being a discourse, giving an explanation of some of the prominent doctrines of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, delivered by elder william budge, at chesterfield, august 10th, 1879.

(phonetically reported.)

my brethren, sisters and friends:

i am thankful for the privilege of speaking to you a short time this afternoon. i am anxious to explain, whenever opportunity affords, the nature of our faith. and i presume that, on this occasion, i am justified in feeling that our friends who have kindly visited our meeting room have come for the purpose of learning something regarding that subject.

in this free country, where we congratulate ourselves in enjoying and allowing the greatest freedom to everybody, i presume we will, all of us, speaker and congregation, exercise the privilege of explaining and reflecting upon the things that may be said; so that our friends, i trust, will leave us understanding a little more about the nature of our religion than when they came to the meeting.

i can feel, in part, the interest that exists, even in the minds of our friends. they have, doubtless, heard about the latter-day saints. they have had the opinions of men who have spoken in the pulpits, and who have written books about the "mormons," and they, very likely, have come here under certain impressions in regard to the "mormon's" faith.

i am sorry to say that experience has taught me that the public generally have been deceived. i am gratified sometimes in listening to acknowledgments of this kind from our friends who have heard for themselves, and have thus been able to judge intelligently as to whether the reports which they have heard from our enemies are correct or not.

it seems strange, but it is nevertheless true, that many people who wish to know the faith of the saints go to their enemies to learn of them. i do not know whether our kind {120} friends have thought of the inconsistency and injustice of such a course as this. if i wished to learn what the roman catholics believed in, i do not think, at present, that i would go to the protestant church to learn it; or, if i wished to learn what any denomination of professing christians believe, i do not think it would be just for me to go to some other denomination to ascertain it. in the first place other churches might be led—perhaps unwittingly, perhaps intentionally—to misrepresent the faith of their neighbors, and i might be deceived through their misrepresentations. on the other hand, there is no need of my going to any one church to learn the faith of another people, because i can go just as easily to their own church to listen to their explanations, and thus be sure of getting information of their peculiar views, without trusting to the misrepresentations of their neighbors. now i submit that such a course as this is right; it is just, and accords with our impressions of a fair and just hearing and consideration from the parties most interested, as to whether their faith be correct or not.

of course we have no disposition, as latter-day saints, even if we had the power, to constrain any person to believe our doctrines. we have not the power; we have not the disposition. it is not for the purpose of using an undue influence in any respect, or in any degree, in favor of our faith, that we preach to our friends. we simply wish to explain to them the nature of that religion of which we are ministers—laboring under a feeling of anxiety to deliver the message with which we have been sent, that our friends may have the privilege of receiving or rejecting it, just as they think proper. but, in the meantime, while we are explaining it, my friends, be pleased to follow me with your faith and sympathy and good wishes, so far as your assistance may help me to lay before you the peculiar faith and doctrines of the church with which i am connected, that you may be able to judge, and i will place before you, as plainly and briefly as i possibly can, some of the prominent doctrines of our church.

i approach the subject feeling that i have the sympathy of many good friends, because i feel there exists an impression upon their minds that a system of religion that has more power with it than those now taught, is necessary. i approach the examination of this subject because i believe that many of our kind, honest, well-wishing friends—those who desire to serve god according to his will and pleasure—are under the impression that there exists a confusion so general, and errors so prevalent, that religion seems to be losing its {121} hold upon the minds of the people; and, of course, we, who have faith in god and in his revealed word—as contained in the old and new testaments—deplore a state of things which indicates a departure from that respect and reverence which we wish to see existing and manifested on the part of the people towards the supreme being.

what is the reason, my friends, that people are becoming irreligious? what is the reason that people talk of sacred things lightly? what is the reason that men, who have heretofore been respected as ministers of religion, are now little thought of? it is simply because the religions that are taught are losing their hold upon the minds and affections of the people; because the religions that are taught do not supply the want that men and women feel; because the word preached by most ministers carries with it no power to convince people as to the truthfulness of the doctrines that are presented, or the sinful condition of the people to whom they are taught.

the present condition of the christian world does not present that union, that love, that we expect from the perpetuation of the doctrines that christ taught, and it is this fact, understood by many, that increases their doubts and strengthens their objections to what is called "christianity." the new testament teachings lead us to expect a state of unity in the christian church. the admonitions of the apostles were to the effect that the saints in early days should be united together, that they should understand alike, that they should speak the same things, that they should be of the same mind and of the same judgment. such are the words of the apostle, to be found in i cor., 1, 10.

now, my friends, does such a state of things exist around us in connection with the christian churches that we might expect from the nature of a perfect religion, introduced by christ? does there exist, at the present time, a state of things so perfect as to agree with the expectations raised from the teachings of st. paul in this scripture that i have quoted? i think not. i am safe, i believe, in stating—and i think our friends are prepared to agree with me—that there does not exist amongst the christian denominations, that unity and that oneness of faith, peace, kindness, and love which, by reading the new testament, we might expect to appear amongst them as the true fruits of christianity. and it is upon this i wish to make a few remarks before proceeding to explain to you, from the bible, the nature of our faith.

of course the existence of a number of denominations called "christian" cannot be denied. but we are told that all {122} the christian churches exhibit to us one church: that if one denomination does not teach the whole perfect plan of religion revealed by the lord jesus christ, all the churches put together do; although there may be divisions existing amongst the members of these denominations. unless we accept this view we must object to christianity on the ground that we cannot find which of all the christian denominations teach the truth. here is one church called christian that teaches certain doctrines, another more or less in its teachings contradicts them, a third teaches doctrines that are in conflict with the other two; and so we might go through them all, and speak in like terms of those who think honestly enough that they are serving god.

now, my friends, i will ask—first:—is it reasonable to suppose that god would sustain two distinct religious churches as his churches? is it reasonable to suppose that god would set up two distinct religious bodies, the ministers of which teach different doctrines? after learning from the bible so much indicating the anxiety of god's inspired servants for a time of perfect unity, i say it is not reasonable to suppose it. and just so long as two distinct religious systems exist, teaching different doctrines and preaching different principles, there exist a conflicting influence, division, feelings perhaps very strong if the difference in doctrine is very decided. if it is not reasonable, what are we to do? how can we account for such a condition of things?

this leads to the position we occupy. we want to know something more.

is it true that the bodies called "christian" at present represent the church of christ? or is it true that they have ignored some things belonging to the perfect doctrine of christ, and taken as their guide, their own conclusions in regard to what is right, which leads to this division of doctrine? how is it? but i will endeavor to show that it is unscriptural as well as unreasonable for us to receive different christian bodies as the church of christ.

i will direct your attention to a few passages from the word of god. jesus, when he sent the apostles to preach in the first place, said to them, "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." not any system that might be termed a gospel. there was no choice left to anybody. he spoke definitely in regard to the gospel plan which he, the son of god, came to the earth to set up. paul, in the first chapter of galatians, 8th verse, says, "though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than {123} that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." paul, one of the apostles, taught the gospel, the same gospel that peter, james, john and others taught. they all taught the same system. and paul said in another place, that he went up, by revelation to jerusalem, taking barnabas and titus with him, and communicated the gospel which he preached among the gentiles (gal. ii, 1, 2), thus showing that he taught the same thing everywhere. you see, paul's words and practice show that he did not admit of the least change or alteration from the gospel as taught by christ, and preached by the apostles to the people. in another place it is said, "whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of christ, hath not god. he that abideth in the doctrines of christ, he hath both the father and the son," (2 john ix,) showing us that he taught strictly the necessity of abiding in that form of doctrine which had at first been delivered. i quote these passages to show you that the gospel which christ and the apostles first taught was intended to be taught continually, without change, and that none had a right, not even an angel from heaven, to preach any other gospel than that which had been delivered at the first.

do you agree with this? because i am about to examine, in detail, some of the doctrines that will readily show to you the difference between the ministers of the true gospel, and the ministers of the so-called gospels that are preached at the present time. but are you prepared to come to the conclusion, with me, that it is the old gospel, christ's gospel, the doctrine of the apostles that we ought to seek and follow, if we expect eternal life? or do you think you are safe in following the teachings of men, who have made great changes from the ancient gospel, with the following passage before you? if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him god speed" (2 john, 10th verse). do you think you can obtain god's blessing by being members of a church or churches that teach doctrines opposed to what christ taught? how is this?

"well, certainly," says one—a bible believer—"of course i wish to have the religion of the bible. i would like to have the religion of christ. i do not admit of any departure." this is right. this is consistent. of course, if there is a question as to whether god has made any change in his primitive faith, revealed through christ, we shall consider it; for i am willing also to make a change, if god has authorized it. i am quite willing to accept any doctrine that god has revealed from heaven for my salvation. i confess to you that i have {124} no disposition whatever to maintain private views or speculations which may have been engendered on my own part, through reflection. i wish the doctrine of christ, as christ taught it, as the apostles taught it, and i will not, with the light that i possess, depart one particle from the letter and spirit of that ancient plan. and if there are any friends here who have heard that the elders of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints do not believe in the bible, let them judge. there are no practices pleasing to god, or likely to bring his blessings upon the heads of the children of men, except those inculcated by him, through his servants by the power of revelation from heaven, so that we will not depart from the book. we will not teach doctrines that are opposed to this book, but we are prepared to show our friends, in the spirit of kindness, that doctrines opposed to those contained in this book are displeasing to god, and are not calculated to bring peace and salvation to the children of men.

"but," says one, "what matters it whether we go this road that you point out or some other? you know if we can get to heaven one way, is not that as good as another?" we will try to illustrate this idea. if a man wish to go to london, says the enquirer, may he not go the road that leads towards the south, or a road that leads towards the north, as the case may be; what matters it so that he gets to london? it would not matter in the least. he might go the road that led to the north, or that which led to the south, and by making a shorter or longer journey, as the case might be, he might get to london. but you see there is no parallel between this figure and the facts in regard to religion, because there are not two ways to get to heaven. this is the difference. there are two ways to get to london probably, perhaps more, but you see there is only one way to get to heaven, so that when we admit, as an illustration, a figure of this kind, we start with an error and it leads us astray.

the bible speaks of one way. it speaks of two ways. it speaks of a broad road, that leads to destruction, and it speaks of a narrow way that leads to eternal life. so you see there is only one way that leads to heaven, and if any one persuades us that the wide road will lead us there, he deceives us, for there is only one way, and it is narrow. the bible is very plain upon this, because the doctrines are steadfast and sure, and the words are plain that there is but one way that leads to life and glory. now that is the way we want to find out.

jesus came, he said, to do his father's will, not his own. he called apostles and ordained them, and he said, "as i have {125} been sent, so send i you. go and preach the gospel to every creature." that was their business. but he said, "tarry ye first in jerusalem, until ye are endowed with power from on high." jesus called the apostles. he ordained them himself. he instructed them personally, and he commissioned them to preach the gospel to every creature. but he wished them to tarry at jerusalem until they received power from on high; a certain gift which god had promised, that they might be qualified, in every sense, to discharge the important duty devolving upon them, of administering words of salvation to a fallen world. the apostles did this. they gathered in jerusalem. they were there on the day of pentecost, and whilst there, in the upper room, the endowment of which jesus spoke was given unto them. the holy ghost came upon them, in the upper room, as a mighty rushing wind, and it sat upon them as cloven tongues of fire. and, whilst under that influence, the apostles who were sent to preach the gospel, stood up—at least peter did, as the mouth-piece of the rest at that time—to preach the gospel that christ sent them to declare. now, what was it? let us lay a good foundation as we proceed.

were they qualified to preach it? i do not think any christian will doubt it. if they were not prepared to teach the gospel of the son of god, then i would have no hope, my friends, of hearing it in this life. never. jesus himself chose them. he ordained them; he instructed them, and after all this, as you will find, in the 2nd chap, of the acts of the apostles, 1st, 2nd and 3rd verses, they assembled in jerusalem, and had fulfilled unto them the promise of the lord jesus christ, receiving the endowment of which i have been speaking.

i think that all my friends here are certainly prepared to accept the words that peter spoke, and acknowledge them to be true. what did peter say? first, he preached christ and him crucified. you see the people, who had gathered together on the day of pentecost, were people who had no faith in christ. they had rejected him and his instructions. they had been of those who persecuted christ and the apostles. they were of those who had either personally or in their sympathies sustained the crucifixion of the lord jesus. therefore, peter, knowing this, stood up and preached to them, first christ and him crucified, and he was successful. who can doubt it? peter, a servant of god, ordained by the son of god. peter, upon whom the spirit of god rested as tongues of fire, as the scriptures have it. this man stood up and argued the point, and explained about jesus. and who can doubt the result? i am sure we would have been disappointed {126} if we had been told in the bible that peter was not successful. he was successful. many believed on him, and the result of their belief was that they said, "men and brethren, what shall we do?" (acts ii, 37). no wonder they asked that question. people who had either helped to crucify the lord, or who had rejoiced when he was crucified, as many of them did, to be convinced that that same jesus whom they had assisted to crucify was indeed the lord, the christ, and when they were convinced of this they cried out, "men and brethren, what shall we do?"

peter was prepared to tell them. he had the very instructions that were needed, and the words of peter are applicable to-day, my friends, to you and to me, so far as we have not obeyed them.

we are believers in christ, i trust. we have fortunately made our appearance in this life, in the midst of a people who at least believe in the divinity of christ, and we have received impressions favorable to this end; therefore the words of peter, spoken to those who believed in the divinity of christ, are applicable to us, and are the words of salvation to us, if that ancient gospel is not changed. what were the words? he says, "repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of jesus christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy ghost." (acts ii, 38).

was that the gospel? yes, unless the apostles disobeyed the instructions of christ, because they were sent to preach the gospel, and they were endowed that they might preach it perfectly and represent god, the maker of heaven and earth, in the words and spirit by which they presented it unto the people.

now, my friends, faith in christ was the first principle of the gospel; repentance of sins was the second principle; baptism for the remission of sins was the third principle, and then the reception of the holy ghost, by the laying on of hands, as taught by peter on that day in jerusalem. is there any objection to this? "none at all," says one, "that is scriptural; we cannot object to it." a bible believer cannot object to it. but what is becoming of us if such doctrines are not taught? "well," says one, "are they not taught?" no. "faith in christ" is taught, and "repentance of sins is taught," although by some people the latter is taught first, before faith in christ. some teach that we must repent of our sins before we can have faith in christ. this is a mistake. we cannot possibly repent of sin committed unless we are convinced that we have committed the sin. we cannot repent of laws broken, {127} which jesus has taught through his apostles, unless we are first convinced that jesus was divine, and had the authority to teach them; so that faith in christ and his divine mission must be the foundation of our practice as christians. and the first effect that faith in christ produces, is repentance of the sins which we have committed. so repentance is the second principle of the gospel. but we differ a little more about the third principle. just read your bible, and you will find that peter taught baptism for the remission of sins (acts ii, 38). again, john the baptist, who was the forerunner of christ, baptized for the remission of sins (mark, i, 4). "john was sent from god." you will find this in the 1st chapter of the gospel according to st. john, 6th verse. john himself said, in the 33rd verse of the same chapter, "he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me," referring to the instructions he received from the father regarding christ. both passages assert this, that john the baptist was sent by god to baptize with water, and we are taught in the bible that he did teach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. that is just what we might expect. john was god's servant. so was peter. they both taught the same doctrine. john taught baptism, and peter told the people to be baptized every one of them. you will remember the servant of god who was sent to speak to paul, to instruct him just after his conversion. he went to him, and when the scales fell from the eyes of paul, or saul, this man of god said to him: "why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the lord" (acts xxii, 16.) be baptized and wash away his sins? yes. now, that agrees exactly with the doctrine of peter, and the doctrine of john the baptist. they were all three servants of god, and they all taught the same doctrine, and those who heard and believed that doctrine possessed the self-same faith; so that so far as baptism is concerned, the ancient saints did teach and practice the self-same doctrine—baptism for the remission of sins.

i want to talk a little about this. one says, "well, i have always been taught that baptism was a doctrine of christ anciently, but i have been under the impression that it was not necessary to salvation." that may be, my friends, we have been taught a great many things, and good christian people have believed a great many things that christian people have rejected since. but that is no reason why we should change the bible doctrine. the thing is right here. "well," says one, "i thought we were not able of ourselves to do anything to help to save ourselves." this requires proper understanding. {128} if baptism brings the remission of sins, and baptism is not attended to by us, we cannot obtain the blessing. certainly not. god gives us bread to eat, but he does not present it to us. a man sows seed in the ground and he sees to it and he harvests it and it is threshed and prepared and placed before us in the shape of flour, but we have no disposition to deny that it is the gift of god. if it were not for god's goodness we should have no bread. if it were not for the gift of god, we could not attend to the ordinance that brings remission of sins. we have not power, of ourselves, to bring within our reach a single saving principle belonging to the plan of eternal life. it is all god's free gift. it is all in consequence of his mercy, and his charity, and his goodness and love, and pleasure manifested to us that we have any privilege at all that will help to make us better or that will bring us into his church and kingdom and give us a right to say that we are really his children. the fact that he has laid down ordinances, through which a remission of sins is brought to us does not warrant us in saying that we do it of ourselves, and when people talk like this it is likely to deceive.

now, my friends, the bible says, in the place i have quoted, that baptism is for the remission of sins. do we believe this? if we do you know we must also come to the conclusion necessarily that we cannot have a remission of sins without it. if god has placed the ordinance of baptism in his church, as part of his divine system for a certain purpose, the object cannot be obtained without it. the means which god reveals for certain purposes must be used. we cannot say, and it would be unreasonable in us to say, that when god speaks from heaven in regard to any particular thing we can ignore his advice when we please and adopt something else that suits us. it is wrong, and it is this disposition that has led to the present deplorable state of things.

"well," says one, "i have thought that baptism was for an outward sign of an inward grace, or of membership in the church." another error, you see! the bible does not say anything about that. of course the act of a person embracing the principles of the gospel and becoming a member of the church, may be a sign, but baptism was not set in the church for that purpose. it was taught in the church, and administered for the remission of sins and nothing else. and no man or woman can obtain a place in god's kingdom, or enjoy his presence here or hereafter, unless their sins are washed away in baptism, as paul's were washed away when he accepted the advice of the good and inspired man, ananias, who instructed him.

1{129} when i think of the importance of this offer which god has made, my heart is filled with thankfulness instead of a disposition to discard what he has taught. it is strange, and we can only account for it on the ground of the waywardness of men naturally, to think that we would attempt to do things in opposition to the will of god. is there a more important blessing offered to mankind than the remission of sins? have we any hope of enjoying the glory of god in our present sinful condition? surely not, for nothing sinful or unholy can enter the courts of glory. then if god has so put in his church an ordinance for the purpose of enabling us, like saul, to wash away our sins, why not be prepared to receive it with joy instead of cultivating or encouraging a disposition to ignore it?

baptism for the remission of sins is the third principle of the gospel of christ. then comes the ordinance of the laying on of hands for the gift of the holy ghost. peter says on the day of pentecost, to which we have directed your attention, "and ye shall receive the gift of the holy ghost." what did that consist of? the gift of god's spirit. the reception of god's power, a portion of his power. the reception of an influence which leads those who possess it near to god in their feelings and in their faith. a spirit which produces not only that inward consciousness of acceptance with god, as his son or daughter, but a power which gives outward manifestations of its divinity. jesus did promise to the apostles when he sent them out first, that "these signs shall follow them that believe." here are his words, "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. he that believeth not shall be damned, and these signs shall follow them that believe." the words of christ, in the last chapter of mark, 15th and following verses.

"well," says one, "you know we do not believe in miracles now. these signs were miracles, but we do not believe in them now." that may he, my friends. this is the very reason why we are here, because there is such a great disbelief in the bible; because there is a disposition to ignore the bible; because there is a disposition to ignore the promises of christ; and we wish to show you the things that are denied; we wish to point out to you the doctrines our fathers have denied; that our teachers have denied, and we wish to show you that they are in the bible, the word of god, in the book which some have gone so far as to assert that the saints do not believe in. but is it true that the promises of god were fulfilled anciently in regard to this matter? yes! in the 19th {130} chapter and 6th verse of the acts of the apostles, you will find an instance related of the apostles laying their hands on some that had been baptized, and they spake with tongues. this was one of the gifts that was manifested, in consequence of their receiving that spirit which produced them. see also mark, 16th and 20th.

you must not consider that, in teaching these doctrines, we are advancing something of ourselves, something new. if we were teaching new doctrine you would have a right to call us to account and ask us for the proof. we are teaching old doctrine. we are teaching the new testament doctrines, instead of those of our christian friends. we have no spirit of enmity in the least degree, towards any living soul, and when we refer to the faith of our christian friends remember, it is simply to make the difference between their views and ours more distinct to you. i say instead of our friends calling us to account, it is the latter-day saints who have the right to come out and say to their christian friends "see here, why do you deny signs which christ said should follow believers?" what believers did christ speak about? why believers in his gospel. he taught us that these signs should follow believers. well then, if our christian friends deny that, we have the right to call them to account. if christ said that these miracles—manifestations of almighty power—should follow the believers, i say what reason have you to deny it? the question is not now whether the latter-day saints possess the power or not. the question at issue at present is, not whether the teachers of other churches have the power or not. the question is, does christ promise that power to believers in the gospel? i say he does, and i say that those who deny that such powers should follow believers, teach that which is contrary to the word of christ, and contrary to the facts that appeared in connection with the teachings and administration of the doctrines of christ. so that it is not the latter-day saints that introduce a new doctrine, and we say to our friends. hear us, we beseech you. hear the message we have to deliver, for god has sent us to teach the old religion, the religion of jesus, the simple plan which was revealed from heaven in ancient days, to save the children of men.

peter said, on the day of pentecost, speaking of the gospel and its attendant blessings, "for this promise is unto you"—that is, to the people who stood before him—"to your children and unto all that are afar off, even as many as the lord our god shall call."

you see it was not confined to the members of the church {131} in the first place, as some would have us believe. the promise of the laying on of hands for the gift of the holy ghost was made to the children of those who heard peter, and to all who were afar off, even as many as the lord our god should call. and if it be true that god is calling sinners to repentance now, we should see the same power manifested to-day, that is, if we have the true gospel. there can be no doubt of this.

which will you have, my friends, the doctrine of the bible or the doctrines of men? if you accept the doctrines of the bible you will have to become latter-day saints, and of course that would be out of the question for a good many. but we cannot find these doctrines anywhere else, and that is a perplexity. what shall we do about them? when i am speaking to you i think of the position i occupied myself, when i heard the latter-day saints first. i went to their meeting, not expecting to hear anything that would interest me by any means, but i heard the bible doctrine taught. i could not deny it. i found i had been mistaken. i did not incline in my heart to fight against god, but considerations came up. if i become a latter-day saint, people will call me a "mormon." if i embrace these doctrines, my friends will point at me the finger of scorn. if i become a latter-day saint my good neighbors will say i am deceived and led astray, and that i have embraced a doctrine that is in opposition to the teachings of christ. of course these things flashed through my mind when i considered and read the bible to ascertain positively whether these "mormons" taught the truth or not. i thought this—well! i have been religious for the purpose of making my peace with god, but i have been mistaken and led astray by men whom god had not sent to preach the gospel; but now i have found the truth, the old promises relating to god's power, all things as at the beginning, have been restored, and i have the promise of obtaining a place with the righteous, according to the mind and will of my heavenly father. let friends say what they please, let them say i am deceived, but i believe this bible is true. let them say whatever they may in regard to my faith; no matter. i thought of the time of christ. they called christ hard names; and of the apostles they spake a great deal of evil. in fact the bible says they called them all manner of evil, and although i expected my friends would denounce me, still when i thought of what christ had suffered, i was reconciled and instead of fighting against god, i was willing to accept his doctrine, in order to obtain his blessings.

{132} i state to you my friends, that since the day i entered this church, i have rejoiced exceedingly. i have found proofs upon proofs. i have had reason to rejoice in consequence of the manifestations of god's power, confirmatory of the doctrines, and i can say that the church of christ is set up, its doctrines are taught, its practices are practised, its promises are fulfilled, and the evidence of its divine power are manifested in the midst of this people.

i would like to say a few words in regard to another point. i have just said that i had been taught a religion by men whom god had not sent. i would like to explain. you will excuse us if we seem to be very extreme in our views. we have taken the liberty to teach you the truth, just as we have it, and when we say something that comes in contact with what you have received, excuse us. there is no bad feeling at all, or unfriendliness in the least. but we believe in persons being invested with the proper authority to preach the gospel. paul says, speaking of the authority of the holy priesthood, "no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of god as was aaron" (heb. 5, 4), faith cometh by hearing, and how can we hear without a "preacher" (rom. x, 14-17). "no man taketh this honor unto himself, except he be called of god as was aaron." now that is very plain, and what does it mean? simply what it says. that no man has a right to administer in the ordinances of religion, except he be sent of god as was aaron, for how can a man preach except he be sent? (rom. x, 15). if that be admitted, of course the next question of importance is, how was aaron sent? by turning to the history we have of god's dealings with moses, in reference to the gathering of the israelites, from egypt, you will find that god instructed moses to call aaron to be his helper. (ex. iv, 15, 16.) here is the proof. no man can preach the gospel simply because he feels inclined within himself to be a preacher. no man can preach the gospel—that is with god's approval and authority—unless god commission him. god commissioned every one of his preachers in ancient times. he spoke from heaven. he directed those who held this authority to call others. christ called the apostles as he was called. his father called him: he called the apostles, and he said, "as my father hath sent me, even so send i you" (st. john xx, 21). "he that receiveth you receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." the authority was here you see. god called moses; he instructed moses to call aaron; so that aaron stood exactly in the same relation to god as did the apostles: {133} the latter being called of god the father through christ. that would be evident, because one whom god had authorized to act as his servant was instructed by him to call aaron. now, you observe, no man has a right to exercise the authority of the priesthood, unless he is called of god, as was aaron.

are the preachers—those who commonly preach in connection with the churches of the present day—called of god as was aaron? or, in other words, are they called by revelation from god? this is the question. we do not doubt the propriety of their being called in this way, because the bible says they ought robe. do our protestant ministers, at the present time, profess to be sent of god as was aaron? is there a minister connected with the christian denominations of the present day who professes to be sent of god by direct revelation? not one. it does not require any argument at all. they do not profess that they have heard from god. they say that god has not spoken since the last book of the new testament was written. they say it is a sin, and they find fault with the latter-day saints because we believe that god does speak; that he has a right to speak; and that it is necessary we should have his approval and commission in order to qualify us to attend to the business of his church. so that our present christian teachers do not profess to be called of god as was aaron. they deny all revelation at present, or since the bible was written.

you know the ministers, among their other errors, receive pay for preaching. that is an innovation also. the ancient apostles, and seventies, and bishops, and so on, were not paid for preaching. but our present ministers are. the preachers of this church, with whom i am connected, are not paid for teaching. they preach without money, without purse, and without scrip. now, the preachers of the present churches make a business of preaching. they learn to be preachers. they are brought up to be preachers in consequence of their parents or guides finding in this way a place where they make a living. such ministers sometimes acknowledge one kind of revelation. not that god tells the people about his will, or that he manifests his power, but they sometimes tell us they have received a call from one congregation to another. but there is one peculiarity about it, viz.: the congregation that calls them is a congregation that almost invariably offers them more money than the congregation to which they have been attached. this is the only instance of any kind of revelation being acknowledged by our christian teachers. god has not spoken, say they, by inspired men, since the days of the ancient {134} apostles. he has not spoken directly to the church. he has not authorized a single man to preach, but sometimes a call is given from less money to more. and though they are feeling full of love and affection for the congregation with which they have labored for years, yet they are sorry and regret so much that that call must be made, which takes them from among their old friends to a new congregation. but, you see, the new congregation offers the most money, and that cannot be disregarded.

my friends, these are a few of the doctrines of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. are we displeased with anybody? no, not at all. all are at liberty to believe what they please. but we are placed under obligations to deliver the message which god has sent. we say we are not solely dependant on the bible, because god has revealed the gospel, and we possess a living priesthood divinely appointed. we do not wish you to think that we regard the bible lightly. of course you will have noticed, from our remarks, that this is not the case. but we say from the bible alone, without revelation, we could not have been able to obtain all the knowledge we have received. why, millions of people have read the bible but have not discovered some of these doctrines. they have not been led to preach even all the things contained therein, and if they had discovered the doctrine, this bible cannot lay on hands for the gift of the holy ghost. that part of the work that is necessary for man's salvation must be done by one whom god authorizes. therefore the bible alone is not sufficient. it contains the truth. it is the word of god. it contains the instructions of the apostles. but it does not contain the divine authority that is necessary to commission a man to baptize or administer in any ordinance pertaining to the house of god.

now, my friends, may god bless you. and my brethren and sisters, may the holy spirit, which leads into all truth, abide upon us, and may we who have found the truth have a disposition to retain it. may we have the moral courage to say, "let god be served. let his truth be obeyed." let the almighty be honored, and if other people choose to follow their own fancies, or the deceptions presented before them by men whom god has not sent, as for us and our house, let us serve god.

may god bless us, in the name of jesus christ. amen.

{135}

he that judgeth a matter before he heareth it is not wise.—solomon.