Now, my friends, does such a state of things exist around us in connection with the Christian churches that we might expect from the nature of a perfect religion, introduced by Christ? Does there exist, at the present time, a state of things so perfect as to agree with the expectations raised from the teachings of St. Paul in this Scripture that I have quoted? I think not. I am safe, I believe, in stating—and I think our friends are prepared to agree with me—that there does not exist amongst the Christian denominations, that unity and that oneness of faith, peace, kindness, and love which, by reading the New Testament, we might expect to appear amongst them as the true fruits of Christianity. And it is upon this I wish to make a few remarks before proceeding to explain to you, from the Bible, the nature of our faith.
Of course the existence of a number of denominations called "Christian" cannot be denied. But we are told that all the Christian churches exhibit to us one church: that if one denomination does not teach the whole perfect plan of religion revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ, all the churches put together do; although there may be divisions existing amongst the members of these denominations. Unless we accept this view we must object to Christianity on the ground that we cannot find which of all the Christian denominations teach the truth. Here is one church called Christian that teaches certain doctrines, another more or less in its teachings contradicts them, a third teaches doctrines that are in conflict with the other two; and so we might go through them all, and speak in like terms of those who think honestly enough that they are serving God.
Now, my friends, I will ask—First:—Is it reasonable to suppose that God would sustain two distinct religious churches as his churches? Is it reasonable to suppose that God would set up two distinct religious bodies, the ministers of which teach different doctrines? After learning from the Bible so much indicating the anxiety of God's inspired servants for a time of perfect unity, I say it is not reasonable to suppose it. And just so long as two distinct religious systems exist, teaching different doctrines and preaching different principles, there exist a conflicting influence, division, feelings perhaps very strong if the difference in doctrine is very decided. If it is not reasonable, what are we to do? How can we account for such a condition of things?
This leads to the position we occupy. We want to know something more.
Is it true that the bodies called "Christian" at present represent the Church of Christ? Or is it true that they have ignored some things belonging to the perfect doctrine of Christ, and taken as their guide, their own conclusions in regard to what is right, which leads to this division of doctrine? How is it? But I will endeavor to show that it is unscriptural as well as unreasonable for us to receive different Christian bodies as the Church of Christ.
I will direct your attention to a few passages from the word of God. Jesus, when he sent the Apostles to preach in the first place, said to them, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." Not any system that might be termed a Gospel. There was no choice left to anybody. He spoke definitely in regard to the Gospel plan which he, the Son of God, came to the earth to set up. Paul, in the first chapter of Galatians, 8th verse, says, "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Paul, one of the apostles, taught the Gospel, the same Gospel that Peter, James, John and others taught. They all taught the same system. And Paul said in another place, that he went up, by revelation to Jerusalem, taking Barnabas and Titus with him, and communicated the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles (Gal. ii, 1, 2), thus showing that he taught the same thing everywhere. You see, Paul's words and practice show that he did not admit of the least change or alteration from the Gospel as taught by Christ, and preached by the apostles to the people. In another place it is said, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrines of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son," (2 John ix,) showing us that he taught strictly the necessity of abiding in that form of doctrine which had at first been delivered. I quote these passages to show you that the Gospel which Christ and the apostles first taught was intended to be taught continually, without change, and that none had a right, not even an angel from heaven, to preach any other Gospel than that which had been delivered at the first.
Do you agree with this? Because I am about to examine, in detail, some of the doctrines that will readily show to you the difference between the ministers of the true Gospel, and the ministers of the so-called Gospels that are preached at the present time. But are you prepared to come to the conclusion, with me, that it is the old Gospel, Christ's Gospel, the doctrine of the apostles that we ought to seek and follow, if we expect eternal life? Or do you think you are safe in following the teachings of men, who have made great changes from the ancient Gospel, with the following passage before you? If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (2 John, 10th verse). Do you think you can obtain God's blessing by being members of a church or churches that teach doctrines opposed to what Christ taught? How is this?
"Well, certainly," says one—a Bible believer—"of course I wish to have the religion of the Bible. I would like to have the religion of Christ. I do not admit of any departure." This is right. This is consistent. Of course, if there is a question as to whether God has made any change in his primitive faith, revealed through Christ, we shall consider it; for I am willing also to make a change, if God has authorized it. I am quite willing to accept any doctrine that God has revealed from heaven for my salvation. I confess to you that I have no disposition whatever to maintain private views or speculations which may have been engendered on my own part, through reflection. I wish the doctrine of Christ, as Christ taught it, as the apostles taught it, and I will not, with the light that I possess, depart one particle from the letter and spirit of that ancient plan. And if there are any friends here who have heard that the Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe in the Bible, let them judge. There are no practices pleasing to God, or likely to bring his blessings upon the heads of the children of men, except those inculcated by him, through his servants by the power of revelation from heaven, so that we will not depart from the Book. We will not teach doctrines that are opposed to this book, but we are prepared to show our friends, in the spirit of kindness, that doctrines opposed to those contained in this Book are displeasing to God, and are not calculated to bring peace and salvation to the children of men.
"But," says one, "what matters it whether we go this road that you point out or some other? You know if we can get to heaven one way, is not that as good as another?" We will try to illustrate this idea. If a man wish to go to London, says the enquirer, may he not go the road that leads towards the south, or a road that leads towards the north, as the case may be; what matters it so that he gets to London? It would not matter in the least. He might go the road that led to the north, or that which led to the south, and by making a shorter or longer journey, as the case might be, he might get to London. But you see there is no parallel between this figure and the facts in regard to religion, because there are not two ways to get to heaven. This is the difference. There are two ways to get to London probably, perhaps more, but you see there is only one way to get to heaven, so that when we admit, as an illustration, a figure of this kind, we start with an error and it leads us astray.
The Bible speaks of one way. It speaks of two ways. It speaks of a broad road, that leads to destruction, and it speaks of a narrow way that leads to eternal life. So you see there is only one way that leads to heaven, and if any one persuades us that the wide road will lead us there, he deceives us, for there is only one way, and it is narrow. The Bible is very plain upon this, because the doctrines are steadfast and sure, and the words are plain that there is but one way that leads to life and glory. Now that is the way we want to find out.