which we wish to invite your attention
is that of the devout Cornelius. He sent for Peter to learn more
concerning the ways of the Lord. Peter came and told them of Jesus, of his
resurrection and his power to save. As he spoke the Holy Ghost fell upon
all them which heard his words. Then said Peter, Can any man forbid water
that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as
well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
How can an instance of water baptism be more plainly recorded? This
occurred some eight years after the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. To
teach the abolition of this ordinance at the cross, in the face of these
plainly stated instances of baptism, only proves to us the blinding and
deceptive power of the spirit of error.
Mode Of Baptism.
Many of the professed teachers of the gospel have become very liberal. “We
all have a right to our opinion,” so many say; and “a thing becomes right
unto us if we believe it to be right.” Because of this teaching and the
varied opinions, there have originated in the minds of the people several
different modes of baptism. But this great liberality finds no warrant in
the Word of God. The Scriptures teach that “there is one body.” Eph. 4:4.
If I should hold in opinion, as many do hold, that there are many bodies,
would my opinion prove the Word of God to be in error? Let me say here,
with emphasis, that there can be but one true, rightful body. If the
Catholic body should be the right body, it is the only body upon the earth
that is right. If the Presbyterian body is the right and true body, it is
the only body. And so with any other denominational body. If we were a
member of the Methodist body we would have to believe that that was the
one true body and that all the others were wrong. If there be but one
body, how can two bodies be that one body when those two bodies are
different?
There is but one Holy Spirit, one true Lord, one gospel faith, and one
true mode of baptism. God has not left us to follow our own peculiar
fancies, but all must go the same way. Whatever is required of one
individual, that same thing is required of every other individual. If
sprinkling is a right mode of baptism it is the only right mode, and all
others are wrong. If pouring is right it is the only mode that is right.
If three dips, face forward is right it is the only mode that is right. If
one single immersion is right it is the only mode that is right. The Lord
did not set the example in all these different ways. He was baptized. He
also baptized by proxy, and we believe that he thus baptized in the same
manner he was baptized. This one mode was all they understood by baptism.
The apostles perhaps had seen the Lord baptized, they administered baptism
under his direction, and when he commissioned them with the authority to
administer baptism after he had ascended to the Father, they did not
question him as to which mode. The word baptism meant but one thing and
the same thing unto them all. In the after years of their ministry they
practised just what they had seen their Lord practise.
Now let us learn from the plain, easy language of the Scripture the mode
as administered by John, the Lord and the apostles. In the third chapter
of Matthew the inspired writer has given an account of John’s baptism,
which we kindly invite you to read. Now the way to correctly understand
the Scripture is to take it in its easiest, plainest, most sensible way.
Do not attempt to give it some complicated, mysterious meaning, but
receive it as you would any easily understood historical fact of this
present time. If you should read in your county paper of a man down by one
of the rivers of your adjoining county who was administering baptism to
the people, and the whole neighborhood round about went out to him and
were baptized of him in the river, and when he had baptized a certain
individual he went up straightway out of the water, what idea would you
form as to the mode of the baptism? Would you think it was a little water
sprinkled on the head somewhere in a meeting-house? There is nothing in
the account to convey such an idea. How unreasonable it would be for you
to study to change the meaning of the plain account and mystify it because
it was not congenial to your desires.
Suppose you should read in your paper of two men traveling along the way.
One of them had never heard of Jesus nor of the ordinance of baptism; the
other talked to him of the Savior, of his death and his resurrection, and
how he had authorized him to go into all the world and preach this gospel
to every creature, and he that believed and was baptized, the same should
be saved. And as they traveled on their way they came to a certain water,
and the one said to the other, “See here is water, what doth hinder me to
be baptized?” The other replied, “If thou believest with all thine heart
thou mayest.” He answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God.” Then they stopped their carriage and they went down both into the
water and there the one was baptized of the other, and when they came up
out of the water the one went one way and the other another way, and they
saw each other no more. What idea would you form as to the mode of
baptism? This is all very plain to the candid heart.
The other instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament do not
express so clearly the mode as the two we have given, yet they can not
with propriety be made to express anything contrary to immersion. The
apostle Paul in his letter to the Roman brethren speaks of baptism as a
burial. Rom. 6:4. This only confirms in our mind (concerning the mode) the
ideas suggested by the baptism of the Savior and of the man of Ethiopia.
For yet greater clearness we will present a few thoughts suggested to us
by the recent writings of a brother, which we consider very conclusive.
A word, perfectly synonymous with another word can be used in its stead
with the same correctness of diction. As, for example, “The snow is slowly
descending from the dark cloud.” To use a word synonymous with
“descending” in the above sentence it must express the same thought and
present the same elegance of style. We find such a synonym in the word
“falling.” “The snow is slowly falling from the dark cloud.” The idea
expressed by these two sentences is precisely the same, and both are good
grammar. Let us now read Rom. 6:4: “Therefore we are buried with him by
baptism into death.” To find a word synonymous with baptism it will not
deprive the word “burial” of its proper meaning. Try the word “sprinkle.”
“Therefore we are buried with him by sprinkling into death.” Please read
Mat. 3:5, 6; Mark 1:9; John 3:2, 3, and use the word sprinkle or pour
where the word baptize is used, and note the great absurdity. Why is so
much time spent in discussion over declarations so simple, clear and
plain? Because of the perversion of plain language by the spirit of error
to a self-conceited mind.
Trine Immersion.
There is a religious class of people that teach and practise three
immersions; one in the name of the Father, one in the name of the Son, and
one in the name of the Holy Ghost. Such teaching is based upon the
construction of Mat. 28:19. Only a little unprejudiced consideration will
enable you to see the fallacy of such an interpretation. These three are
one. If they were separate and distinct so we could act in the name of the
one to the exclusion of the others then we could better understand such an
interpretation of the above text. The apostles well understood that to act
in the name of one was to act in the name of the whole trinity; therefore
Peter says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ.” Acts 2:38. Why did not Peter use the formula of Mat. 28:19?
Because to act in the name of one is to act in the name of all. “And he
commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Acts 10:48. “They
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 8:16. “When they heard
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 19:5.
Nowhere in the Acts of the Apostles is the triune name used in baptism.
Pages could be written showing the absurdity of the teachings of trine
immersionists, but we consider that what has been written is clear enough
to convince candid, unbiased minds, and any amount of argument will not
convince those who defiantly set themselves against any reasonings
contrary to their established notions.
The Object Of Baptism.
There is a baptism taught in the Scriptures that is not water baptism.
There is a baptism of the Spirit. See 1 Cor. 12:13; Mat. 3:11. Some not
being able to rightly divide the Word of God have taken some texts that
teach the baptism of the Spirit to be the baptism of water, and thus
confused the true object of water baptism. We will frankly admit that
there are some texts which if taken alone and interpreted literally do
apparently teach that baptism is a saving ordinance. We will refer the
reader to a few of these texts. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16. These
texts seem to plainly teach that water baptism does wash away or remit
sins. I always prefer to give each text the simplest, plainest rendering
when it does not conflict with some other text. Now to teach that baptism
by water is a saving ordinance, and so interpret these texts, we place
ourselves in direct opposition to other plain teaching. Some do teach that
there is none righteous and base such teaching upon Rom. 3:10. We would
ask such teachers to interpret Titus 2:12; 1 John 3:7, 10; 1 John 2:29;
Luke 1:75. By such texts they are brought to confusion.
Elsewhere in this work we quote the scriptures teaching salvation from sin
to be by the grace of God. Then to teach that water baptism saves us from
sin makes the Word of God contradict itself. All is beauteous harmony in
the Scriptures when all is correctly interpreted. Water baptism represents
a burial. A burial must of course be preceded by death. We die or separate
ourselves from a life of sin and accept Christ; he accepts us. The real
death to, and destruction of sin and resurrection to life is performed by
the power of God’s grace, while baptism expresses in a figure the burial
and resurrection to spiritual life. This is the true object of baptism.
Proper Applicants For Baptism.
Water baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. 1 Pet.
3:19-21. We must obtain a good or “undefiled conscience” before we are a
Scriptural candidate for baptism. How can defilement be purged from the
conscience? By the blood of Jesus. Heb. 9:14. We are taught in Mat. 3:8
that we must bear fruits of repentance to be worthy applicants for
baptism. The man of Ethiopia was asked to profess faith in Christ before
Philip considered him to be a proper subject for baptism.
Infants can not profess faith in Christ, therefore their baptism is
unscriptural. We are aware that there are many who teach “infant baptism,”
and use a few texts of Scripture and by their misapplication make it look
as plausible as possible. The commission of the Lord to his ministry is to
“preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved.” Faith precedes baptism in the commission. Infants have
not faith. Peter says, “Repent and be baptized.” Acts 2:38. Repentance,
therefore, precedes baptism. John understood it thus. Mat. 3:8. Infants
need no repentance. There is not a case recorded in the New Testament of
infant baptism. After one has reached the years of accountability and
repents of his sins and is born of the Spirit he is then, and not until
then, a proper candidate for baptism.
The Lord’s Supper.
In the teachings of the holy inspired and unblamed apostle Paul, the
expression, “The Lord’s Supper” is to be found. In reproving the
Corinthians for corrupting the sacred communion service, he says, “When ye
come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s
supper,” 1 Cor. 11:20. In the preceding chapter he uses the word communion
when speaking of the same divinely originated ordinance. “The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
1 Cor. 10:16.
The apostle in these texts is referring to an ordinance of the New
Testament instituted by the blessed Savior just prior to his passion as
recorded by the writers of the gospels and observed by the church when it
was the light of the world. If this sacred and very impressive ordinance
was abolished at the death of the Savior, as some erroneously teach, why
does Paul more than a score of years after exhort Christians to its
observance and warn them so faithfully against corrupting so sacred a
rite, telling them that if they eat and drink unworthily they eat and
drink damnation to themselves, and admonishing them to examine themselves
and so let them eat? 1 Cor. 11. It must be clear to all unclouded, candid
minds by the reading of this chapter that there was an ordinance solemnly
observed by the Christians long after the Savior was “nailed to the
cross.” In very plain and positive language he tells us that the communion
or Lord’s Supper is a New Testament ordinance: “This cup is the New
Testament in my blood.” 1 Cor. 11:25. This is corroborative of Mat. 26:28:
“For this is my blood of the new testament;” and of Mark 14:24: “And he
said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for
many.” Also of Luke 22:20: “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
To one enjoying the full light of the precious gospel to teach the
abolition of this solemn ordinance appears the very height of folly and
ignorance. In the recording of the Acts of the apostles it is said that
“upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break
bread, Paul preached unto them.” Acts 20:7. The breaking of bread as here
spoken of signifies nothing else but the observance of the Lord’s Supper.
The few plain, comprehensive texts of apostolic teaching we have quoted
upon this subject must make obvious to the mind of the reader that
Christians of the morning time of this gospel day observed an ordinance
termed the Lord’s Supper or communion, done in remembrance of Jesus and
showing his death till he come. We will learn in the noontime’s awful
darkness how the blinded minds and unregenerated hearts of teachers by
misunderstanding and misapplying these plain texts caused their clear
light to cease to shine.
The Holy Kiss.
True love manifests itself in many ways. We embrace with the arms, we
greet with a kiss, the object of our love. We speak of these love tokens
ofttimes in a spiritual way: “Folded in the arms of Jesus;” “Leaning on
his breast;” “Sheltered beneath his wing.” The Psalmist says, “Kiss the
Son, lest he be angry.” Psa. 2:12. These were literally practised by the
Savior and his beloved followers while he was here. After Jesus arose and
went to the Father the apostles practised the holy kiss. “They all wept
sore, and fell on Paul’s neck, and kissed him.” Acts 20:37. We behold the
love they bore for him. It was not a cold kiss of formality, but of love.
In the first verse we see the love Paul had for the disciples: “Paul
called unto him the disciples and embraced them.”
In the epistolary law of the New Testament the holy kiss is five times
commanded. “Salute one another with a holy kiss.” Rom. 16:16. “Greet ye
one another with a holy kiss.” 1 Cor. 16:20. “Greet one another with a
holy kiss.” 2 Cor. 13:12. “Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss.” 1
Thes. 5:26. “Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity.” 1 Pet. 5:14.
Satan ever ready to corrupt the pure precepts and practises of the sacred
Word has led people into the disgraceful fanaticism of promiscuous
kissing. Such is not a kiss of love, but a kiss of lust. Everything done
in the order of the kingdom of heaven is done in the perfection of decency
and respectability. How natural for the fond husband to embrace and kiss
the beloved wife, and the devoted mother her child, the brother his
sister, all because love exists consistent with natural relation. But the
strongest tie of love that binds hearts together is the Christian love.
Then how natural and becoming for the Christian to greet with a kiss his
brother, and the Christian sister her sister in the Lord.
Christian love continued after the apostles’ days were ended, and
consequently the practise of greeting with a holy kiss. We will conclude
this subject by referring the reader to history as quoted in “Ordinances
of the New Testament”: “The fraternal kiss used on admission to the church
and at the Lord’s Supper were not empty forms, but the expression of a
true feeling, and of a real experience.”—_Butler’s Ecclesiastical
History_, p. 132.
“After the prayers ... we greet one another with the brotherly
kiss.”—_Justin Martyr_, p. 146.
“The communion was a regular part of the Sunday worship. In many places it
was celebrated daily. It began after the dismissal of the catechumens, by
the kiss of peace given by men to men and women to women.”—p. 147.
It is natural for Christians filled with the love of God to greet each
other with a kiss, but the cold distant forms of men have prevented
Christians following the natural inclination of the heart.
Lifting Up Of Holy Hands.
In the olden time when the chosen children of God were battling in the
wilderness against their enemies, as long as the hands of Moses were kept
uplifted Israel prevailed, and when his hands were let down the enemy
triumphed. Ex. 17:8-12. See also Psa. 28:2; 63:4; 88:9; Lam. 3:41. This
signal act of triumph is conveyed into the spirit of the New Testament.
Paul says, “I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy
hands, without wrath and doubting.” 1 Tim. 2:8. This is a single text of
the New Testament teaching this ordinance. In connection with this text
some have used Heb. 12:12; but to our mind it is only an exhortation to
encourage the feeble and faint-hearted, and not an express command to the
literally raising of the hands. However the one text quoted is sufficient
for those who love the Lord, for those who love him keep his commandments.
This ceremony is suggestive of submissiveness and reliance upon God. It is
natural for the Spirit-born child of God to imploringly lift his hands to
God in petition or praise and thanksgiving. In the time when the spiritual
battles wax hot we seek God in earnest imploring prayer, and the lifting
up of our hands adds strength to our faith and draws God nearer. But, oh,
let us make sure that our hands and hearts are holy. It is but mockery to
spread forth your hands unto God when they are full of blood. From such
the Lord hides his eyes, and closes his ears against their prayer. Isa.
1:15.
Feet-Washing.
To the proud heart the commandment to “wash one another’s feet” is perhaps
the most ridiculous ever given by the Son of God. In the semi-theatrical
church entertainments men may pay a large sum for the privilege of kissing
the most handsome lady, and for similar or more shameful indulgences, but
to humbly wash a brother’s feet would be shocking in the extreme. “If a
man love me he will keep my words.” John 14:23. Where true love exists
there is no disposition to spurn any of the Lord’s commandments, however
humiliating they may be.
The ordinance of feet-washing was instituted by the Savior, and is
recorded in the thirteenth chapter of John. One objection that many bring
against this sacred ordinance is that it is so seldom mentioned in the
Bible. If a man does not love God deeply enough to obey him when he speaks
but once, he would not obey him should he speak a dozen times. Jesus says,
“If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead.” Luke 16:31. It is never difficult to
persuade a humble heart to believe the Word of God, though there be but
one single commandment; but the proud in heart will not be persuaded by
any number if they are not according to their inclinations. About the
first objection offered against this humble ordinance is that it was a
custom among the Jews to wash feet, and the feet-washing recorded by John
was nothing more than the Jewish custom. There was more here than the mere
custom of washing feet.
We will carefully weigh this objection. Bathing is a custom, naturally so,
for cleanliness and health, and is observed by people of every civilized
nation, and has been in every age of the world. Pharaoh’s daughter went
down to the river to bathe when she found the babe in the ark of
bulrushes. Ex. 2:5. Bathing was not a custom of any particular nation, but
a universal custom. God separated Israel from the world to be his own
chosen people. He gave them certain laws, which stood as a partition wall
between them and the Gentile world. Among the many ceremonies was that of
bathing. By reading the fifteenth chapter of Leviticus you will learn of
the bathings required of the Jews for certain sins and uncleannesses.
These bathings were peculiar to this people alone and served to separate
them from other nations. They observed the universal custom of bathing,
but these bathings were additional and given by the Lord. When Jesus came
he abolished the Jewish ordinances that distinguished them from the world
and offers salvation to every nation. By his grace he separates his people
from the world and institutes for them the ordinance of baptism. This is
not the universal custom of bathing, neither is it the Jewish ceremony of
bathings for cleansings, but a New Testament ordinance for saved people of
this gospel day, representing their death to sin and consequent separation
from the world. All continue in the custom of bathing, but the Christian
is baptized.
All people in every age are accustomed, if we may call it a custom, to
eating; but when God separated Israel from Egypt and gave them a law, he
instituted a supper called the Passover. This they kept in commemoration
of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. The Passover supper was not
the mere custom of eating supper, but was an ordinance peculiar to the
Jewish nation, and served to distinguish them as God’s own chosen people.
In Heb. 9:10 we learn that these meats and drinks, and divers washings,
and carnal ordinances, were imposed on them until the time of reformation.
When Jesus came he instituted a new order of things. The Passover supper
was with the rest of the Jewish ordinances blotted out and nailed to the
cross. Col. 2:14. Jesus instituted a supper to be kept in remembrance of
him by his peculiar, exclusive people. This consists of bread, which
represents his body, and of wine, which represents his blood. This is not
the custom of eating, neither is it the Jewish ordinance, but a newly
instituted ordinance in this dispensation of grace. All continue the
custom of eating, but Christians keep the communion.
When Abraham was in the plains of Mamre he was visited by three angels,
unto whom he said: “Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash
your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.” Gen. 18:4. Two angels came
one evening to Sodom, and Lot rose up to meet them, and said: “Behold now,
my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all
night, and wash your feet.” Gen. 19:1, 2. By these instances and others we
understand that washing feet was a custom in that time. It was not a law
of God, but people of all nations observed it as a law of health, comfort,
and cleanliness.
In Ex. 30:19-21 and 40:30-32 we learn that God instituted an ordinance or
ceremony of washing feet. This was not the mere custom of washing feet,
but was a Jewish rite and served among other rites and ceremonies to
distinguish them as God’s own peculiar people. When the Son of God set up
the kingdom of grace, this priestly ceremony was blotted out and a new
ordinance of feet-washing was instituted. See John 13. This was not the
ancient universal custom of washing feet. That still continues the same as
eating and bathing. It is not the Jewish ordinance, because they were all
nailed to the cross; but it is a humble ordinance the Savior instituted
for his people saved from sin in this blessed gospel day. The Lord’s
people love this precious ordinance. Jesus set the example and intends his
own to do as he did. “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your
feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an
example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” John 13:14, 15. Jesus
set the example in baptism and intends for us to follow. Mat. 3:15, 16. He
set the example in partaking of his newly instituted supper and intends
for us to walk in his steps. 1 Cor. 11:25.
Since the word _ought_ is used some appear to rejoice in the thought that
it is not obligatory. I, for one, ever since the Lord made me a Christian,
have always been willing and glad to do just what I _ought_ to do. We
scarcely think a man loves God when he refuses to do what he knows he
ought to do. “Ye ought to support the weak.” Acts 20:35. “Men ought always
to pray.” Luke 18:1. “We ought also to love one another.” 1 John 4:11. “Ye
also ought to wash one another’s feet.” John 13:14. Let us as professed
followers of Jesus live and do what we _ought_ to do. Happy are ye if you
do, but what shall be the result if you refuse? “Therefore we _ought_ to
give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard.” Heb. 2:1.
Will you do as you ought? Because the widow did what she ought she was
recommended to the care of the church. 1 Tim. 5:9, 10.