Chapter XXIX: Section 19: , that the Church shall receive Joseph's words and commands (3)

"_How consoling to the mourners, when they are called to part with
a husband, wife, father, mother, child or dear relative, to know
that although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved,
they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal
glory, not to sorrow, suffer or die any more; but they shall be
heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ_."

--_Joseph Smith, The Prophet_.

{460}

A WORD ABOUT SUCCESSION. (1907.)

(_From Saturday's "News_.")

A correspondent writing from Parker, Idaho, requests a reply, through the columns of the "News," to the question, by whom was President Young ordained to the presidency of the Church? It appears that the emissaries of the Reorganite faction have discovered in that question a fruitful source of sophistical controversy, and that they are triumphantly asking it wherever they go.

The proper reply is, he was ordained by the Prophet Joseph to that calling, when the Prophet, prompted by the Holy Spirit, conferred upon the Twelve Apostles the power and authority he himself had received. The following statement of facts by Elder Joseph F. Smith, Jr., can be verified by the authentic records of the Church:

The Prophet Joseph earnestly desired that his brother Hyrum should live to succeed him in the presidency of the Church. In the year 1841, by command of the Lord, he ordained him to this exalted position, as is quite evident from the following, section 124, verses 94-5, of the Doctrine and Covenants:

And from this time forth I appoint unto him (Hyrum Smith) that he
may be a Prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my Church as
well as my servant Joseph.

That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph, and that he
shall receive counsel from my servant Joseph, who shall show unto
him the keys whereby he may ask and receive, and be crowned with
the same blessing and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts
of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant
Oliver Cowdery.

From this revelation we learn that the Lord appointed Hyrum Smith both as Patriarch and to act in concert with his brother Joseph in the presidency of the Church. In accordance with this revelation, Hyrum was so ordained January 24, 1841. This was not in the sense of a counselor to {461} Joseph, for at this very appointment Hyrum was removed as counselor to the president, and William Law was ordained in his stead.

Joseph and Hyrum continued to so act from this time forth until their martyrdom, June 27, 1844. Shortly before the martyrdom the Prophet tried with all his power to persuade Hyrum not to accompany him to Carthage, knowing full well the fate that awaited them there. Had Hyrum stayed behind and thereby remained in mortality, he would, by virtue of his position and ordination received in 1841, have become the president of the Church. His brother intended that this should be (_Times and Seasons 5: 683_), but through his faithfulness to, and love for, his brother, Hyrum fell a martyr before the Prophet Joseph did.

Now mark! The Lord, who knew that Hyrum should receive a martyr's crown at Carthage, in the winter of 1843-4, commanded the Prophet to confer upon the heads of the twelve Apostles every key, power and principle that the Lord had sealed upon his head. The Prophet declared that he knew not why, but the Lord commanded him to endow the twelve with these keys and priesthood, and after it was done, he rejoiced very much, saying in substance, "Now, if they kill me, you have all the keys and all the ordinances and you can confer them upon others and the powers of Satan will not be able to tear down the kingdom as fast as you will be able to build it up, and upon your shoulders will the responsibility of leading this people rest." (_Times and Seasons 5: 651_.)

In this manner the Prophet ordained the twelve Apostles, which body constitutes the second quorum of the Church, equal in authority with the first presidency. _Doc. and Cov. 107: 23-24_, with the keys of the kingdom. Brigham Young was president of the twelve, and upon him devolved the duty of presiding.

Therefore, after the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the twelve assumed, by authority of their office, the duty to preside over the Church. Later, when through revelation the quorum of the first presidency was reorganized with three presidents--Brigham Young and Counselors Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards, they claimed, and rightfully, that since they were ordained under the hands of Joseph Smith and from him had received all the keys and powers of the priesthood which the Prophet held, it would have been superfluous to have been ordained again. They were in this capacity, however, sustained by the unanimous vote of the Saints, {462} which was essential to make such ordination of force in the Church.

There is an abundance of testimony to prove that the Prophet did so ordain the twelve, some of which can be found in the _Times and Seasons_, volume 5, pages, 561, 664 and 698; also in the _Millennial Star_, volume 10, page 115.

We repeat that Brigham Young received all the keys, powers, authority and priesthood, that were held by Joseph Smith, that enabled him to preside over the high priesthood, from the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo in the winter of 1843-4.

This important question was settled long ago by the entire body of the Saints who accepted the leadership of the twelve, after the departure of the Prophet and Patriarch, and sustained President Young in his office. It was settled by the approval of the Almighty of the marvelous work he accomplished, and which could not have been done without divine aid and guidance. To ascribe the mighty deeds Brigham Young performed through the power of the divine Spirit which rested upon him, to the spirit that is the originator of secession, rebellion, apostasy, and falsehood, is to come dangerously near blasphemy. What is it but a repetition of the sin of the adversaries of our Lord, who, although they knew that "no man can do the miracles that Thou doest, except God be with him (_John, 3: 2_); yet proclaimed to the people: "He hath an unclean spirit." (_Mark 3: 30_.) What is it but to assail the disciple with a weapon that was in vain directed against the Master? There was some excuse for difference of opinion on the subject of succession, immediately after the martyrdom, because the people were not in possession of full information, but there is no excuse now. To use a familiar illustration: At the time of an election citizens are expected to have different opinions as to candidates for office; they are expected to work for those whose views and principles they support. But when the question is settled at the polls, loyalty demands that all accept the verdict and work together for the common interests of the community. The body of the Latter-day Saints having accepted, as guided by the Holy Spirit, the leadership of the twelve, there was no longer any valid reason for seeking the leadership of other shepherds.

The trouble with some of our reorganized brethren is that they look upon the members of the Church as a flock of sheep, that, like other property, can be inherited. This is entirely contrary to the fundamental principles of the Gospel. The Church belongs to Christ. The leaders and officers are the servants of the Lord and the people of the Lord. It follows {463} that the Lord raises up whoever He pleases, to perform the services necessary from time to time. Brigham Young was every way equipped for the peculiar work needed during his time. Who could have done what he did? Sidney Rigdon? Lyman Wight? James J. Strang? Or the founders of the so-called reorganized church? Let the reader reflect on the facts history records, and then decide for himself, remembering that every tree is known by its fruit.

"_Love is one of the chief characteristics of Deity, and ought to
be manifested by those who aspire to be the sons of God, A man
filled with the love of God is not content with blessing his family
alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the
whole human race_."

--_Joseph Smith_.

"_If children have sinned against their parents, or husbands
against their wives, or wives against their husbands, let them
confess their faults one to another and forgive each other, and
there let the confession stop, and then let them ask pardon from
their God. Confess your sins to whoever you have sinned against,
and let it stop there_."

--_Brigham Young_.

{464}

THE GOSPEL PIONEER.

BY WM. JEFFERIES, AN ELDER OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.

FAITH.

Faith is the key to knowledge rare,
God's choice and priceless gift to man;
It is obtained by humble prayer
And practice of the gospel plan.
It opes the door to secrets deep--
Communes with God in nature's sleep.
Prevails with God, till mortal man
The glory of the Lord can scan.

A thorough knowledge of the first principles is absolutely essential to the acquirement of a complete understanding of any art or science. For example: How can the student of arithmetic extract the cube root of any given number, or find the fifth power of another, without a knowledge of the first or key principles of the science of numbers? Now, if this is true of the arts and sciences, which, in the abstract, do not tend, directly, to save a person in the presence of God, how much more is it true in regard to the great science of theology, which must be well understood and faithfully practiced, to a given extent, in order to become a joint-heir with Jesus to the glory of the Father? And what science more important than this great science of all sciences? None. And a knowledge of its first principles ranks higher in importance to mortals than any other knowledge attainable by Adam's fallen race; for a knowledge of them, and honest obedience to them, together with subsequent faithfulness, will secure a person a knowledge of the Father and the Son, whom to know is life eternal--the greatest gift of God to man. Hence the great importance of a thorough knowledge of the first principles of the great science of salvation, which I will now make a feeble attempt to briefly explain.

The first initiatory principle of the glorious plan of salvation {465} is faith. The Apostle Paul thus defines this principle: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (_Heb. xi, 1_.) Modern inspiration defines it thus: "Faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen, and the principle of action in all intelligent beings." (_Doc. & Cov. Lec. I, Sec. i., 9_.) And the substance of these quotations--between which there is no conflict--I understand to be this: Faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things not seen by them in the past, of the existence of things unseen by them at present, of the existence of things to be seen or unseen by them in the future, and the great first cause, or moving principle of action, and consequently, of power, in all intelligent beings, whether they are mortal or immortal. Now do not be startled, kind reader, at this explanation. The great apostle to the Gentiles says. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God." (_Heb. xi, 3_.) This is plain. Who framed the world? God, of course; and Paul says He did it through faith; therefore, the assertion is correct, that faith is the principle of action and power in all intelligent beings whether they are mortal or immortal.

Faith is produced by evidence. This is true of a false faith as well as of a true faith. A false faith is the product of untrue or incorrect evidence, and a true faith is produced by truthful evidence; and, though there may be instances in which true evidence may fail to produce faith in the skeptical and unbelieving; and wherein false evidence may fail to create faith even in the over-credulous; yet when faith, be it true or false, is created, I reassert that it is produced by true or untrue evidence. In the attempt to inspire faith in these propositions, I will summon a few of the ancient worthies, who, like Abel, though dead, speak to us in their inspired testaments, giving us evidence which should be faith-creating.

When the Son of God tabernacled in the flesh, He went about doing good, healing the sick, cleansing the lepers, raising the dead, and doing many mighty works in fulfillment of the mission He was sent on by His Father; and while doing these things He was scoffed at, spit upon, reviled, and persecuted, and finally crucified on Calvary--suspended between Heaven and earth as though fit for neither. Bible-believers need no evidence adduced here to prove this, for the facts stated are plain and prominent in the New Testament scriptures, and are well known to them, no doubt.

On the day after the crucifixion, the Chief Priests and Pharisees felt somewhat troubled and anxious, and "came {466} together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, after three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, he is risen from the dead: so that the last error shall be worst than the first. Pilate said unto them, ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as you can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch." (_Matt. xxvii, 62-66_.)

How vain the schemes and operations of frail man! A few more hours pass away. The angel of the Lord came down from heaven, filled with the power of God, and armed with the keys of the resurrection. The watch which had been set, or the keepers, "became as dead men." The resurrection power of God was exercised. The lifeless, mangled body of the lowly Nazarene was celestialized. The active spirit, which had been on an important mission to the Antediluvians, entered its immortal house, and the triumphant Jesus came forth from the silent tomb, the first fruits of the resurrection, and the glorious conqueror of death, hell and the grave.

As soon as some of the watch had recovered sufficiently, they "came unto the city, and shewed unto the Chief Priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you." So they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. (_Matt. xxviii, 11-15_.) And, according to the generally accepted chronology, Matthew wrote this account about five years after the events occurred.

Here prejudice, dishonesty and opposition to the purposes of Jehovah, prompted bribery, and bribery being assured protection from the human penalty for such a crime, published to the world a lie--a lie, too, respecting the most important event that had ever transpired upon this earth, as effecting the redemption of the fallen race of our great progenitor, Adam. Matthew says: "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day;" and I may add, to this day, too, for the Jews not only rejected the Messiah and put him to death, and subsequently believed the story of bribed and perjured Roman soldiers, but they still "deny the accomplishment of the prophecies in the person of Christ; alleging that the Messiah is not yet come;" and this also effects their belief in the first {467} resurrection, which is past, although, according to the thirteenth article of their creed, they believe there will be a "resurrection of the dead when God shall see fit."

This false evidence, given to the Jewish nation, produced in that tribe of Israel a false faith, which exists to-day, and which will continue to exist to a great extent among them, with all its dire consequences, till He shall come in power and glory and "stand upon the mount of Olives;" (_Zech. xiv, 4_.) and they shall "look upon" Him whom their fore-fathers "pierced;" (_Zech. xii, 10_.) and the inquiry shall be made: "What are those wounds in thine hands?" And he shall inform them that those were the wounds "with which he was wounded in the house of His friends." (_Zech. xiii, 6_.)

In view of these things how necessary it is that tradition should be truth. In the beginning the Lord said: "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;" and the serpent said: "Ye shall not surely die;" and both declarations went to posterity, some believing one and some the other. At the resurrection of the Son of God, the soldiers said: "His disciples stole him while we slept," and many believed them. Others said: "He rose again and ascended to His Father," and a few believed this testimony; and I will now introduce an illustration of this true evidence and true faith.

The Son of God had risen from the tomb. The first to discover this was several women, and the first evidence of the fact to them was, "they found not the body" in the sepulcher. The next was the testimony of "two angels in shining garments." Said they: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen," and they quoted the Savior's prediction of Himself, that He should be crucified, and on the third day He should rise again, which the women remembered. These women reported to the eleven apostles, who could hardly believe the report, but Peter visited the sepulcher, and found that the body of Jesus was not there. Jesus showed Himself to some on the way to Emmaus, after which, and on the same day, He appeared to the eleven apostles, who were somewhat terrified, and He said unto them: "Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." He further said: "Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it and did eat before them." He also referred them to His own words, to the words of Moses and the prophets, which were fulfilled in His crucifixion and resurrection, {468} and said He, "Ye are all witnesses of these things." He then instructed them to tarry at Jerusalem till they were endued with power from on high, lifted up His hands and blessed them, and ascended into heaven. (_Luke xxiv_.)

Here was an accumulation of evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. He was with the apostles more or less for forty days after His resurrection. (_Acts i, 3_.) They _knew_ most unmistakably that Jesus had been resurrected. The evidences were accumulative. They knew also by the revelations of God. They were prepared to testify. The day of Pentecost arrived. The Holy Ghost descended upon them in great power--it filled them; and they stood forth boldly, as the champions of the risen Jesus, as His friends and true representatives, and as men of God, filled with truth and the revelations and power of God, to give the lie to a bribed and perjured soldiery, and all their accessories, and to proclaim the truth concerning the resurrection, the atonement, the redemption, and the true plan of salvation for the exaltation of the obedient of all mankind. And Peter, as the chief apostle, is represented as testifying the most in this matter, and among other things he said this: "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses." (_Acts ii_.)

Here were eleven men in one body, besides others, who were _all_ witnesses of the resurrection of the Savior of the world. Compare their testimony with the testimony of scared, bribed, and perjured guards--and what a testimony the latter was! "His disciples stole his body while we slept!" What wondrous wisdom, consistency, and veracity, characterized the suggestors and buyers of this infamous subterfuge! What elevated manhood was exhibited by these valiant military cat-paws of the ancient anti-Christians! What do men know of things which transpire when they are fast asleep? A parallel need not be sought for only in the history of the highly-enlightened anti-"Mormons" of the nineteenth century.

What was the result of the inspired testimonies of these eleven apostles--Peter standing forth boldly as their principal, and proclaiming the truth in much power? Why, many were convinced by the power of the Holy Ghost, and the inquiry was made by them: "Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Now, did any of them show further evidence of conviction? Yes, about three thousand souls were added to the church by baptism, on that day, and the Lord added to the church daily such as {469} should be saved. (_Acts ii_.) Herein was true evidence and true faith clearly illustrated, and I will now draw an illustration from modern times.

In the year of our Lord, eighteen hundred and twenty, the Lord spoke from the heavens to the boy, Joseph Smith, then in his fifteenth year. After a seven years' training, and particularly during the last four of the seven, the Lord by His angel delivered to him the sacred plates from which was translated the Book of Mormon. Nearly three years additional schooling was given him in the science of theology, during which time he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God; and, on the 6th day of April, 1830, he, by command of God, organized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Previous to this time, he had testified more or less, of his visions and calling, but from now till his cruel martyrdom in 1844, he boldly proclaimed his divine mission, and taught the true gospel to the children of men. Others associated themselves with him in this glorious testimony and proclamation. Many believed their words, and cast their lot with the much-persecuted people of God. This testimony and proclamation of the elders of Israel have continued; a people have been gathered together in the tops of the mountains, in fulfillment of the words of Isaiah (_Chap. ii_); and of the words of Micah (_Chap. iv_); and in Utah and other Territories; in many States of the American Union; and in many other parts of the earth can be found much true faith, as the result of correct evidence given by inspiration in these last days.

But while this work of presenting true evidence and inspiring true faith has been going on, the adversary has not been idle. It has been declared that Joseph Smith was _not_ a true prophet, but an impostor. That the Book of Mormon was _not_ translated from plates given to Joseph by an angel of God, but was simply a Spaulding romance. That, in short the whole system of Mormonism is a monster humbug and imposture, and all its adherents are either deceivers or deceived. Editors, incited by popular clamor and prejudice, and priests, inspired by their sable master, have befouled the filthy stream of misrepresentation, by publishing dirty falsehoods and sending them broadcast on the earth during the last half a century, till millions of the human family are prejudiced and misled; and their responsibility in this matter is equal to that of their prototypes, the ancient Scribes, priests, and elders who framed the lie and paid their dupes to testify to it--that Jesus was not resurrected, but that His disciples stole the body while {470} they slept; and heaven's condemnation rests upon them for thus using the power of press and pulpit. Hence, to-day there is a vast amount of false faith on the earth, which has been produced by incorrect evidence concerning some of the most important events which have transpired preparatory to the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven in power and great glory.

These facts, culled from ancient and modern history, I consider sufficient to prove clearly to honest hearts and enlightened minds, that faith is produced by evidence--a false faith by false evidence, and a true faith by true evidence.

In the foregoing an attempt has been made to show that faith is produced by evidence; that this is true both of a false faith and a true one; and that the results are good or bad according as the faith is true or false. And in doing this the principle of faith itself has been taught more or less, but a few more remarks are necessary.

Faith in _God_ is necessary. "But without faith it is _impossible_ to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." (_Heb. xi, 6_.) And who can expect to receive salvation _from_ God, if they do not believe _in_ Him?

Faith in Jesus Christ is necessary. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him." (_John iii, 36_.) Who can expect the glorious benefits of the atonement, if they do not believe in the Savior of the world, nor in the great atonement which He made for poor fallen man?

Faith in the servants of God is necessary, also. When Jesus sent His servants forth to preach the gospel, He said unto them: "He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth Him that sent me." (_Luke x, 16_.) "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." (_Matt. x, 40, 41_.) "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." (_Matt. x, 14, 15_.) Neither God the Father nor God the Son travel among us now to preach and administer {471} for the benefit of Adam's race, but they authorize mortal men to do this work; hence it is necessary to receive them, treat them kindly, and have faith in them as the representatives of the Father and the Son.

Faith in the plan of salvation is necessary. The principles of the gospel must be believed in order to obtain their benefits; some of those principles are set forth briefly in this little pamphlet; and when these are tested and proven to be of divine origin, conferring many glorious blessings upon those who obey them, others can be found suitable to advanced students in the Lord's school of divinity. The gospel is unchangeable and eternal. It is filled with blessings that are temporal, spiritual and eternal. It is free for all. "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come." (_Matt. xxiv, 14_.) "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." (_Gal. i, 6-9_.)

Blessed are they who believe and live the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for they shall obtain eternal life in the celestial kingdom of God!

REPENTANCE.

Repentance is an evidence
Of living, saving faith in God.
The sinner manifesting sense
In turning from the path he trod--
Not a sentimental sorrow,
Felt to-day and gone to-morrow;
But--by God's help I will do right,
And shun all wrong with all my might.

Repentance is the second principle of the gospel of the Son of God. And here it would be well, perhaps, to dispose of an objection which some may raise in regard to this being the second principle of the gospel. There are religionists who hold and teach that repentance precedes faith, and this error I will briefly refer to and correct.

In the first place, let the test of reason be applied. If a man does not believe in the existence of a God; nor in the {472} existence of the laws of God; nor in the penalties for violating those laws; nor in his own existence after what is believed by him to be the death of both body and spirit; nor consequently, if he does not believe in either the power or opportunity to punish him for what some people may call sin, but which he does not believe is a sin against anybody or anything; will he be likely to be sorry for anything he has done? Will he reform through hope of reward or fear of punishment, or both combined? Will such a man repent of his sins? Every reasonable man, who studies this principle, will answer with an emphatic, No!

But if a man is taught that there is a God; that He has revealed laws for the government of the actions of His earthly children; that those laws embody rewards for obedience and punishments for disobedience; that there is an existence after death has separated body and spirit; that none can escape the results of their acts, that all will be judged, and then rewarded or punished, according to the deeds done in the body; and if he believes these teachings, _then_ he will be likely to cease to do evil and learn to do well--he will repent of his sins, and strive to serve his God faithfully. But if, after he _has_ been taught as before stated, he should fail to believe, _then_ he will _not_ repent, for he is not prompted by that living faith which produces sincere repentance. And this conclusion is legitimate and clear, no doubt, to the unbeclouded and unprejudiced mind of every intelligent and reasonable man.

But the testimony of inspiration as well as reason shall be given in this matter, and this should be conclusive. After the crucifixion of the Savior, Peter became president of the church. To him were given the keys of the kingdom, and he, certainly, understood the order of the principles of the gospel, just as well as an arithmetician understands the order of the first principles of arithmetic. And what position did he give repentance? Did he make it precede faith? On the day of Pentecost Peter preached to the assembled multitude. He taught the word of God; he quoted the Old Testament scriptures; he showed that some of them were fulfilled; he testified that Jesus was the Christ; he declared that they had crucified the Son of God; he taught the glorious principle of the resurrection; said he: "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are _all witnesses_." and he told them "that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." This testimony of Peter, which was accompanied by the convincing power of the Holy Ghost, inspired them with faith in what he taught and prompted the question: "Men and brethren, {473} what shall we do?" Said Peter, in reply: "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." They _had_ faith. The preaching had created it. Peter knew this. And he _then_ taught them the second, third and fourth principles of the gospel in their order, viz.: Repentance, remission of sins, and the reception of the Holy Ghost, thus establishing the order of those principles beyond all cavil or controversy, and for all time, for the benefit of Bible-believers in all their generations throughout the earth.

Repentance, then, is the second principle of the great gospel plan of salvation, as taught by Jesus Christ and His apostles. And what is repentance? Is it merely sorrow for sin? No. Sorrow is a part of it, but it must be the right kind of sorrow. There is a sorrow which leadeth unto death, and a sorrow which produces true repentance. Read the testimony of the apostle Paul on this point: "For a godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of; but the sorrow of the world worketh death." (_II Cor. vii, 10_.)

Real sorrow for sin produces true repentance, and a genuine repentance is a forsaking of sin, coupled with a burning desire and a strong determination to keep the commandments of God, which will be shown in reformation of life and conduct, in a prayerful spirit, and a reliance upon God for strength to overcome in every hour of trial and temptation. Isaiah taught repentance in these words: "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God for He will abundantly pardon." (_Isa. lv, 7_.)

The scriptures contain much evidence showing what true repentance is, and what its fruits are; and they present us with evidence concerning the repentance which is not genuine, as instance Simon the sorcerer. He had believed Philip's preaching, and had been baptized; but Peter found him "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity," and called upon him to repent of his "wickedness."

Repentance means forsaking sin. Let him that steals _steal no more_. Let him that has done wrong in any way, do so no more, but do right before God and man. In the language of the able Apostle, Orson Pratt, "It would be of no use for a sinner to confess his sins to God, unless he were determined to forsake them; it would be of no benefit to him to feel sorry that he had done wrong, unless he intended to do wrong no more, it would be folly for him to confess before God that he had injured his fellow-man, unless he were determined to do {474} all in his power to make restitution. Repentance, then, is not only a confession of sins, with a sorrowful, contrite heart, but a fixed, settled purpose to refrain from every evil way."

BAPTISM.

Earth's noon arrived! The Savior came!
And was by John of ancient fame,
Baptized in Jordan's sacred tide,
A righteous law to thus abide--
Example setting to all men
How they must all be born again:
Born of water--people hear it!
If God's kingdom they'd inherit.

There are several things connected with baptism which should be well understood before the candidate yields obedience to it. The mode, the object and the necessity of it.

First, then, the mode. Is sprinkling the correct way to baptize? Jesus was the great exemplar. Was He sprinkled? John the Baptist baptized by immersion. Did John baptize in the right way? Certainly he did. Would Jesus have gone to an impostor for baptism? Would He have demanded baptism by immersion of John, if sprinkling were the correct method? And if immersion had been the _incorrect_ method, would the Spirit of God have descended like a dove upon Him, and His Father have uttered His approval in these words: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased?" I think not. John baptized a great many in the river Jordan. He baptized Jesus there. "And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water." (_Matt. iii, 16_.) "John baptized in Aenon near to Salim because there was much water there." (_John iii, 23_.) Philip, acting under the direction of the apostles, baptized by immersion. In baptizing the eunuch, "They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more." (_Acts, viii, 38, 39_.) If sprinkling were all that was necessary, Paul and Silas need not have taken the jailor and his household out of their house just after midnight to baptize them; for they could have performed the ordinance in the house, and a half pint of water would have been plenty for the purpose. (_Acts, xvi_.) Paul tells the Romans, "that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death; _therefore we are buried with Him by baptism_ into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even {475} so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection." (_Rom. vi, 3, 4, 5_.)

Now why represent the death of the Savior, by becoming dead unto sin? Or His burial, by being buried in water in baptism? Or His resurrection, by being raised from the liquid grave in baptism, to walk in newness of life?--Why all this, if sprinkling were the proper mode of baptism? And these remarks and quotations apply to the erroneous principle of pouring as well as to sprinkling. Does either sprinkling or pouring represent a death, a burial, or a resurrection? Not in the least. But immersion does, and it _is_ an actual burial in water.

Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (_John iii, 5_.) Does sprinkling or pouring represent a birth? No! but immersion does. Coming out of the element of water into the element of air, is a fair representation of a birth, and the words of the Apostle, Orson Pratt, are very appropriate here. He wrote thus upon this subject: "As the embryo must first be immersed in water before it can receive the quickening of the human spirit, so a man must _first_ be immersed in water before he has the promise of the quickening or life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. As the infant is born, or comes forth from the watery element into a new kingdom or world of existence, so a man in baptism comes forth from the liquid element of water into the kingdom of God's dear Son, which is a new state of existence."

The New Testament scriptures do not furnish any authority for administering baptism by a sprinkling or pouring; but the evidences therein contained show most conclusively, that immersion was the proper mode of baptism as administered to Jesus, and practiced by His apostles--and who but God has authority to change this ordinance? And where is the proof that He has ever changed it? It cannot be found; and immersion stands to-day, unchanged and unchangeable, as the proper mode of administering the gospel ordinance of baptism for the benefit of believing and repentant candidates for salvation in the kingdom of God.

The object of baptism next claims our attention. And what is this ordinance administered for? Is it simply "an outward sign of an inward grace?" Baptism was instituted _for the remission of sins_. John went "into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (_Luke iii, 3_.) After the crucifixion of the Savior, He {476} appeared unto the Eleven and gave them the mission to preach the gospel to every creature; (_Luke xvi, 15-18_.) and on the day of Pentecost, after being filled with the Holy Ghost, according to the promise of the Father, they commenced their great mission. On this occasion they preached to the assembled thousands of many nationalities, baptism _for the remission of sins_, and about three thousand souls were baptized on that day for the special purpose of obtaining _the remission of their sins_. The testimony of Paul concerning himself is this: that Ananias said unto him: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." (_Acts xxii, 16_.)

Thus it is clearly established, and that, too, by evidence which no Bible-believer can controvert, that the ordinance of baptism was established _for the remission of sins_.

The necessity of baptism must be understood. It is taught by some that the observance of this ordinance is optional on the part of the candidate for celestial glory. This is dangerous doctrine. There is no authority for it in the scriptures, Jesus and His apostles never taught it. It is contrary to their teachings. Jesus never included a non-essential principle in the great plan of salvation. Had not baptism been necessary, He would not have said to His apostles: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," (_Mark xvi, 16_). Neither would He have said to them: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, _baptizing_ them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (_Luke xxviii, 19_.)

Baptism is as necessary as remission of sins. It was instituted and placed in the great system of salvation as the ordinance of remission. It was taught, accepted and administered as such, on the day of Pentecost, to the joy of three thousand souls.

Paul, after the light of heaven shone upon him, and the Lord said unto him: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" was blind, repenting, fasting and praying for three days; and why did not the Lord have compassion upon the poor sinner in this deplorable condition, and forgive him, without sending him to Ananias to have the ordinance of baptism administered to him? Because Paul was a sinner. He needed remission of sins. He needed the birth of the water to admit him into the kingdom. And Jesus honored the law of remission by sending him to one who could administer it effectually, which Jesus never would have done if it had not been necessary for Paul's salvation. (_Acts ix_.)

It is believed by many that a good man will certainly be saved without baptism--the Lord would not be just if he did {477} not save him, even if he were not baptized. Now, I presume that but few men can be found who are better, in a great many respects, than was Cornelius of old. He was "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." (_Acts ix., 2_.) The Lord had so much respect for him on account of his goodness, that He sent an angel to him, who said to him: "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God." (_Acts x, 4_.) Certainly, he was a good man; and, according to the notions of many religionists, such a man ought to be saved, and will be, independent of any ordinances. But wait a little. What more did the angel say unto him? Said he: "And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter; he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea-side, he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do." (_Acts x, 3, 4_).

What! Is it possible that a good man like Cornelius needed to do anything more than he was doing, in order to be accepted and justified before God? It appears that the Lord thought so; and it was of such importance, too, that He sent an angel to tell him what his further duty was. And what was it? Peter preached the gospel to him and his household, after his arrival among them. The Holy Ghost fell upon them to bear testimony to Peter's words, and as an evidence to Peter of the favor they enjoyed with the Lord, and then "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (_Acts x, 4, 8_.)

Now, suppose that Cornelius and his house had disregarded Peter's command to be baptized, could they have been saved? No. Why? Because the angel told him that Peter should tell him words whereby he and all his household should be saved. (_Acts xi. 14_). It is very evident, therefore, that baptism for the remission of sins is necessary unto salvation.

Infant baptism, as it is erroneously termed, or infant sprinkling, should receive a brief notice here. This is not authorized in the scriptures, neither have any of the New Testament writers alluded to it. Some have supposed because in a few instances whole households were baptized, that possibly there were some infants among them. But this supposition is a very weak foundation upon which to establish an important principle of salvation. In the households of Lydia, Cornelius and the jailor, there were no infants--at least, we cannot learn that there were from the history given of them in the Acts of the Apostles. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. In the case of the jailor, Paul and Silas _taught_ him, and _all_ that were in his house, the word of the Lord. (_Acts xvi, 32_.) In the {478} household of Cornelius, the Holy Ghost fell upon them which heard the words of Peter, and they _spoke_ with tongues and _magnified_ God. (_Acts x_.) And in the household of Lydia it is evident there were no infants any more than there were in the other two households, for these reasons: The gospel is to be _preached_ to individuals. What is the use to _preach_ to infants? They cannot understand it; they cannot have faith in it; they cannot repent, for they have not sinned; it is no use to baptize them, for there are no sins to remit. Sin is a transgression of the law. They have not transgressed any law, therefore, they are without sin. And even had infants any sins to remit, they could not be remitted by baptism alone, for faith and repentance must be exercised in connection with baptism, but infants cannot exercise either. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suppose that the apostles would attempt to teach or baptize infants in the households referred to, or in any other households--they knew better than to act so foolishly in the sight of God.

There are others who have supposed that the baptism of infants is in the place of circumcision. But this is merely a conjecture of impostors to deceive the ignorant. The scriptures do not substitute infant baptism for circumcision. There is no connection or similarity between the two principles. They are no more alike than truth and error, or darkness and light, or heaven and hell. Circumcision is an ancient ceremony or operation performed exclusively on male infants at eight days old; but baptism is an immersion in water, of both male and female, when they have reached an age to be capable of sinning, believing the gospel when it is taught them, and repenting of their sins, so that they may have their past sins remitted according to the laws of God. These evidences should be conclusive to all Bible-believers.

LAYING ON OF HANDS FOR IMPARTING THE HOLY GHOST

True faith in God, repentance true,
Sins remitted by immersion;
The humble soul is born anew,
And the spirit takes possession.
By laying on of holy hands,
Of God's own servants here on earth;
Those who've obeyed the Lord's commands,
Will realize the Spirit's birth.

After the candidate for eternal life has been baptized for the remission of his sins, and has sought unto the Lord in faith, honestly repenting of his sins, and has obtained the forgiveness {479} of all his past transgressions, he is entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost. He should seek for it, for the Lord has promised that he shall receive it, but He has established a certain ordinance through which He bestows this precious gift. That ordinance is the "Laying on of hands." Many may question this, but the scriptures should decide the matter. Let us see how Paul received the Holy Ghost. Ananias received a mission to visit Paul, and entered into the house where he was staying, "and _putting his hands on him_ said: Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be _filled with the Holy Ghost_." (_Acts ix. 17_.) But why not fill him with the Holy Ghost without any administration of Ananias, seeing that he had faith, and was repenting and fasting and praying before the Lord? Because the Lord had established an order in the plan of salvation. He had authorized His servants to observe that order in ministering the spirit as well as the water, and they were to minister the spirit by the _laying on of hands_.

How did Paul administer the spirit? It is possible that he obtained his first lesson, in the administration of baptism and the laying on of hands, from Ananias when he himself was baptized and confirmed; but, whether this was his first lesson or not, he, no doubt, learned to administer the ordinances of the gospel correctly. And when he came to Ephesus and found about twelve men who had been baptized "unto John's baptism," "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," "and when Paul _laid his hands upon them_, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." (_Acts xix. 1-6_.) Thus, we see Paul administered the Holy Ghost by "the laying on of hands."

When Philip preached to the Samaritans, they believed and were baptized both men and women. "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (_Acts viii, 14-17_.)

Now, as they were apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, faithful men whose prayers God would hear and answer, why did not the Lord bestow upon those Samaritans the gift of the Holy Ghost in answer to the earnest prayers of His faithful servants, without the ordinance of the laying on of hands? {480} Because that would have been contrary to the law laid down for the ministering of the spirit. Peter and John were anxious that the Lord should bless their administration for the benefit of those baptized believers. They desired that the Holy Ghost should rest down upon them in mighty power. But they could not exercise the authority of the apostleship in and of themselves, and independently of the Lord, hence they prayed for themselves, no doubt, and that the Samaritans "might receive the Holy Ghost." _Then_ they performed the proper ordinance, God honored the administration in answer to their prayer, and those baptized believers "received the Holy Ghost." (_Acts viii, 17_).

The laying on of hands, then, is the Lord's ordinance for imparting the Holy Ghost to His believing, repentant, and baptized children, and He has never made it void, or authorized any man to change it, or to teach the inhabitants of the earth that it is done away and no longer needed.

AUTHORITY TO PREACH AND ADMINISTER.

God's Priesthood once dwelt here on earth,
And gave to men their gospel birth;
Many who held it martyrs fell;
On earth in peace it could not dwell.
But thanks to God He has again,
Bestowed His Priesthood upon men;
And His decree has now gone forth--
It shall henceforth remain on earth!

The authority to preach the gospel and administer its ordinances, is a very important matter to be considered in connection with the first principles of the gospel. If those ordinances are administered by divine authority, the blessings of God will attend those administrations; but if they are not, it is unreasonable to expect the Lord will bestow such blessings; hence, it is well to ascertain who is in the possession of the authority of God, to act in the name of His son Jesus Christ, as ministers of salvation and eternal life to the children of men here on the earth.