How We Shall Preach

HOW WE SHALL PREACH. BY ELDER H, W. NAISBITT.

The primary object of preaching the Gospel is not to antago- nize the world, it is not to encourage bitterness, strife or division, not to create a distinctive creed or church for the purpose of human glorification: but its exponents know as Paul did that "a dispensation of the Gospel has been committed unto me, [them] and woe unto me [them] if I [they] preach not the Gospel." That the preaching of this Gospel may indirectly create con- tention is not to be considered any barrier to its presentation, or the teachings of the Savior would have likewise been annulled, for he evidently saw that one of the results of his teaching was to be "division," for "from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three, the father will

be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother." Not that the Gospel is of a quarrelsome character or that this is its spirit, but the spirit of rebellion in the unregenerate soul abhors, fights against, contends with the Divine rule of order, universally almost. The Savior who was full of light and prescience knew that he would array against himself all the sectaries of the Jewish relig- ious life, yet ye never sought the favor nor was he afraid of the frowns of Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenees or other oif-shoots or devotees of the primal body. It was his mission to promulgate the

truth, "whether men would hear or whether they would forbear." Nor is it known that the apostles ever sought to compromise on what they were assured was the truth; their call was to preach,

HOW WE SHALL PREACH. Ill

and to do so without fear or favor. They had a good deal of the spirit of the old prophet who said, "He that hath my word let him speak my word faithfully, for what is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord." The preaching of the Gospel in the Christian era (so-called) was not of the style that the world loved. It hated the apostles and it hated the Christians, but we have not heard or read that they modified or concealed the truth, because it gave offense; they were positive and decided, and it was as presumptive as words could make it, when Paul said, "Though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let him be accursed." The man-fearing spirit was not a prominent feature of early Christian life, for preaching was "to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness." But this opposition, passive or otherwise, never allured the preachers from declaring in the ears of men "the whole counsel of God;" they knew as Paul said, that the Gospel was, to "those who are saved, the pov/er of God!" Quite likely there were many in all positions and conditions of religious life in those days, who accepted offense because of the illiberality and lack of charity on the part of the Christian ministry

perhaps some as good as the man of Csesarea, or as "the young man" in the New Testam.ent; both seemed to be beyond criticism from a moral and religious standpoint, and it might have seemed superfluous to a critic, to say of the former that he needed to "send men to Joppa for Peter to tell him what he ought to do;" and was it cruel to tell the latter, after he had declared "that he had kept

all the commandments from his youth up," that "he still lacked one

thing?" The Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," and on another occasion he said, "No man Cometh unto the Father but by me;" but no one in Christendom today claims that this was illiberal or untrue, however harsh and arbitrary it might have appeared then, and when Peter stood up and declared before the high priest and elders that there was "no other name under heaven, given among men whereby they must be saved," although "filled with the Holy Ghost" at the time, it was no doubt considered illiberal, uncharitable and untrue.

112 IMPRO VEMENT ERA.

There was a very positive character about original Christianity. It had to be so, and it assuredly brooked no innovation in its early

history; the apostles were jealous for its purity, they "marked those that caused divisions." Timothy was exhorted to "hold fast to the form of sound words;" the Corinthians were also urged to "all speak the same thing," and so stringent, so supremely anxious was one of the leaders for this absolute unity, that he wrote a general epistle, and said, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God;" further, "If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your home, neither bid him God speed." All the words of warning, all of prophecy as to result, were instigated by the spirit of truth; no expediency, no false charity suppressed rebuke and censure of all manifestations of diverging practice and doctrine, and had it not been realized that "departure from the faith," was possible for a time, the anathemas of the prophets would surely have almost stricken terror into the hearts of the tried and true. Imagination however may enquire, after a modern retrospect, what would have been the feelings of those who were "ready to be offered up" if in the very citadel of the cross, or in any of the branches like Antioch, that vastness of Christian (?) variety had been exhibited as seen in modern times. Could Jerusalem, could the apostles and elders, could the believers and converts have seen the strange religious phenomena of today, and concluded that the Church of Christ and the Gospel of God, was a grand unyielding authoritative whole? Would they, or did they, dispute as to the need of faith in God or the authority of Christ? Is it a fact that there was con- tention and separation then as to the mode of baptism? Did any claim that it was only a form, or a non-essential of the Christian faith? Was the example of Christ eschewed or his command to baptize ignored by his apostles? Did any question its mode or purpose? Have you read of a convert asking whether baptism would really wash away or remit his sins? Can you read of any baptized convert objecting to the ordinance of the laying on of hands, or was not the results thereof so tangible and real, that the soothsayers said, "Give us this power, that upon whom we lay our

HOW WE SHALL PREACH. 113

"hands they may receive the Holy Ghost," tempting the servants of Christ with money for this inestimable gift? Is it known that any

of the apostles or elders told their converts that they could unite with any organization at their own pleasure, counting belief in and practice of these ordinances a matter of indifference or dependent upon personal choice? Nor can this be done in our day, and it is true charity to preach the Gospel and exact complete and undivided acquiescence and obedience thereto. Nor is this done for denominational purposes; the Church of Jesus Christ is not a denominational Church, it is not a sectarian Church, it is the Church of God and Christ, revealed and restored in our day, according to promise and prophecy of the ages long gone by. Nor is it even founded upon the New Testament; although it is a perfect fac simile in doctrine, ordinance, organization and priesthood of the Church of Christ in ancient times, as the same New Testament will prove. This modern revealed Church is an offense the same as its predecessor; it is belied, persecuted or ignored, as was the first; its bitterest enemies and worst opponents have been the religionists of our time; the more reasonable sceptic admits its consistency and its harmony with the ancient Church, and every student, every enquirer realizes this strange fact, which remains unexplained on any hypothesis, save that of greater wisdom or revelation in or to the founder of the same. The first cannot be true; for Joseph Smith was a commonplace boy, and it is a greater miracle to think that he "evolved from his inner consciousness" this duplicate system of ordinance and organization, than to give credit to an inspirational influx for a divine purpose on the page of history in the economy of God. The people forming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints take no personal credit for this, nor do its leaders or authorities; they simply bear testimony to its truth, — — and say to the world the religious world the same assurances we have can be yours also, the same blesings we enjoy are for you, and in asserting that divine wisdom hath manifested itself in this movement, they do no more than was implied in the ministry and mission of the Christ and his associates and successors. Neither The Church nor the elders are responsible for the inferences which religionists or other thinkers may draw from their

114 IMPROVEMENT ERA

testimony and literature. The latter may not evince the culture, or profundity of the schools, but the early advocates, the chosen apostles of Jesus were not learned, their theology was not as pro- found and voluminous as was that of the Pharisees, or as that of Christendom, but they had the simple truth, they could testify of Christ, they had proven that "the Gospel was the power of God unto Salvation," and if their logic was ever deemed to be faulty, their testimony was staunch as the everlasting hills. There is no claim of superior learning or wisdom, among the elders of The Church; there is no assumption of special righteous- ness: there is no disposition to contend with or belittle those organizations and creeds which have been and are today precious to multitudes; there is no spirit of reproach; their labor is a labor of unselfish love. They are not professional ministers, but simply taken from the plough and the workshop, from the counter and the desk, to declare the glad tidings of great joy, and warn the nations by preaching the Gospel prior to the second coming of the Son of Man.