Chapter V: Preface (4)

_Mr. W_. I will read the passages. But I have one thing more to name. I am told that the Latter-day Saints believe in a man's having more wives than one. This, if true, is opposed to my feelings, and to my ideas of propriety and morality. Is this doctrine believed in and practised by your people? If so, how can you reconcile it with Scripture and morality?

_Elder B_. This doctrine is believed in by the Latter-day Saints. It is practised by them in the Territory of Utah. There is no law there to forbid polygamy. But they do not practise it in England, or in any country where the law of the land forbids the practice. Your feelings, and your ideas of propriety and morality, are induced by your education. In this country, men and women are educated to believe that polygamy is flagrantly immoral, and nothing more or less than licentiousness. This is a most erroneous idea. There is an immense difference between a man's holding illegal and promiscuous intercourse with the other sex, for the pleasure of the moment only, regardless of consequences, and his legally marrying several wives, and honourably supporting them and their children. In the first case, there is a grave abuse of the sexual powers, and a grievous violation of the highest and holiest principles. In the second case, there is nothing of this kind, but merely an extensive development of those powers and principles. There is far less licentiousness in the East, where polygamy prevails, than in the West, where it is illegal. As regards Scripture, there is not a word in the Bible condemning polygamy, not a word. On the contrary, the most righteous men known in sacred history, advocated and practised this principle. Did God favour them the less on that account? Not a jot. He was the author of the principle. In certain instances, an Israelite could not obey the law of God, without {64} taking more wives than one. For example--a childless widow had legal claim on her deceased husband's brother, or nearest male relative, for the fulfilment of marital duties. If the brother or relative refused to fulfil these duties, he was publicly disgraced by the woman. Deut. xxv.

_Mr. W_. I acknowledge that there is an essential difference between the two cases you mention. But as respects the law in Israel, I thought that Jesus Christ did away with that.

_Elder B_. There is no record of his doing away with it. He said--"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matt. v. 17.

_Mr. W_. But would not polygamy make the women jealous of each other?

_Elder B_. There is no cause for it. We are all redeemed by one Lord--should that make us jealous of each other? We are all the children of one heavenly Father--should that make us jealous? You have several children--should that make your first-born jealous of the others? Just as little cause exists for the association of jealousy with polygamy. Indeed it is calculated to dispel jealousy. For instance--In this country, three young women all love the same young man. Being rivals, it is quite natural to suppose that the young women, through their jealousy, hate each other in exact proportion as they love the young man, because they know that the law will not allow him to be married to them all, and consequently when one has obtained him the others have irrecoverably lost him. If polygamy were allowed, this jealousy would not exist, because a woman would know she could be married to any man she loved, if she could win his affection, which part of the business might be safely entrusted to her.

_Mr. W_. But what advantages would accrue through a man's having more wives than one.

_Elder B_. I have just told you one very great advantage--a woman could, without fear of rivalry, become the wife of the man on whom she had set the purest and warmest affections of her soul. She would not be compelled, as many are now, to throw herself away on some brute in human form, who would scarcely pass the honeymoon before he treated her worse than his cattle. Such wretches do not deserve a wife at all. But what are women to do? You can't unsex them. Women are women, after all, and they know they have a right to husbands and protectors. If they cannot get as good as they wish, they will get as good as they can. Therefore leave their choice free as to whom they shall have. A woman gives herself wholly and entirely, body and affections, to a man. She {65} ought surely to be allowed to bestow such a gift on whom she pleases. She ought certainly to choose whatever man she pleases to hold unlimited and sole control over her person and property. If this were more extensively the case, we should hear less of wife beating and wife murdering, accounts of which figure so conspicuously in our newspapers. Now polygamy would grant the advantage named, whereas monogamy is one of the greatest bars to the happiness of the female sex.

_Mr. W_. But would you have all men marry several wives each?

_Elder B_. That would not necessarily follow. It would be more likely that good men would each have several wives, and that bad men would find it difficult to get any wife to ill-use and beat. This would bring to men a reward and a punishment, in which the women would be proud to administer, and which would do more for their protection than all the legislative enactments in the world.

_Mr. W_. Well, I must think upon this subject. I certainly do not feel to object so much to it as I did before I named it to you.

_Mary_. [_Mr. W.'s daughter_.] Dinner's ready, please, father.

_Mr. W_. Then I suppose we must retire. You shall stay and have dinner with me, and then you shall be at liberty to attend to your business, as I think I shall have detained you long enough to day. By the bye, I have read the tract you lent me, I like it very well. I shall certainly go to your meetings, and hear a little more, and I will not promise you that I shall not be a Latter-day Saint yet, for I must say that your religion is more consistent with the Bible than any other which I have examined.

_Elder B_. You can't do better, sir, I assure you.

LIVERPOOL: PUBLISHED BY S. W. RICHARDS, 15, WILTON STREET, LONDON.

{66}

EXCLUSIVE SALVATION.

BY JOHN JAQUES, ELDER IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.

The doctrine of Exclusive Salvation, or salvation by _one_ Lord, _one_ Faith, _one_ Baptism, _one_ method, _one_ system, _one_ Gospel, _one_ Priesthood only; is at the present time an exceedingly unpopular doctrine. But popularity or unpopularity can never make truth error, nor error truth. If the doctrine of exclusive salvation be a false doctrine, world-wide popularity will never make it true. If, on the contrary, it be a true doctrine, the most crushing unpopularity will never destroy its immutability and truthfulness. The subject, then, should be investigated in the abstract, entirely independent of popularity or unpopularity. Let us rather call to our aid common sense, reason, and revelation. My object will be to show most clearly that exclusive salvation is a true, reasonable, and scriptural doctrine, that it is an absolute impossibility for a real _Bible believer_ to entertain a contrary thought.

Ostensibly a great part of Christendom disavow exclusive salvation. But, if the point be pressed home, all sects must acknowledge the truth of the doctrine, or at once proclaim themselves false teachers, impostors, deluders, entirely destitute of the least shadow of legal authority to officiate as teachers of religion. One or other of these conclusions is inevitable.

I ask the Baptist minister, what induces him to occupy his time in preaching up a particular creed? Why not labor in the fields, or at some mechanical trade? He answers, he can be more usefully employed in preaching. I ask, of what use is his preaching? His answer must be, for the salvation of souls. But I may further remark, the established church is supposed to exist for the very purpose of saving souls; has colleges for to properly qualify persons to preach; has a church in nearly every village where salvation is supposed to be taught; has ministers who are paid, pensioned, salaried, for the express purpose of doing this necessary work of salvation. Why not leave the work of salvation to them altogether? Why interfere in their appointed and acknowledged {67} calling? His answer must be, his only answer can be, that the established church is not the true church; that its ministers have no true authority, and that they do not preach the true method of salvation; that his own Baptist church is the true church of Christ; that Baptist ministers are the true authorized preachers of salvation, and that they preach the true and only method of salvation. He cannot shrink from this. He is driven in a corner. There is no way of escape. He must either own his neighbor churchman a false teacher, and himself a true one, or confess himself a base, hypocritical impostor, having no authority whatever: a wretched wanderer to the depraved vitiated mental tastes and itching ears of a dishonest or deluded portion of the community. Thus he cannot deny the doctrine of exclusive salvation; he is pushed upon it, and it breaks him to pieces.

Some might be inclined to suggest the idea that both Episcopalian and Baptist churches are true, that the ministers of both churches have authority--equal authority, the one with the other. This is virtually condemning both parties. It is utterly impossible for two opposing churches of equal authority to be one true church, or part and parcels of the true church. No sane person could broach such an idea. Two conflicting principles can never become one principle, worlds without end. One principle must drop. If you tell me that two disagreeing sects have equal authority, I am bold to affirm that neither of them have any authority at all, and every sensible man will back my affirmation. Her Majesty, Victoria, is the true and rightful queen of England. Her claim is undoubted, her authority is indisputable. She reigns exclusively. Why? Because she is the nation's only true sovereign. It is the thing impossible for any other woman to have just claim to equal authority. The royal prerogative is vested solely in one person. No other person can have the slightest legal claim to it. So the true and legal authority and prerogative of salvation can be solely vested in one church. No other church can have the slightest lawful claim to it. The true Church may have many branches upon various portions of the earth's surface, but they must all be united, and subject to the Head.

Two true churches, two true creeds, two true preachers, differing from each other, contradicting each other, present an irreconcilable impossibility. It is perfectly senseless--monstrous--the wildest, most far-fetched idea that could be conceived. Its birthplace must have been "beyond the bounds of time and space." The simplest capacity, the narrowest {68} mind, can perceive at a glance the thorough unreasonableness of such an idea. Yet unreasonable as it is, senseless as it is, monstrous as it is, still it is a favourite point, a bright specimen of the wise folly of our "gospel blaze," Christendom. Can we wonder at the rapid spread of deism, atheism, infidelity, or unbelief, when we consider the foolish, nonsensical doctrines which are gravely taught in our day, with all the sanctity, longfacedness, impudence, and insolence, imaginable? Can we wonder the world is sick of religion? Is it strange that intelligent Roman Catholics should consider sectarianism a wicked soul-destroying heresy? What is the natural effect of men seeing an hundred opposing sects, all believing differently, teaching differently, and acting differently, yet at the same time taking one another by the hand as brothers, and with all gravity declaring to the world they have conjointly one faith, one hope, one calling? Why, the natural, the legitimate effect is, that straightforward thinking men will consider them all as so many arch deceivers, conniving at the accomplishment of party purposes, or grossly ignorant of what they affirm, and in either case their profession is a misnomer upon themselves. On the other hand: what is the natural effect upon clear-minded men of an hundred different sects, all calling themselves Christians, all believing in one Bible, one code of laws, all professing to be guided by one spirit; yet, at the same time, none teaching in accordance with the Bible, each one teaching contrary doctrines, each one governed by contrary laws, each one actuated by contrary spirit, each one openly declaring all the rest are false, and, of course, condemning them to eternal flames? Let us take the answer of Cobbett, "The natural, the necessary effect is, that many will believe that none of them have truth on their side, and, of course, that the thing is false altogether, and invented solely for the benefit of those who teach it, and who dispute about it." The French infidels knew full well there could be but one true religion; consequently, if forty were presented before them, thirty-nine must of necessity be false.

View it whichever way we will, the notorious inconsistency of sectarianism is singularly manifest. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE FAITH. Common sense, reason, and revelation establish the undeniable fact. It is, out of sheer necessity, an incontrovertible truth. A deist, or an atheist, is called all sorts of ill names, and his society considered pestiferous by professing Christians, because he will not associate the inconsistencies, confusions, and glaring contradictions of modern Christianity, with the beautiful, sublime, and magnificent idea of an overruling {69} Deity, possessing infinite power, wisdom and glory. Whilst these same professing Christians embrace with cordial affection those who credit the monstrous lie, the base calumny, the heaven-daring libel, that the Great Jehovah is the grand author of all this confusion. O folly! Fie, fie! Christendom!

The doctrine of exclusive salvation is an eternal principle, indestructible as the Throne of Jehovah. It existed before the first creation, has existed ever since, and will exist after the last creation. Were it not for this principle of exclusiveness there would be no law, no justice, no mercy, no order, no organization, no honor, no glory, no virtue; no reward, no punishment, no heaven, no hell; nothing to fear, nothing to hope. This earth would be as good as heaven, and Jehovah's throne no more to be desired than the prison-house of the damned. It is this very principle of exclusiveness that creates the difference between truth and error, between angels and devils, between salvation and damnation. It is this very principle that determines, with unerring certainty, every gradation between virtue and vice, between honour and dishonour, between glory and shame.

But now let us examine scripture evidence upon the subject of exclusive salvation. We will begin in the beginning, and trace downwards in the course of time.

The only way in which the harmony of heaven could be maintained was by rigid observance of the exclusive doctrine of perfect submission to the head. Lucifer, son of the morning, undertook to question the point. He was cast down. Others sided with him and shared his fate.

Adam was placed in the garden of Eden, where was everything that would please the eye, captivate the senses, or delight the heart. Jehovah revealed to him the doctrine of exclusive salvation: "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The only, the exclusive method of salvation proposed from sin, sorrow, and death, was this,--abstinence from the fruit from a particular tree. It was an irrevocable decree, by lawful authority, even the Eternal God. It mattered not what the devil said, what Eve said, or what any other personage said, however exalted his station or great his authority. The doctrine of exclusive salvation was given; it was true, it was faithful. The devil, wily and subtle, preached against exclusive salvation; said it was a false doctrine: "Ye _shall not_ surely die." He deceived Eve; Eve persuaded Adam; Adam transgressed; the devil was proved a liar; Adam discovered by painful experience, and his posterity to this day are witnesses in themselves of the truth of the {70} doctrine of exclusive salvation. Thus it will be seen that it is a true doctrine, and the devil the opposer of it from the beginning.

But we must pass hastily through the scriptures. We have not space nor time to examine the testimony of the ancient worthies, the prophets, one by one, or we should discover that they all, without exception, preach the doctrine of exclusive salvation; who were sent to preach at all.

We come to Noah, the famous diluvian preacher of righteousness. One hundred and twenty years whilst the ark was building did Noah preach the doctrine of exclusive salvation. The only, the exclusive method of salvation prepared and appointed, was the ark. It was perfectly immaterial what other prophets or teachers might teach or believe. The doctrine of Noah was true, and God would authorize no one to preach any other contrary doctrine. Noah's doctrine was an exceedingly unpopular doctrine, if we may judge by his numerical success. The majority of mankind made light of it: "They were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark." The terrific roar of the overflowing waters was a fearful testimony to the antediluvians, in favour of the doctrine of exclusive salvation.

Lot preached the doctrine of exclusive salvation; and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah experienced its truth to their utter dismay, consternation, and destruction.

Moses preached the doctrine of exclusive salvation, and the punishments consequent upon opposition to this doctrine were severely felt by the Egyptians at the Red Sea, by the Israelites in the wilderness, and by the Canaanites who fell before the children of Israel.

Looking up to the brazen serpent made by Moses, was the exclusive method of salvation from the deadly effects of the bite of the fiery serpents which the Lord sent.

Korah, Dathan, Abiram, Saul, Uzzah, and the prophets of Baal, can testify to the truth of this doctrine.

Naaman's indignant wrath, and haughty pride were all in vain; his servant persuaded him that the exclusive method of salvation from his leprosy consisted in obedience to the voice of God, even washing himself seven times in the river Jordan. No matter what Naaman or anybody else thought or said. _Six_ washings in the river Jordan would not have availed anything, neither would _seven_ washings in _any other river_ but the river Jordan have produced the desired effect.

{71} Repentance at the preaching of Jonah, proved exclusive salvation to the Ninevites.

John the Baptist preached the doctrine of exclusive salvation: "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees; therefore every tree which bringeth forth not good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire."

Jesus Christ preached the doctrine of exclusive salvation: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me. He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a _thief and a robber_. There shall be _one_ fold and _one_ shepherd. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be _saved_, but he that believeth not shall be _damned."_ Exclusive enough this. There were many Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, in the days of Jesus, but their religions were not sufficiently exclusive: "Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall _in no case_ enter into the kingdom of heaven."

On the day of Pentecost, Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, preached the doctrine of exclusive salvation to men of every nation under heaven. Hear him: "Repent and be baptized every _one of you_, in the name of Jesus Christ. Save yourselves from this untoward generation." Three thousand persons believed the word of exclusive salvation by Peter, and in token thereof were baptized the same day. The reader will recollect that these three thousand persons were not what are generally considered _wicked sinners_, but _religious, devout men_, who had proven their sincerity and faithfulness by coming up from all nations to Jerusalem, expressly "to worship." But their religion, their devotion, their worship was insufficient; it was not exclusive enough, and Peter had sufficient charity to boldly proclaim this. Sincerity in an individual is _no proof_ that he is in the "right way." I might wish to go from Manchester to Edinburgh, but if I unwittingly started on the London road, with my back to Edinburgh, I should not reach the place of my destination, but every step I took would increase the distance between me and it. The only, the exclusive means by which I could reach Edinburgh, would be to travel on the road to Edinburgh.

{72} Hear Peter further: "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given amongst men whereby we must be saved."

Though Cornelius received the ministration of angels, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, he found that salvation was exclusive, and Peter commanded him to be baptized, in order that he might be saved.

The devils know the truth of the doctrine of exclusive salvation. Said one,--"Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?"

James preached the doctrine of exclusive salvation: "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in _one point_, he is _guilty of all."_

Jude preached the doctrine of exclusive salvation. "It was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who _separate themselves_; sensual, having not the Spirit."

St. John preached the doctrine of exclusive salvation: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not of us. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone into the world. We are of God; He that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the Spirit of truth, and the Spirit of error. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. Whosoever transgresseth and _abideth not_ in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not _this doctrine_, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds."

Lastly, the apostle Paul firmly believed and strenuously contended for the doctrine of exclusive salvation. He knew it was the hope of the righteous, and the bulwark of heaven. {73} What does he say? "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye _could not be justified_ by the law of Moses. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek, now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the _same thing,_ and that there be _no divisions_ amongst you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the _same_ mind and in the _same judgment_, for it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions amongst you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? For ye are yet carnal; for whereas, there is amongst you envying and strife, and divisions; are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal [A]? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

[Footnote A: For whilst one saith, I am of Wesley; and another says, I am of Luther; and another says, I am of Calvin; and another says, I am of Campbell, are ye not carnal? We have need to learn again the _first principles_ of the gospel.]

"Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of _one mind_. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another: but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach _any other gospel_ unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again. If any man preach _any other gospel_ unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth? That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together _in one_ all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. There is _one_ body and _one_ Spirit, even as ye are called _one_ hope of your calling. _One_ Lord, _one_ faith, {74} _one_ baptism, _one_ God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every kind of doctrine by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie and wait to deceive. That ye stand fast in _one_ Spirit, with _one_ mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel, when the Lord Jesus Christ shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, _speaking lies in hypocrisy_. Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine: continue in it; for in doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee. This know, also, that in the last days perilous times shall come; for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a _form_ of godliness but denying the _power_ thereof: from such turn away. Ever _learning_, and never able to come to the _knowledge_ of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobates concerning the faith. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived; for the time will come when they will not _endure_ sound doctrine, but _after their own lusts_ shall they _heap to themselves_ teachers _having itching ears:_ and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto _fables_. They _profess_ that they know God, but _in works_ they deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate."

With such an overwhelming flood of Scripture testimony in favour of salvation by one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one Priesthood, one Gospel, how does our blood boil within us, and our bosoms burn with indignation, when we recollect that _teachers of religion_, with the _Bible_ in their hands, have the unblushing effrontery to promise us salvation by just what Lord, what faith, what baptism, what priesthood, what gospel _we choose?_ And some have actually the infamous audacity to tell us that we can be saved _without any priesthood or_ {75} _any baptism at all!_ Oh, how have our eyes been _blinded!_ How grossly we have been _deceived!_ How awfully we have been _deluded!_ How completely we have been _"bewitched!"_ How horribly we have been _imposed upon!_ How has the _truth_ been turned into _fables!_ How has the _word_ of God been made of none effect through the _traditions_ of men! "Our fathers have _inherited lies, vanity_, and things wherein there is _no profit!"_

Hear for yourselves, think for yourselves, judge for yourselves, act for yourselves, and then you will _know_ for yourselves that every prophet that came with the "Burden of the word of the Lord," preached EXCLUSIVE SALVATION.

Why, the very _presence_ of a new prophet argued that all the people were "gone astray." The very _presence_ of a prophet of the Lord always did, and always will, involve the salvation or damnation of the people to whom he is sent. Jehovah does not trifle with men, but expects to be heard and obeyed through his servants the prophets.

The Lord _never did_ send two or more contradictory messages to any people. It is thoroughly inconsistent with his character and perfections. When two men profess to have been sent by the Lord to the same people with conflicting messages, it is a certain truth that one or both of them are false teachers, impostors, wicked designing men, feeding and fattening on the credulity of the people. The message which any true prophet brings is always an exclusive message. It is approbation or condemnation. It proves a saviour or life unto life, or of death unto death. There is no middle course. The people must _receive or reject it_. If received, it will prove their exclusive salvation. If rejected, it will prove their exclusive damnation. There is no alternative. It is a stern law of necessity. A truth that proves itself without reason, and without argument. If a people to whom Jehovah sends a message have power to receive or reject that message with impunity, _they are not accountable creatures_. Jehovah has _no power_ over them. They are his equals. And who thinks of rendering homage to their equals, especially when those equals send a message to us requiring our implicit submission, filled with terrible denunciations in case of our refusal? No one, certainly. We should treat the message and its authors with perfect contempt.

In precisely a similar condition, do the opposers of the doctrine of exclusive salvation place the all-powerful Jehovah.

If Wesleyan Methodism be true; if Wesleyan Methodist preachers be sent of God; then every other form of religion {76} is a gross imposture, and all other preachers are false teachers, crafty deluders, having no authority whatever from God. Every man who does not become a real Wesleyan Methodist must be damned, and every one who does become a real Wesleyan Methodist must be saved.

On the contrary, if the Roman Catholic church be the true church; if Roman Catholic priests be sent of God; then Wesleyan Methodism, then "Mormonism," and every other ism is false; then Wesleyan Methodist preachers, and all other preachers are false teachers; if we believe their words it will not save us; if we reject their messages we shall not be damned, If the Roman Catholic religion be true, we cannot be saved without becoming Roman Catholics, and we must be damned if we do not become Roman Catholics. No other religion will save us or avail us one jot, and no other religion can condemn us. If the Roman Catholic religion be false, we cannot possibly _be saved by it;_ neither can we possibly _be condemned by it_. It is altogether powerless: it is worse than useless.

God never did, and never will save a single soul by means of a _false religion_, or through the medium _of false prophets_. He will not give the glory and power of salvation to imposters: or impostures: but he will judge all the world by that system, that Gospel, that Priesthood, that man which _He has ordained, and by no other_. When the works of false religions and false prophets are presented before the bar of God, the great Judge of all the earth will say--Who hath required this at your hands? Depart from Me ye cursed; I never knew you. Then if not before, will all know for themselves the truth of the doctrine of exclusive salvation. Then will it be manifest that _those authorized of God, and those alone_, have power to bind one earth and bind in heaven, to loose on earth and loose in heaven. Salvation will be confined exclusively to those who obeyed the warning voice of the duly empowered servants of God, and damnation will be _poured out exclusively_ upon those who rejected the warning voice of those servants. What, then, becomes of Sectarianism? It will be blasted to the four winds of heaven. It will crumble to dust before the majestic march of Eternal Truth. It will be swallowed up in the victorious triumph of the Kingdom and Sons of God. Amen.

_Published by F. D. Richards, 15 Wilton Street, Liverpool_.

{77}

THE ONLY WAY TO BE SAVED.

BY LORENZO SNOW,

ONE OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.

"He that judgeth a matter before he heareth it, is not wise."

There are certain principles established of God, which, being understood and observed, will put men in possession of spiritual knowledge, gifts, and blessings. In early ages of the world, also in the days of the apostles people came into possession of spiritual powers and various privileges, by obtaining an understanding of, and faithfully attending to, certain rules which the Lord established: as, for instance, Abel, obtaining information that offering up sacrifices was an order instituted of God, through which men might receive blessings, he set himself to work, observed the order, and performed the sacrifice, whereby he obtained glorious manifestations of the Most High. Again, when the Antediluvians had corrupted themselves, and the time arriving at which destruction was coming upon them, the Lord revealed a course whereby the righteous might escape; accordingly, all who understood and observed that course, were _sure_ to realize the blessing promised. Joshua, before obtaining possession of Jericho, had to observe certain steps appointed of God. The steps having been properly taken, according to commandment, the object immediately fell into his possession. Another instance--the case of Naaman, captain of the Syrian host--it appears, that being afflicted with the leprosy, and hearing of Elisha, the prophet, he made application to him for the removal of that affliction. The prophet, having the Holy Ghost upon him, which is the Mind of God, informed him that, by washing in Jordan's water's _seven_ times, he might be restored. At first, Naaman thought this too simple and was displeased, and disposed not to conform--not to make use of _means_ so simple. After due consideration, however, humbling himself, he went forth, complying with the _rules_; when, lo! the blessing directly followed. Under the Mosaic dispensation, forgiveness of sins was obtained {78} upon the same principle as those blessings were to which I have alluded. An animal was to be carried before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, by the individual wishing to obtain forgiveness of sins; it was then to be offered up in a particular manner; this being done, the promised blessing immediately followed.

When the Gospel dispensation was introduced, gifts and blessings were obtained upon similar principles--that is, upon obedience to certain established rules. The Lord still marked out certain acts, promising to all those who would do them, certain peculiar privileges; and when those acts were performed--observed in every particular--then the blessings promised were sure to be realized. Some vainly imagine that, under the Gospel dispensation, gifts and blessings are obtained, _not_ by external observances, or _external_ works, but merely through faith and repentance, through mental operations, independent of physical. But, laying aside the traditions, superstitions, and creeds of men, we will look to the word of God, where we shall discover that _external_ works, or _outward_ ordinances, under the Gospel dispensation, were inseparably connected with _inward_ works, such as faith and repentance. In proof of this, I introduce the following observations:--The Savior says, "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and _do not the things_ which I say?" Again, he says, "He that heareth my words, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a man that built his house upon a rock." And, "He that believeth and is _baptized_ shall be saved." Likewise, he says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."--John iii. 5. These sayings of our Savior require men to perform external works in order to receive their salvation.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter says to the surrounding multitude--"Repent and be baptized, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." In this prophetic statement, we learn that people were to perform an external work (baptism in water) in order that they might receive the remission of sins, and afterwards the gift of the Holy Ghost. But, before attending to the outward work, the inward work must be performed--faith and repentance. Faith and repentance go before baptism, and baptism before the remission of sins and the reception of the Holy Ghost. Hence, we see the useless and unscriptural practice of baptizing infants. They cannot exercise faith and repentance, qualifications necessary previous to baptism; then, why require the outward work?

{79} Some suppose they must obtain religion before they are baptized, but the Savior and apostles teach us to be baptized in order to get religion.

Some deem it wrong to number baptism among the essential principles ordained of God, to be attended to in obtaining remission of sins. In reply, we say that the Savior and apostles have done so before us, therefore we feel obligated to follow their example. The destruction of the Antediluvian world by water was typical of receiving remission of sins through baptism. The earth had become clothed with sin as with a garment; the righteous were brought and saved from the world of sin, even by water; the like figure, even baptism, doth now save us, says Peter (1 Peter iii. 21), by the answer of "a good conscience toward God." Noah and his family were removed, and disconnected from sins and pollutions, by means of water; so baptism, the like figure, doth now remove our souls from sins and pollutions, through faith on the great atonement made upon Calvary. Many express surprise that such blessings should be had through baptism. Naaman, when told to wash in Jordan seven times, was equally surprised; but, trying the experiment, he found the word of God to be true; his leprosy, his physical pollution, was thereby removed, and was typical of the removal of spiritual pollutions in the Gospel dispensation, by baptism in water, through faith and repentance. Through the means of water Naaman, we have seen, obtained a miraculous blessing; also the blind man, whom the Savior directed to Wash in the pool of Siloam, received his sight by means of water.

The Savior, after coming out of the river Jordan, received the Holy Ghost. These examples show clearly that water has been appointed a medium through which heavenly blessings are obtained. "Be baptized," says Peter, "for the remission of sins."--Acts ii. 38. Ananias says to Saul (Acts xxii. 16), "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." In the city of Samaria, the people baptized by Philip, it is said, rejoiced. They rejoiced because of the remission of their sins, through baptism; so, also, in the case of the Eunuch (Acts viii. 39), after coming out of the water, having obtained remission of his sins, his conscience becoming void of offence toward God, he was enabled to go on his way rejoicing.

Be baptized, says Peter, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. To obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost is to obtain religion. Faith and repentance were to go before baptism, but remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost were to follow this ordinance. Every unprejudiced {80} mind can see that this is in perfect agreement with the saying of our Savior, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If religion were promised before baptism in water, our Savior would have said, born of Spirit and of water (see John iii. 5); but he said, "Except ye be born of water and of the Spirit." "What God has joined together," the Scripture says, "let no man put asunder;" but we put asunder this order of things, when we say a man must be born of Spirit, then of water, or must get religion---get the Holy Ghost--and then be baptized.

Peter (Acts ii.) preached the same order of things as above mentioned, when he said, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"--that is, be "born of water," then he shall be "born of Spirit." Paul himself, though he had a vision of the Lord Jesus, yet received not the Holy Ghost; he did not receive religion, until he had washed his sins away through baptism, as administered by Ananias. There is one instance, and but one, where the Holy Ghost was given before baptism--I mean, in the Apostolic dispensation. Cornelius and his friends, who had assembled together to hear the message from Peter, received the Holy Ghost previous to baptism--Acts x. 44. This was done, however, to convince Peter that the Gentiles had a right to receive Gospel privileges. Cornelius and his friends were Gentiles, and Peter would not have baptized them, unless he had first seen the power of God resting upon them. He looked upon the Gentiles as heathen, and too wicked and sinful to receive Gospel privileges with the people of God--the Jewish nation. He did not imagine they were to receive the Holy Ghost, and thereby be prepared to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Jewish prophets; but, when he saw the Holy Ghost resting upon them, being astonished, he immediately exclaimed--"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?" He then commanded them to be baptized. This receiving the Holy Ghost before baptism, was an exception to a general rule, and arose from peculiar circumstances, as I have shown. God, if he sees fit, can depart from a general rule, and confer blessings; but man has not this privilege; he must observe the order laid down, or he can have no claim upon the promise. After Elisha had laid down the order whereby Naaman could obtain removal of his leprosy, God, if He had chosen, could have removed it in some other way; but, at the same time, Naaman could not have claimed the blessing until he had taken the course marked out.--See 2nd Kings, chap 5. If we will observe {81} the order of the Gospel, a promise is left us, we shall have its blessings, otherwise we have no claims to urge; and it is worse than folly for men to say, "Lord, Lord," and do not His commandments.

It is plainly manifest that external works must be attended to, as well as faith and repentance, in order to receive Gospel privileges.

Baptism in water, forming a part of the Gospel of Christ, we notice therefore, that the servants of God, in early ages, were very particular in attending to its administration; also, it is evident, that unless peculiar blessings actually were experienced, through baptism, they would have neglected enforcing its observance. If, as some suppose, that faith, repentance, and prayer answer the purpose, in receiving the fulness of Gospel privileges, then it is very evident that baptism was a vain and useless work, and had no need to be observed. Naaman would have been performing a vain and foolish work, when washing seven times in Jordan's waters, had it been in his power to have been recovered from his affliction merely through faith, repentance, and prayer. Also, Noah and his family were very foolish in performing an external work, in building an ark, provided they could have obtained the same blessing through faith, repentance and prayer. Furthermore, the Israelites, could they have obtained forgiveness of sins through faith, repentance, and prayer; it would have been folly in them to offer up animals for that purpose. So also under the Gospel dispensation, the three thousand people, on the day of Pentecost, who were baptized in one day, were very unwise and foolish in submitting to the trouble of baptism, provided the same blessings could have been realized by exercising only faith, repentance, and prayer. The Eunuch would not have alighted from his carriage, and accompanied Philip into the water, if nothing had been required in receiving Gospel blessings but inward works; neither would Ananias have commanded Saul to arise and be baptized, washing away his sins, unless he had known assuredly that baptism, an outward work, must necessarily accompany the inward works of faith and repentance, in order that Saul might come into and obtain possession of Gospel privileges. Paul would not have baptized those twelve men, alluded to in Acts xix., if mental operations could have given them the gift of the Holy Ghost (lst Cor. i. 14); neither would he have baptized the household of Stephanas, also Crispus and Gaius, and permitted Apollos to water or baptize those whom he planted or enlightened (lst Cor. iii. 6), unless baptism had been absolutely essential to {82} receiving Gospel privileges; nor would Peter, when speaking of Noah and family being saved by water, have said--"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us" (lst Pet. iii. 12); nor would Christ have said--"Except ye are born of water and of the Spirit ye cannot enter the kingdom of God." I might multiply proofs of this kind, but sufficient has already been said in proof that baptism is absolutely necessary with faith and repentance.

We will now occupy a moment in endeavoring to obtain a proper view of the mode in which baptism was administered. It is quite evident that there was but one way or mode in which this ordinance was to be administered, and that mode was explained to the apostles, and strictly adhered to in all their administrations. In order that we may obtain a proper notion of this subject, it will be necessary to refer to the circumstances under which baptism was administered.

It says of John, that he baptized at Aenon, "because there was much water there;" then, if sprinkling had been the mode, we can hardly suppose he would have gone to Aenon, because there was much water at that place: for a very little water indeed would have sprinkled all Judea, which he could have obtained without having performed a journey to Aenon. We are told, also, that he baptized in Jordan, and after the ordinance was administered to our Savior, he came up out of the water, expressly signifying that he had been down into the water, in order that the ordinance might be administered in a proper manner. Again, it speaks of the Eunuch, that he went down into the water with Philip, and then came up out of the water. Now, it must be acknowledged, by every one who makes any pretensions to reason and consistency, that had sprinkling a little water on the forehead answered the purpose, then those persons never would have gone into the water to receive the ordinance. Paul, in writing to the Saints, gives us a plain testimony in favour of immersion--(2nd Col. 12th verse; also, 6th Romans, 4th verse). That apostle states there, that the Saints had been buried with Christ by baptism.

It is plainly evident they could not have been buried by baptism, without having been entirely overwhelmed or covered in water. An object cannot be said to be buried when any portion of it remains uncovered; so, also, a man is not buried in water by baptism unless his whole person is put into the watery element. This explanation of the apostle, upon the mode of baptism, very beautifully corresponds with that given by our Savior--"Except ye be born of water," &c. To be born of a thing signifies being placed in that thing, and emerging {83} or coming forth from it; to be born of water must also signify being placed in the womb of waters, and being brought forth again. I trust sufficient has already been said to convince every reasonable and unprejudiced mind that immersion was the mode in which the ordinance of baptism was administered in the early days of Christianity, when the Gospel was proclaimed in its purity and fulness; therefore, I will close my observations upon this point.

We learn, from 6th Hebrews, that the laying on of hands was enumerated among the principles of the Gospel. It is known by all, that this ordinance, as well as baptism for the remission of sins, by immersion, is quite neglected at the present day in the Christian churches; a few remarks, therefore, upon this subject I hope will prove profitable. We have several instances where Christ laid his hands upon the sick and healed them; and, in his commission to the apostles, last chapter of Mark, he says--"These signs shall follow them that believe;" "they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." &c. Ananias laid his hands on Saul, who immediately received his sight, after this ordinance was administered. Paul, when shipwrecked upon the island of Melita, laid his hands upon the father of Publius, the governor of the island, and healed him of a fever. These few remarks show clearly that laying on of hands has been appointed of God to be a medium through which heavenly blessings may be obtained.