4. Moses a High Priest.

Moses, in his character of official position and authority, was the type of the Christ.

The Lord says: "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in His mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."-Deut. xviii.18.

The new law-giver was to be the complete antitype of this Moses in the wilderness-combine in his official right all the authority incident to the meek man who led Israel from the first bondage. This antitype in his priestly office was in the "similitude of Melchisedec."-Heb. vii.15.

"Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people."-Isa. lv.4.

He was a prophet, priest, and king. "Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house." Heb. iii.2.

"And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after."-Ibid., iii.5.

Moses too then, was a "witness"-the great typical priest of his time. "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people."-Ibid., ix.19. This priest, also must have been "in the similitude of Melchisedec," for he was greater than Aaron in his official standing.

This purification by Moses foreshadowed the purification of the heavenly things by Christ.

"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.-Ibid., ix.23, 24.

Moses in his service in the tabernacle on earth typified in his act of purifying and entering the holy places, made with hands, the figures of the true,-that of the Christ as he entered heaven itself,-offering the better sacrifice; not to so enter makes the type untrue, if Christ entered heaven.

In the performance of this work Moses officiated in his priestly character, because there was no perfect representation of the "true," unless "the holy places" were purified and entered by such a high priest.

So it is written, "Moses and Aaron among my priests"; but Moses takes precedence of Aaron in all things as a high priest. "Moses himself, as the representative of the unseen king, is the consecrator, the sacrificer throughout these ceremonies" (setting Aaron and his sons apart to the priestly offices); "as the channel through which the others received their office, he has for the time a higher priesthood than that of Aaron. (De Syneder, i.1-16; Ugoline, xii.3.)"-Smith's Bible Dictionary, by HACKETT, VOI. III., page 2575.

"If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

"My servant Moses is not so who is faithful in all mine house."-Num. xii.6, 7.

Thus the high priest who entered yearly into the "holy place" (Heb. ix. 7) was not equal to the one who set up or purified the tabernacle, and first entered, who was the type of the true.

Moses was not only in his prophetic and priestly character a true type of the Messiah, but also in his kingship. "He was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together."-Deut. xxxiii. 5. Priest, king, judge, and ruler.

"Faithful in all mine house." His authority permitted him to act in all the offices of the house of God, and he performed his work faithfully as a prophet, high priest, and king.

And the song of Moses and the Lamb (Rev. xv.3) is to be sung by those who stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God, saying, "Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of Saints."

APPENDIX B

The divided opinion that has arisen regarding the parentage of "James, the Lord's brother," we may with propriety conjecture was on account, to some extent, at least, of a prevailing sentimentality that arose in after years, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was too immaculate to have borne children other than the Christ. Roman Catholics insist that Mary was "ever Virgin," and of course there has been an effort by various writers to bend history to conform to that opinion. Eminent writers are at variance upon this question, and it may be said, therefore, to be an open question. The plain facts seem to be that "James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas" were "brethren of the Lord, "all sons of Joseph, "the carpenter." (Matt. xiii.55; Mark iii.6.) Jesus, of course, was the ("supposed to be") son of Joseph, as the people in common did not understand in regard to his extraordinary conception. (Luke iii.26.) It should be borne in mind, however, that the people understood that they were children of the carpenter Joseph, and brothers to Jesus, and not cousins of his, as is held in many divergent theories. The confusion, or the formulation of many vague theories, arose from the excessive number of Jameses and Marys who lived at that time, and the strong disposition that prevailed afterwards to keep the mother of Jesus "ever Virgin." In John xix.25 we have presented "His mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." The name of the Virgin's sister is not given; but some suppose that her name was Mary, also and that she was the mother of the persons known as "brethren of the Lord"; and is to be identified with the Mary of Mark xiv.40, Matt. xxvii.56; but this view of the matter is repudiated by others. It is clear, however, that if they were the children of this sister of the Virgin, they were not the children of Cleophas, neither the children of Joseph by a previous marriage, or any other marriage with him, as is held by some writers, unless we allow him to have had two wives at the same time, the Virgin and the Virgin's sister, which would hardly be considered good philosophy in these Christian times. It is held again that "James the less" is to be identified with "James, the Lord's brother," and that he was the son of Cleophas or another of the Virgin's sisters; but neither is certain, and it is obvious that he could not be the son of both. The matter seems to be clear enough, if we accept that the people knew the truth of the matter, that James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas "were sons of the carpenter" and brothers of Jesus, and that Paul knew what he affirmed when he called "James, the Lord's brother." (Gal. i.19.) The position taken in "Presidency and Priesthood" in regard to James is not affected in either case, for none will deny that James was the next of age to Jesus in the family of Joseph, who by right of inheritance, became the head in the favored family, and first rights and prerogatives belonged to the eldest and nearest of kin, and not to the son of Zebedee. The following learned discussion in regard to James the son of Alphaeus and others may be read with both interest and profit, as this to many is a vexed question, but a vital one:-

"JAMES, the son of Alphaeus. He also was one of the apostles, and is mentioned in all the four lists (Matt. x.3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi.15; Acts i.13) by this name, but in no other place. It is, however, thought by some that he is the same with James, the Lord's brother. In Matt. xiii.55 and Mark vi.3 the brethren of the Lord are named James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. It is also to be remarked that they are in both places spoken of as the children of the carpenter; that is, of Joseph, the husband of the Virgin Mary. But it has been urged that they were called sons of Joseph and Mary because the children of two families-of Mary the Virgin and Mary the wife of Clopas, her half sister-were brought up together. Those who in this way make James, the Lord's brother, to be a son of Alphaeus, require to establish (a) that Clopas is the same name as Alphaeus; (b) that Mary the wife of Clopas (John xix.25) was the sister of the Virgin Mary; and (c) that this Mary, wife of Clopas, is the same who is called (Matt. xxvi.56; Mark xv.40) Mary the mother of James and Joses, and (Mark xvi.1; Luke xxiv.10) simply the mother of James, in which four passages the same person is intended. But the identity of the names Alphaeus and Clopas is by no means certain. Those who maintain it take Cleophas as the Aramaic Chalpai, and Alphaeus to be a Graecized form thereof. But when we turn to what might be supposed the best source of evidence on this point, viz., the Peshito version of the New Testament, instead of finding the two names treated as the same word, we find in all cases Chalpai where the Greek has Alphaeus, and where Clopas or Cleopas occurs, it is simply translated Kleopha. The same is the case with the Jerusalem Syriac. The identity of these names is thus far from being established. Then in John xix.25 the versions and best authorities are in favor of making four persons; of those there mentioned, 'his mother and his mother's sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.' This is the Peshito rendering, and, even if the conjunction were not there, it is not uncommon in Scriptural enumeration to find names given in pairs without any conjunction, while to make Mary the wife of Clopas the Virgin's sister would be to assume two Mary's in the same family of sisters, which is not very probable. Whether Mary wife of Clopas was the mother of James (called in one place 'the little') and of Joses can neither be asserted nor denied from the evidence in the Gospel; but when the other two assumptions have so little foundation to rest on, it seems impossible to consider the son of Alphaeus the same person with the 'brother of the Lord.'

"Further, James, the Lord's brother, was bishop of Jerusalem (Comp. Gal. i.19 with Gal. ii.9-12), and was president of the church in its earliest days (Acts xii.17, xv.3, xxi.18). Such a position required him to be a resident in Jerusalem, while had he been an apostle (as the son of Alphaeus was) we should have expected him to take his share of the missionary labor of publishing the gospel in distant lands. But this bishop of Jerusalem was the author of the epistle of St. James. He simply styles himself in the introduction thereto 'Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.' He who could thus write with the certainty of being identified must have been the most famous person of his name in the church, must have been what St. Paul, in a passage (Gal. ii.9) where he places James before both Peter and John, calls him 'a pillar' of the Christian society. . . .

"It seems right, therefore, to conclude that James the son of Alphaeus, one of the apostles, was a different person from James the Lord's brother and bishop of Jerusalem. Of the history of the former we are told nothing except that he was an apostle. The latter is spoken of by St. Peter (Acts ii.17) as if he were at that time the recognized head of the Christian community in Jerusalem. Again (Acts iv.13), after the debate at Jerusalem about the circumcision of the Gentiles, it is he who sums up the arguments and declares the sentence of the council as if he were the chief person among them.

"He was put to death by order of Ananus, the high priest, by being thrown from a pinnacle of the temple, immediately before the destruction of Jerusalem."-Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. III., pages 592 and 593.

APPENDIX C

"JUDE, the writer of the Epistle of St. Jude (foreign word) calls himself (verse 1) 'the brother of James.' In primitive Christian times, among Judaeo-Christians, to whom this Epistle, from the nature of its contents, must have been addressed, there was but one James who could thus be spoken of without any further description, viz., James 'the Lord's brother.' The writer of this Epistle, then, claims to be the Judas named among the brethren of the Lord in Matt. xiii.65; Mark vii.3. He seems himself to declare by implication that he was not an apostle (verse 17), and with this agrees the statement (John vii.5), that at a time not long before the crucifixion, the brethren of Jesus did not believe on him. And it is some confirmation of this position that the writer of the Epistle of St. James, in like manner, does not claim to be an apostle."[It is the evident position of the writer here that Jude and James disclaim to hold positions with the twelve apostles as such. That officially they did not belong to that body, yet Paul expressly states that James was an apostle. Gal. i.19.] "The brethren of the Lord are spoken of in Acts i.14 as distinct from the apostolic body, and are placed in the enumeration as though latest included among the believers and that their feelings toward Jesus should have been changed since his death and resurrection has been thought to be sufficiently explained by the assertion of St. Paul (1 Cor. xv.7) that the Lord had been 'seen of James' on one special occasion after he had risen from the dead. We conclude, therefore, that the writer of the Epistle was a different person from Jude the apostle, who appears also to have had the name Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus (Comp. Matt. x.3, Mark iii.18, with Luke vi.16, Acts 1.13).

"From the notices of the descendants of Jude, the brother of the Lord, preserved by Eusebius (H. E., iii.19, 23) from Hegessippus, we should conclude that they were resident in Palestine. It seems natural, therefore, to suppose that the Epistle was written in Palestine, and, it may be, for some Jewish converts in some district of that country. But of this we can have no certainty. If, as seems to be intimated by Hegessippus, Jude was dead in the time of Domitian, we perhaps shall not be far wrong in assigning the composition of the Epistle to about 80 A. D." It "appears to have been written after the second Epistle of St. Peter."-Encyclopedia Britannica, pages 771, 772.

It appears from a statement of Paul (1 Cor. ix.5) that the "Brethren of the Lord" were prominent persons in the church in his time. They are mentioned in connection with Cephas and other apostles.

APPENDIX D

It should be constantly borne in mind that the title of bishop was not applied to James in order to designate the chief officer in the Church in the time of the apostles. The learned do not know what title of office he bore. The term bishop was applied by more modern writers to the chief officer of the ancient church, because by that title they assumed to designate their own chief officer or officers of the clergy, not knowing by what name the first officer in the Jerusalem church was known. Some say he had no distinctive title. But Paul says he was an apostle (Gal. i.19), and it is quite evident that he was not a member of the College of Twelve Apostles. Following the tradition of the elders in the belief that there could be but twelve apostles at one time, the learned are at a loss to know what to do with the thirteenth one, it would seem, so they concluded, as he had no other distinctive title, to call him bishop. It is assumed, however, that bishops succeeded to the offices of the apostles after the death of the latter, and that the apostolic office is in the Episcopate, the chief bishop being the head or Pope. But in the time of the apostles the apostolic office was one thing and that of bishop was quite another, and both classes of offices and officers existed in the church at the same time. Just how, in after ages, the apostolic office became blended with that of the bishop, wherein it lost its identity, or was superseded altogether by that of the bishop, or that the apostolic office is in the Episcopate, is much easier to assert than to prove, or even show to be reasonable. The following learned discussion of the distinction between presbyters and bishops may be read with both interest and profit. Also what is added under the head of Patriarch, Evangelist, and Prophet.

RELATION OF PRESBYTERS TO BISHOPS

"What were the primitive relations of presbyters to bishops, is a question which cannot be overlooked; yet to which, with evidence at present available, only a tentative answer can be given. Most probably, as the former were of Jewish, so the latter were of Gentile, origin, as the former presided over Jewish, so the latter in the first instance presided over Gentile communities. Hence when the distinction between Gentile, and Jewish communities began to fade away, the two sets of officers, fulfilling as they did analogous functions, were regarded as having equivalent rank. This point must be taken as having been conceded by almost all important writers upon the subject in ancient and modem times. . . . .

"It must be, however, noted that there is a tendency in many writers to press the evidence too far, and to infer an original identity of bishops and presbyters. Whereas all that can be legitimately inferred is as stated above (an equivalence of rank). As intercommunion increased between Judaeo-Christian and Gentile communities, those who passed from one to the other tended to use the names bishop and presbyter interchangeably, but how the two offices came to coexist as distinct offices in the same community is the most difficult point in the whole complex question; nor does it seem possible upon existing evidence to give any other than the general answer that there was a fusion of the Judaeo-Christian and the Gentile organizations, and this fusion was a gradual one. But whether this or some other be the true explanation of the coexistence of the two offices, the fact of such coexistence must be admitted, though its universality may be denied. Out of the fact two other questions spring: (1) How was it that the relative rank of the two offices changed from one of equivalence to one of subordination? (2) and how was it that the title episcopate, rather than any other, attached permanently to the head of the ecclesiastical organization?

(1.) "To the first question many answers have been given, in both ancient and modern times, when, as early as the end of the fourth century, Aerius appealed to St. Paul's language as evidence that bishops and presbyters were not identical, though admitting that the difference between the two orders lay only in the power of ordination. He propounded the theory that in some cases bishops had been appointed and not presbyters, and in other presbyters but not bishops. In either case, however, deacons were necessary, and hence St. Paul speaks sometimes of deacons and bishops, sometimes of deacons and presbyters. Assuming that Timothy was (1) a bishop, (2) a bishop in the latter sense, he regards the command 'Rebuke not an elder' (I Tim. v.1) as conclusive proof of the superiority of the one order to the other. Almost contemporary with this was the theory of Jerome, that the episcopate rose out of the presbyterate as a safeguard against schisms. At first there were several presbyters in one church, but afterwards one was selected to preside over the rest. . . .

"Later theories on the subject are so numerous as to make the discussion of them an almost endless task; and it must be sufficient here to refer to the more important of those which have been advanced during the present century.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It may be useful to point out that in all probability the question does not admit of a single answer, and that the relations of presbyters to bishops varied widely in the several groups into which the churches of the first two centuries may be arranged.

(a.) The case of Jerusalem stands on a peculiar footing. The Acts of the Apostles preserves the tradition, which is confirmed by later authorities, that James had a kind of a presidency over the Judaeo-Christian community which existed there. The nature of that presidency is uncertain. The Clementines speak of him as 'episcopas,' but there is no contemporary evidence of his having possessed the designation; nor, even if the tradition of the two hundredth century be admitted as to the possession of the destination, is there any such evidence to show how far the relation in which he stood to the other apostles or to the 'elders' was analogous to that which existed between the bishops and presbyters of later time. The most probable conjecture is, that in this case the conception of a visible head of the church arose from the belief in the nearness of the second advent.

"James, as the Lord's brother, was regarded as occupying His place until He came. It is also probable that, as Gfrorer thinks,

after the fall of Jerusalem, men's thoughts turned to Rome as the centre of the Christian organization, and that the pseudopetrine literature of the second century, which originated at Rome, had for its chief object to impress the hierarchical ideas, of which it is full, upon the Roman mind. . . .

"(b.) In the larger communities, such as Rome and Ephesus, in which the influence of a single apostle had for some years dominated, it was natural that the monarchial ideas should tend to prevail after the apostle himself had passed away. The existence of such a dominance is here assumed. . . . In such communities, therefore, there is strong historical evidence to show that from early times there was a recognized and permanent president. But here also there is no evidence to show the precise relation in which the president stood to the presbyterate. It is, however, a significant fact that Irenaeus speaks of the early heads of the Roman Church as presbyters. . . .

(c.) In the cases of the churches of other cities, in which, it must be borne in mind, there is no evidence of the existence of a president or bishop until the middle of the second century, it appears to be sufficient to point to the general analogy of the contemporary communities, after which, in so many respects, the early churches were modelled. Democratical as those communities were in the main, they still had a president. We find such a president (a) in the Greek associations under several titles. . . .

"A presiding officer became indispensable, and the officer so appointed was known by the title which was in current use to designate the financial officer of the community.

"This function of the Christian bishop continued to be a primary one, even after many other functions clustered around his office. It is not sound to reason from the functions of bishops in the third or fourth centuries to their functions in the first; but at the same time, the fact that the bishops were the custodians and dispensers of church funds in the later period corroborates the inference which is drawn from other data, that they were so also in the earlier. . . .

"The custodian of the church funds was also the custodian of the lists of persons among whom those funds were to be divided. . . . Hence also the bishop, as custodian of the list, was the proper officer for giving certificates of membership (that is, one entitled to benefits from the church treasury).

"The jealous care with which the right of giving it was guarded, shows the importance which was attached to it, and supports the inference that it played no inconsiderable part in the exaltation of the episcopate in relation to the presbyterate.

"The presbyterate also lost ground in the second century, through the large development within the churches of opinions which were at variance with the general currents of apostolic doctrine. It became necessary to distinguish between the true and the false traditions. . . . The bishop, who had by this time begun to be prominent above the presbyters, was regarded as a kind of incarnate tradition, the pure and uncorrupted spring of apostolic truth. These causes operated with different degrees of force in different communities; and it is by no means certain when the subordination of the order of the presbyters to a single officer first became general. The evidence, whether for the existence of bishops or for their superior authority, cannot be pressed further than the facts warrant. . . . It may be admitted that bishops existed as church officers, without also admitting that they occupied in relation to the presbyterate the same position which they occupied afterwards. . . . But by the beginning of the third century, the organization of most all churches had begun to conform to a single type, bishop, presbyters, and deacons. In some places the older organization lingered on, and there are many indications that the presbyters did not allow their privileges to be curtailed without a struggle. That struggle came to a head in Montanism, and the triumph of the episcopate over the presbyterate was by no means secure until Montanism was crushed. . . . When this type was once established, several circumstances combined to render the subordination of the presbyterate more complete. But even after these influences had begun to operate, the difference between the two orders was rather a difference of rank than of function.-Smith and Cheatham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, pages 1700, 1701, 1702,1703.

APPENDIX E

The following was written by Cobbett also, who was raised in the Established Church of England, but who writes with a strong Catholic bias, so much so that one is inclined to believe that his preferred faith was Roman Catholic, rather than the faith of the English Church; and hence he can be relied upon to state favorably the Roman Catholic faith, and the facts at least concerning the rise and the establishment of the Church of England, as his nearest relatives were members of that church, and he himself was raised in it, and there is no statement made that he ever left it.

"(40.) The Catholic Church originated with Jesus Christ himself. He selected Peter to be the head of his church. This apostle's name was Simon; but his master called him Peter, which means a stone or rock; and he said, 'On this rock will I build my church.' Look at the Gospel of St. Matthew, xvi.18, 19, and that of St. John xxi.15, and onward, and you will see that we must deny the truth of the Scriptures, or acknowledge that here was a head of the church promised for all generations.

"(41.) St. Peter died a martyr at Rome in about sixty years after the birth of Christ. But another supplied his place; and there is the most satisfactory evidence that the chain of succession has remained unbroken from that day to this. When I said, in paragraph 10, that it might be said that there was no Pope seated at Rome for the first three hundred years, I by no means meant to admit the fact; but to get rid of a pretence [pretense] which, at any rate, could not apply to England, which was converted to Christianity by missionaries sent by a Pope, the successor of other Popes, who had been seated at Rome for hundreds of years. The truth is, that from the persecutions which, for the first three hundred years, the church underwent, the Chief Bishops, successors of St. Peter, had not always the means of openly maintaining their supremacy; but they always existed; there was always a Chief Bishop; and his supremacy was always acknowledged by the Church; that is to say, by all the Christians then in the world.

"(42.) Of later date, the Chief Bishop bas been called, in our language, the POPE, and in the French, PAPE. In the Latin he is called PAPA, which is a union and abbreviation of the two Latin words, Patr Patricoe, which means father of fathers. Hence comes the appellation of Papa, which children of all Christian nations give to their fathers; an appellation of the highest respect and most ardent and sincere affection. Thus, then, the POPE, each as he has succeeded to his office, became the chief or head of the Church: and his supreme power and authority were acknowledged, as I have observed in paragraph 3, by all the bishops and all the teachers of Christianity, in all nations where that religion existed. The Pope was and is assisted by a body of persons called Cardinals or Great Councillors [Councilors]; and at various and numerous times, councils of the church have been held, in order to discuss and settle matters of deep interest to the unity and well-being of the church. These councils have been held in all the countries of Christendom. Many were held in England. . . .

"At the time when this religion was introduced, England was governed by seven kings, and that state was called the HEPTARCHY. The people of the whole country were PAGANS. Yes, my friends, our ancestors were pagans. They worshipped gods made with hands, and they sacrificed children on the altars of their idols. . . . Now, please to bear in mind that this great event took place in the year 596. The Protestant writers have been strangely embarrassed in their endeavors to make it out that, up to that time or thereabouts, the Catholic Church was pure, and trod in the steps of the apostles; but that after this time, that church became corrupt. They applaud the character and acts of Pope Gregory; they do the same with regard to Austin. shame would not suffer them to leave their names out of the calendar, but still they want to make it out that there was no pure Christian religion after the Pope came to be the visible and acknowledged head, and to have supreme authority. There are scarcely any two of them that agree upon this point. Some say that it was 300, some 400, some 500, and some 600, before the Catholic Church ceased to be the true church of Christ. But none of them can deny, nor dare they attempt to, that it was the Christian religion as practised [practiced], at Rome; that it was the Roman Catholic religion that was introduced into England in the year 596, with all its dogmas, rites, and ceremonies and observances, just as they all continued to exist at the time of the Reformation, and as they continue to exist in that church even unto this day.

"But further regarding, Henry VIII., (61.) This king succeeded his father, Henry VII., in the year 1509. He succeeded to a great and prosperous kingdom, a full treasury, and a happy, contented people, who expected in him the wisdom of his father without his avarice, which seemed to have been that father's only fault. Henry VIII. was eighteen years old when his father died. He had had an elder brother, named Arthur, who, at the early age of twelve years, had been betrothed to Catherine, fourth daughter of Ferdinand, King of Castile and Arranon. When Arthur was fourteen years old, the Princess came to England and the marriage ceremony was performed; but Arthur, who was a weak and sickly boy, died before the year was out, and the marriage never was consummated; and, indeed, who will believe it could be? Henry wished to marry Catherine, and the marriage was agreed to by the parents on both sides; but it did not take place until after the death of Henry VII. The moment the young king came to the throne, he took measures for his marriage. Catherine being, though only nominally, the widow of his deceased brother, it was necessary to have from the Pope, as supreme head of the church, a dispensation, in order to render the marriage lawful in the eye of the canon law. The dispensation, to which there could be no valid objection, was obtained, and the marriage was, amidst the rejoicings of the whole nation, celebrated in June, 1509, in less than two months after the king's accession.

"(62.) With this lady, who was beautiful in her youth, and whose virtues of all sorts seem scarcely ever to have been exceeded, he lived in the married state seventeen years, before the end of which he had three sons and two daughters by her, one of whom only, a daughter, was still alive, who afterward was Mary, Queen of England. But now, at the end of seventeen years, he being thirty-five years of age, and eight years younger than the queen, and having cast his eyes on a young lady, an attendant on the queen, named Anne Boleyn, he, all of a sudden, affected to believe that he was living in sin, because he was married to the widow of his brother; though as we have seen, the marriage between Catherine and the brother had never been consummated, and though the parents of both parties, together with his own council, unanimously and unhesitatingly approved of his marriage, which had moreover been sanctioned by the Pope, the head of the church; of the faith and observances of which, Henry himself had, as we shall see hereafter, been long since his marriage a zealous defender.

"(63.) But the tyrant's passions were now in motion, and he resolved to gratify his beastly lust, cost what it might in reputation, in treasure, or in blood. He first applied to the Pope to divorce him from the queen. He was a great favorite with the Pope; he was very powerful; there were many strong motives for yielding to his request; but that request was so full of injustice, it would have been so cruel towards the virtuous queen to accede to it, that the Pope could not and did not grant it. . . .

"The tyrant now became furious, resolved upon overthrowing the power of the Pope in England, upon making himself the head of the church in this country, and upon doing whatever else might be necessary to ensure the gratification of his beastly desires and the glutting of his vengeance.

"(65.) . . . .The tyrant being now both pope and king, made Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury. . . . (67.) It was now four or five years since the king and Cranmer had begun to hatch the project of the divorce; but, in the meanwhile, the king had kept Anne Boleyn, or in more modern phrase, she bad been 'under his protection' for about three years. . . . (68.) A private marriage took place in January, 1533. . . . It became necessary to avow her marriage; it was also necessary to press onward the trial for the divorce; for it might have seemed rather awkward, even amongst 'reformation' people, for the king to have two wives at the same time! Now, then, the famous ecclesiastical Judge Cranmer had to play his part. . . .

"(69.) The king granted a license to hold a spiritual court for the trial of the divorce of Queen Catherine. . . . Cranmer opened his court (at Dunstable), and sent a citation to the queen to appear before him, which citation she treated with the scorn it deserved. When he had kept his court open the number of days required by the law, he pronounced sentence against the queen, declaring her marriage with the king null from the beginning. . . . (73.) Cranmer held another court at Lambeth; at which he declared that the king had been lawfully married to Anne Boleyn; and that he now confirmed the marriage by his pastoral and judicial authority, which he derived from the successors of the apostles. . . . She (Anne) was delivered of a daughter (who was afterwards Queen Elizabeth). This did not please the king, who wanted a son, and who was quite monster enough to be displeased with her on this account. The couple jogged on apparently without quarrelling [quarreling] for about three years. . . .The husband, however, had plenty of occupation, for, being now 'head of the church,' he had a deal to manage; he had, poor man, to labor hard at making a new religion, new articles of faith, new rules of discipline. . . . Besides which, he had, as we shall see in the next number, some of the best men in his kingdom, and that ever lived in any kingdom or country, to behead, hang, rip up, and cut into quarters. . . . (72) In January, 1536, Queen Catherine died. She had been banished from the court. She had seen her marriage annulled by Cranmer, and her daughter and only surviving child bastardized by act of Parliament; and that husband, who had five children by her, that 'reformation' husband, had had the barbarity to keep her separated from, and never to suffer her, after her banishment, to set her eyes on, that only child! . . . In just three months and sixteen days from this (the day of the deceased queen's burial) she (Anne) died herself; not, however, as the real queen had died, in her bed, deeply lamented by all the good, and without a soul on earth to impute to her a single fault, but on a scaffold, under a death-warrant signed by her husband, and charged with treason, adultery, and nicest. . . . (75.) But before Anne was executed, our friend Thomas Cranmer had another tough job to perform. The king, who never did things by halves, ordered, as 'head of the church,' the archbishop to hold his spiritual court, and to divorce him from Anne. . . . (76.) He cited the king and queen to appear in his 'court'! His citation stated that their marriage had been unlawful, that they were living in adultery, and that, for the 'salvation of their souls,' they should come and show cause why they should not be separated. They were just going to be separated most effectually; for this was on the 17th of May, and Anne, who had been condemned to death on the 15th, was to be and was executed on the 19th! They both obeyed his citation, and appeared before him by their proctors; and after having heard these, Cranmer, who, observe, afterwards drew up the Book of Common Prayer, covered up the blasphemous phrase by pronouncing, 'in the name of Christ, and for the honor of God,' that the marriage 'was, and always had been, null and void! Thus was the daughter, Elizabeth, bastardized by the decision of the very man who had not only pronounced her mother's marriage lawful, but had been the contriver of that marriage. On the 19th Anne was beheaded in the Tower, put into an elm coffin and buried there. . . . (77.) On the 15th she is condemned as the wife of the king, on the 17th she is pronounced never to have been his wife, and on the 19th she is executed for having been his unfaithful wife. . . . What man, with an honorable sentiment in his mind, is there, who does not almost wish to be a foreigner, rather than be the countryman of Cranmer and Henry the VIII.?"-WILLIAM COBBETT's History of the Protestant Reformation, chapter second, pages 19 to 35.

"It is noteworthy that the Constantinople 'Typecum' expressly forbids St. Peter to be called the Apostle of Rome, inasmuch as he was a teacher and enlightener of the whole world; and it hints that if any place is to be connected with his name, it should be Antioch (Daniel, Codex Lit. iv. 261)."-Smith and Cheatham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, page 106.

APPENDIX F

The following is a fair and conservative presentation of the origin and views of Congregationalists, which may be read in connection with what is already written of them, beginning on page 166 of this book.

"The Rev. John Robinson is regarded as the father of Congregationalists. He organized a dissenting church in the north of England in 1602, but was driven, with his followers, by persecution, into Holland. They settled at Leyden, and there conducted 'their church according to the principles which still prevail in New England. There was full sympathy between Robinson and his followers and the Puritans of England in some points, but they differed in others. It was the younger portion of Robinson's congregation that composed the band of 'Pilgrims' that sailed for America in the 'Mayflower' and made the first settlement in New England, in 1620. There is no 'Congregational Church' in this or any other country, in the sense in which the word is usually applied. But there is a collection of Congregational churches who constitute the denomination. The Congregationalists define a church to be an organization of professed believers statedly meeting at one place, and united together by a covenant or agreement, mutually to watch over and edify each other; and for the maintenance of the ordinances of the Gospel. A church, as thus understood, differs from a congregation, which includes all those who assemble in a place of worship, non-communicants as well as communicants.

"A church also differs from 'a society,' which is a legal phrase, intended to represent those persons who are incorporated by the law of the land for the purpose of holding and transferring property and providing for the expenses of the church. The church also differs from the 'parish,' which last is a term properly employed only to designate territorial limits. Congregationalists insist upon the competence of each church to elect its own officers.

"The internal structure of Congregationalist societies is of the simplest nature. Their only officers are pastors and deacons, for the office of ruling elder was abolished about the year 1745, first at Plymouth, and afterwards in all the churches.

"The deacons are elected from and by the church members. The pastors are chosen by the members of the church from among those persons who are already in the ministry, and settled over the churches, or are recommended by well known clergymen as fit to assume the functions of the pastoral office. In electing a pastor it is usual for the 'church' to nominate a person to the 'society,' and upon the concurrence of the latter, to give an invitation to the latter to settle. Provision for the pastor is made either by a voluntary subscription or a tax, or from the pew rents. When a pastor who is selected accepts the congregation tendered him, he is inducted into office by a council of ministers; being ordained by them if he has never before been set apart to the ministry; otherwise simply installed. . . . The pastor is the moderator of the church, the spiritual counsellor [counselor] of its members, their authorized teacher, and has full control over the pulpit, administers the ordinance of baptism and the Lord's Supper, and performs the marriage ceremony. The deacons distribute the alms of the church, visit the sick and needy, and are the counsellors [counselors] of the minister whenever he desires the benefit of their advice. Congregationalists believe in the purity of the ministry, and hold that there is but one order of ministers. The deacons they regard as belonging to the laity. Licentiates are not ministers, but merely candidates for the sacred office. Those ministers who are employed to preach to the church from one year to the other, without being installed, are termed supplies. The terms bishop and elder are not often used by Congregationalists, but when they are employed, are intended merely to represent the pastors. Excommunication is enforced as the penalty upon those who make themselves amenable to church discipline by irregularities of conduct.

"The liturgy and form of worship of Congregationalists are simple. . . . The doctrine, of the Orthodox Congregationalists are in all essential points the same as those taught in the Westminster Confession of 1643. In other words, they are Calvinists in faith, believing in absolute decrees in reference to man's salvation. They believe in man's total depravity by nature, and in his eternal punishment in hell if he does not repent before death. They admit infants' baptism and practise [practice]. In 1785 the Congregationalists were divided, and now form two distinct organizations: those having the orthodox faith, and those whose religious views are Unitarian. The latter control Harvard University." History of Religious Denominations of the World, both ancient and modern, in the Holy Bible, by Gay Bros. & Co., 27 Barclay Street, New York.

EVANGELISTS, PATRIARCHS, PROPHETS

These officers are alluded to here in order to present, as nearly as possible, the relative positions held by them in the early Christian Church, so far as may be learned from history, tradition, or the ancient languages, although it is but little that is known by even the most learned and sagacious of men. It is conceded, however, from what is known, that the classes of officers named formed a part of the early Christian ministry.

EVANGELISTS

"The constitution of the Apostolic Church included an order or body of men known as Evangelists. The absence of any detailed account of the organization and practical working of the church of the first century leaves us in some uncertainty as to their functions and positions.

The meaning of the name, 'the publishers of glad tidings,' seems common to the work of the Christian ministry generally, yet in Eph. iv.11 . . . Assuming that the apostles here, whether limited to the twelve or not, are those who were looked on as the special delegates and representatives of Christ, and therefore higher than all others in their authority, and that the prophets were men speaking, under the immediate impulse of the Spirit, words that were mighty in their effects on men's hearts and consciences, it would follow that the evangelists had a function subordinate to theirs, yet more conspicuous, and so far higher than that of the pastor's who watched over a church that had been founded, and of the teachers who carried on the work of systematic instruction. This passage accordingly would lead us to think of them as standing between the two other groups sent forth as missionary preachers of the gospel by the first, and as such preparing the way for the labors of the second.

"The same inference would seem to follow the occurrence of the word as applied to Philip in Acts xxi.8.-Smith's Bible Dictionary, page 786, by HACKETT.

PATRIARCH

The title patriarch seems to have been introduced into the Christian church from the latter organization of the Jews. In pre-Christian times there was a subdivision of the tribe, and one of the titles of the heads of these subdivisions was patriarch. . . . The title seems to have been in use in the Christian churches before its extinction among the Jews. The earliest references to it are vague; nor is it clear in what sense it was used, or to whom it was restricted. . . . In its most important use the title has been confined to the bishops of the five sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem."-Smith and Cheatham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, page 1573.

PROPHETS

"We find, therefore, that there were prophets in the oldest church, that of Jerusalem (Acts xi.27; xv.32), and again that there were 'prophets and teachers' in the church at Antioch. (Acts xiii.1.) These were not office bearers chosen by the congregation, but preachers raised up by the Spirit and conferred as gifts on the church. When Paul says (I Cor. xii.28; cf. Eph. iv.11), 'God has set some in the church, first, apostles; second, as prophets; third, as teachers,' he points to a state of things which in his time prevailed in all the churches, both of Jewish and heathen origin. We here learn from Paul that the prophets occupied the second position in point of dignity; and we see from another passage (1 Cor. xiv.) that they were distinguished from the teachers by their speaking under the influence of inspiration,-not, however, like the 'speakers in tongues,' in unintelligible ejaculations and disconnected words, but in articulate, rational, edifying speech.

"Until recently it was impossible to form any distinct idea of the Christian prophets in the post-apostolic age, not so much from want of materials as because what evidence existed was not sufficiently clear and connected. It was understood, indeed, that they had maintained their places in the churches till the end of the second century, and that the great conflict with what is known as Montanism had first proved fatal to them, but a clear conception of their position and influence in the churches was not to be had. But the discovery by Bryennios, of the ancient Christian work, called [foreign words] has immensely extended the range of our knowledge. . . .

"The most important facts known at present about the manner of life, the influence, and history of the early Christian prophets are the following: (1.) Down to the close of the second century the prophets (or prophetesses) were regarded as an essential element in a church possessing the Holy Ghost. Their existence was believed in, and they did actually exist, not only in the Catholic congregations-if the expression may be used but also in the Marcionite church and the Gnostic societies. Not a few Christian prophets are known to us by name; as Agabus, Judas, and Silas in Jerusalem; Barnabas, Simon Niger, etc., in Antioch; in Asia Minor, the daughters of Philip, Quadratus, Ammia, Polycarp, Meleto, Montanus, Maxmilla, Priscilla; in Rome, Hermas; among the followers of Basilides, Barkabbas and Barkop; in the community of Apelles, Philumene, etc.

"(2.) Till the middle of the second century the prophets were the regular preachers of the churches, without being attached to any particular congregation. While the 'apostles' (i. e., itinerating missionaries) were obliged to preach from place to place, the prophets were at liberty either, like the teachers, to settle in a certain church, or travel from one to another. (3.) In the time of Paul the form of prophecy was reasoned exhortation iii a state of inspiration; but very frequently the inspiration took the form of ecstasy-the prophet lost control of himself, so that he did not remember afterwards what he had said. In the Gentile Christian churches, under the influence of pagan associations, ecstasy was the rule, (4.) With regard to the matter of prophecy, it might embrace anything that was necessary, or for the edification of the church. The prophets not only consoled and exhorted by the recital of what God had done and predictions of the future, but they uttered extempore thanksgivings to the congregational assemblies, and delivered special directions, which might extend to the most minute details, as, for example, the disposal of church funds. (5.) It was the duty of the prophets to follow in all respects the example of the Lord, and to put in practice what they preached. But an ascetic life was expected of them only when, like the apostles, they went about as missionaries, in, which case the rules in Matt. x, applied to them. Whenever, on the contrary, they settled in a place, they had a claim to a liberal maintenance at the hands of the congregation. The author of the [foreign word] even compares them to the high priests of the Old Testament, and considers them entitled to the first fruits of the Levitical law. In reality, they might justly be compared to the priests, in so far as they were the mouthpieces of the congregation in public thanksgiving."-Encyclpoedia Britannica, Vol. XIX., page 822.

APPENDIX G

THE PRESIDENT OR CHIEF OFFICER IN THE CHURCH IN THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES. JAMES OR PETER, WHICH?

Since the publication of Presidency and Priesthood, in which the claim is made that James, the Lord's brother, was the chief or presiding officer in the church in the time of the apostles, various opinions have been passed and criticisms made in opposition to the position, and a theory has been advanced that Peter was the president and visible head of the church in his time. Chief among the publications attacking the position taken in Presidency and Priesthood is the Appendix to the Exegesis of the Priesthood, by Elder G. T. Griffiths, published in Cleveland, Ohio 1902.

As truth,-and to ascertain the proper station or place in the organization of the church in the first century of these distinguished gospel workers,-is the object doubtless, of all the several critics and writers engaged in this research, and each seems quite willing to have his position tried in an open and fair manner, the final result must be good to the student and general reader, and the attainment by all of a more correct, scriptural view touching the question, than that which has heretofore been arrived at through the accumulated traditions of the past.

At the outset of this examination, note is taken of the alarm expressed by a few, of the doubt that must be cast upon the work of the body by the attitude of two prominent officers in the apostolic quorum engaging in a controversy over church matters, or church history. What an error! The church of Christ is founded in the principles of free and full discussion; open and fair examination and research, the successful foes of error and superstition whenever and wherever wielded, and it may well be said that the old ship of Zion is being guided safely when men and women are left free to think and canvass all questions pertaining to its cargo or voyage. It was from such a sure and divine basis as this that the Apostle Paul could oppose in controversy the acts of the Apostle Peter, because, in his estimation of the case, "He [Peter] was to be blamed."-Galatians 2:11.

It is true that the author of the Exegesis of the Priesthood sets forth his views with a hint at secure intrenchment [entrenchment], and that serene complacency that challenges criticism, but since these are not the most certain marks of correctness of position, it is eminently proper that Presidency and Priesthood should be heard in reply. It is unpleasant, however, to be forced into controversy with so good a friend as Elder Griffiths; but he has announced that he is "conscientious" in the matter, and as there may be others following conscientiously the same view held by him, the more important it becomes to continue the examination.

There being no Bible text that makes a clear statement in favor of either position, the truth can only be determined by a comparison of what is presented on either side in support of the respective claims, in regard to which every one is entitled to his or her opinion. Unfortunately the article of Elder Griffiths is lengthy, and written in such a manner as to require a lengthy reply; but those interested can afford to read, if we can afford to write.

There is nothing new in the claim that Peter was at the head. This simply follows in a general sense Rome and Utah; the former puts the church on Peter; and the latter puts Peter on the church. Hoary sentiment is to be met in regard to Peter in either case. The Bible puts Peter in the church. (I Corinthians 12:28.)

To begin with, the writer of the Appendix fortifies himself with a statement, said to have been made by Joseph Smith the Seer, found in the Millennial Star for 1855, pp. 310, 311, which makes him to say that "the Savior, Moses, and Elias, gave the keys to Peter, James, and John on the Mount when they were transfigured before him." So in the mind of the writer of the Appendix, these three were constituted a first presidency, upon the Mount. Which, if true, Jesus should have abdicted, or declined serving in that capacity longer, for it would appear unseemly or confusing to have two sets of first presidents occupying at the same time and in so small a territory.

In the first place, Joseph could not have said anything of the kind as claimed in the light here presented, for it was not true; there is no fact to support such a presumption anywhere, and we prefer to say that he has been misstated. People will have to learn that even prophets must talk in harmony with facts as known, or they are not believed. Peter, James, and John were not "transfigured before him," as claimed. It was Jesus that was "transfigured." If Joseph ever said anything at all about this transaction, he certainly could not have been properly reported, and this is not singular, as there were no shorthand reporters to take it down, and only scraps and partial statements could have been secured at best.

This was published by the Utah people long after Joseph Smith's death. It is in harmony with their philosophy that the president of the Quorum of Twelve by right succeeds as the permanent president of the Church, so there is nothing strange that it is made to appear in the light it does, as it would be easy to read into it what was not said. The following shows that that could have occurred: "Since the death of the Prophet Joseph, the history has been carefully revised under the strict inspection of President Brigham Young, and approved by him." (History of the Church, by Utah Historian, page 5.) This will be sufficient as to the authority for our statement.

Second. There is no word upon record by either party who was upon the mount of transfiguration, that even hints that Peter, James, and John were either selected, received "keys," or were appointed or ordained to preside over the church. Peter, James, and John were present as witnesses on that occasion, and nothing more. Moses and Elias conversed with Jesus. It was Jesus that was both "transfigured" and administered unto upon the occasion. Moses and Elias "spoke of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem." The apostles were asleep on the ground much of the time, and what Peter did say he uttered not knowing what he said. The apostles were afraid. Jesus had promised that they should see the "kingdom of God come in power." This they evidently did see, and were also shown how they were to put off this mortal tabernacle, by and by, and they heard the voice, "This is my beloved Son; . . . hear ye him." It was Jesus that received honor and glory, not Peter, James, and John. The apostles bore witness to what they did see, as on other occasions. They were witnesses, not presidents. (See 2 Peter 1:17, 18; Matthew 17:1-9; Mark 9:27; Luke 9:28-34; Acts 1:8, 21, 22;22: 32; 3:15; 4:20-23; 5:33; 1 Peter 5:1; 2 Peter 1:16.)

Third. There was no call for Moses and Elias to appear in order to confer keys and authority on Peter, James, and John. Jesus was on earth and outranked them in every way. "When he bringeth his first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."-Hebrews 1:6; 1 Peter 3:22. Christ could have constituted Peter, James, and John a presidency, had he been so minded, without the aid of either Moses or Elias, or even the transfiguration. scene. That scene was for a very different purpose. Jesus had said, "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."-Matthew 16:28. "And after six days, Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John, his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold there appeared unto them Moses and Elias, talking with him."-Matthew 17: 1g3. The power and coming of Jesus Christ was shown forth, his decease at Jerusalem fore-told-how this mortal tabernacle is to be put off in death, the testimony of the Father to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God was renewed unto them, but not one word is said about the appointment of a presidency, ordination, or the bestowal of keys; all of this is assumed and worked in by those claiming Peter was at the head, without a single fact to support it.

Fourth. Just a few days after the transfiguration scene was the time alluded to when the dispute arose among the twelve as to which should be the greatest. Had Peter, James, and John been selected, appointed, ordained, or received keys upon the Mount, as chief leaders and presidents, this gave them a fine opportunity to make known their rights. But no they were silent about anything of the kind having taken place. When Jesus questioned them concerning the dispute had on the way, he, too had forgotten all about the advancement of the three, the receiving of keys, or ordination on the Mount. Why did he not tell the disciples that this favored three had been selected, received keys, ordination, and appointment as a presidency, and thus for ever have settled the controversy? But no he, too was as silent about any such thing having occurred as the other three, for the evident reason that no such thing ever occurred upon the Mount or elsewhere. Moses and Elias did not appear on the Mount to create a presidency, by giving keys, ordaining or appointing a head over Jesus. It was Christ that received "honor and glory," and the testimony that Jesus was the Christ was renewed unto the apostles by the voice heard, "This is my beloved Son; . . . hear ye him." The apostles were witnesses, so Peter testified, "We were eye witnesses of his majesty."

Again, Moses and Elias, had they been so disposed, could not have set apart or ordained a presidency upon the Mount, by any known rule, and certainly they would not have done so by any unknown rule, or right of law or precedent. "Every president of the high priesthood . . . is to be ordained by the direction of a high council or general conference."-Doctrine and Covenants 17:17. Was there a general conference or high council called upon the Mount? The transfiguration scene will not support the contention or theory that Peter, James, and John were constituted a first presidency over the church at Jerusalem at the time of the Savior's transfiguration, for there were neither keys bestowed, appointment made, nor ordination received. Hence when the claim for the transfiguration scene is examined it fails to support the contention made for it.

It is true that Jesus said to Peter, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."-Matthew 16:19. But Jesus evidently intended that the others of the twelve should share in this authority as well as Peter, although Peter was the one named in the address. Jesus addressed them all when he put his question, Peter answering as was common for him to do, and no doubt his answer was theirs also. The full meaning of what the Savior said may be seen in his statement to the twelve after his resurrection: "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."-John 20:21-23. This referred to the power conferred on the apostles to qualify them to carry out the commission to be given them, set forth in Mark 16:15: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

The same view is presented when the twelve in this last dispensation were authorized; the instruction is as follows: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant, Thomas, I have heard thy prayers, and thine alms have come up as a memorial before me, in behalf of those thy brethren who were chosen to bear testimony of my name, and to send it abroad among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people; and ordained through the instrumentality of my servants. . . .Let thy heart be of good cheer before my face, and thou shall bear record of my name, not only unto the Gentiles, but also unto the Jews; and thou shalt send forth my words unto the ends of the earth. . . . Now, I say unto you,-and what I say unto you I say unto all the twelve-Arise and gird up your loins, take up your cross, follow me and feed my sheep."-Doctrine and Covenants 105:1-6. This disposes of the idea that no one was to feed the "sheep" but Peter. But we read further: "and again I say unto you, that whosoever ye shall send in my name, by the voice of your brethren, the twelve, duly recommended and authorized by you shall have power to open the door of my kingdom unto any nation whithersoever ye shall send them," etc.-Ibid., paragraph 8. It really looks as though the twelve hold some "keys of the kingdom" and can represent that kingdom abroad, as well as at home, and all within the meaning of the phrase ("as pertaining to the twelve") that is set out as having such restricted meaning in the Appendix.

The Lord, speaking of this authority, says, "But purify your hearts before me, and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it, and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned. For unto you (the twelve), and those (the first presidency), who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fullness of times, which power you hold in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation; for verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation which ye have received, have come down from the fathers; and last of all being sent down from heaven unto you. Verily I say unto you, Behold how great is your calling!"-Ibid., paragraphs 11, 12, and 13. (The italics are mine to call special attention of reader.) There are "keys," a "calling," and authority enough here bestowed for Peter and associates ("as pertaining to the twelve"), or any one else to bear the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the full sense set out in the Scriptures, and, too, without being first presidents of the church or their being changed from the apostolic quorum. That there may be no mistake about the authority, power, and keys conferred upon the church in both ancient and modern times, and those who hold these keys, we cite the following: "The Melchisedec priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church, in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things."-Ibid., 104:3.

Who holds this authority in chief? Answer: "For unto you (the twelve), and those (the first presidency, who are appointed with you, to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given for the last days and for the last time," etc.-Ibid., 105:12. Again, "the twelve traveling counselors are called to be the twelve apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ, in all the world; thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. And they form a quorum equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned."-Ibid., 104:11., Also, "The twelve are a traveling, presiding high council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the presidency of the church and regulate all the affairs of the same, in all nations; first unto the Gentiles, and secondly unto the Jews."-Ibid., paragraph 12. The Lord counseled the twelve, "Exalt not yourselves; rebel not against my servant Joseph, for verily I say unto you, I am with him, and my hand shall be over him, and the keys which I have given unto him, and also to youward, shall not be taken from him till I come."-Ibid., 105:6. In the distribution of "keys" thus conferred, Thomas B. Marsh is set forth as favored as was Peter: "Verily I say unto you, my servant Thomas, thou art the man whom I have chosen to hold the keys of my kingdom (as pertaining to the twelve) abroad among all nations, that thou mayest be my servant to unlock the door of my kingdom in all places where my servant Joseph, and my servant Sidney, and my servant Hyrum, can not come; for on them I have laid the burden of all the churches for a little season; wherefore, whithersoever they shall send you, go ye, and I will be with you," etc.-Ibid., paragraph 7. No one need fail to see the similarity of keys, authority, and commission here conferred upon Thomas B. Marsh and associates, and that which was given to Peter and companions at Jerusalem (Matthew 16:19; John 20:23). Alike keys, authority, and commission-not as a presidency, but to travel in all the world.

Section 80, paragraph 1, Doctrine and Covenants is cited by the opposition: "Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belongeth always unto the presidency of the high priesthood." Certainly; but who constitutes the "presidency of the high priesthood"? Answer: "For unto you (the twelve) and those (the first presidency) who are appointed with you, to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fullness of times, which power you hold in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of creation; for verily I say unto you, The keys of the dispensation which you have received (the twelve and first presidency), have come down from the fathers; and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you."-Ibid., 105:12. Again, "The quorums in respect to authority are designed to take precedence in office as follows: . . . the parallels are: in the presidency, the president and his counselors; in the second presidency, the twelve; in the missionary work, first the twelve."-Ibid., 122:9. The keys were conveyed to this second presidency, as follows: "And the keys which I have given unto him, and also to youward, shall not be taken from him till I come." So there is a distribution of keys and authority; the first presidency hold the keys "pertaining" to it; and the second presidency hold the keys "pertaining" to it; and all keys held by either presidency are "keys of the kingdom." These two presidencies constitute the "presidency of the high priesthood;" not to mention the seventies and others who hold keys. It will be readily seen that there are "keys of the kingdom" involved here that "pertain" to the second presidency of the "high priesthood," that answer to every point of power and "keys" that were conferred on Peter, without an implication or hint that he was to be appointed a member of the quorum of the first presidency. Hence section 80 of Doctrine and Covenants does not prove nor sustain "emphatically," that Peter, James, and John were constituted a first presidency over the church at Jerusalem. Their calling and commission forbid it. Their constant labors abroad forbid it. Peter and associates constituted the second presidency. Christ was the first president, and after his ascension another was chosen. So we read: "Of necessity, there are presidents, or presiding offices, growing out of, or appointed of, or from among those who who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods. Of the Melchisedec priesthood, three presiding high priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office," etc.-Ibid., 104:11. Clement represents it thus: "Peter, James, and John, after the ascension of our Savior, though they had been preferred by our Lord, did not contend for the honor, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem."-Eusebius' History, p. 37. Hegesippus, who lived nearest the time of the apostles, in the fifth book of his commentaries, says: "But James, the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of this name, was surnamed the Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now, received the government of the church with the apostles."-Ibid., p. 64.

It is also claimed: "That this was designed as a peculiar honor to Saint James, in regard that he was the brother of Christ."-Antiquities of Christianity, p. 58; Christian Antiquities, by Bingham, vol. 1, p. 16. "For nothing is plainer," says Reverend J. W. Harding, D. D., "than that Saint James, the apostle (whom Saint Paul calls 'our Lord's brother' and reckoned with Peter and John one of the pillars of the church), was the same who presided among the apostles by his episcopal office, and determined the cause in the synod of Jerusalem. He was preferred before all the rest for his near relationship to Christ."-SacredBiography and History, p. 522. "That this James was the James who was named with Joses, Simon, and Judas, as one of our Lord's brethren, must be received as certain. But whether he was identical with James, the son of Alphaeus, who was one of the twelve, is a question much discussed, and on which eminent biblical scholars are found arrayed on opposite sides."-Pictorial Bible, by David C. Cook & Co., Chicago, Illinois. The children of Joseph and Mary were Jesus, James, Joses, Jude (Judas), Simon, and three daughters whose names were not given. (Matthew 13:55, 56; Galatians 1:19; 2:9, 12.) His brethren did not believe in Jesus as the Christ at first (John 7:5), and some of them not until a few days before the day of Pentecost (I Corinthians 15:7). James occupied a prominent position among the apostles, and was surnamed "the Just." James and Peter seem to have been in authority on equal terms when Paul was admitted to the fellowship of the apostles on the word of Barnabas (Acts 9:17; Galatians 1:18), and after that time he acts as the president of the council in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13), whose decrees he delivered formally, a position recognized and recorded by Paul (Galatians 2:9), and honored by a formal visit of ceremony in the presence of all the presbyteries (Acts 21:18). "He is believed to have been appointed bishop of Jerusalem by Jesus in a vision, . . . Eusebius says the appointment was by the apostles." (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 143, published at 1222 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1883.)

These eminent writers are quoted in evidence that it was not Peter, James, and John that presided over the church at Jerusalem, but James the Lord's brother. This is the main point presented in these references. As to whether this James was the son of Alphaeus or the Lord's brother, the son of Joseph and Mary, or was an "apostle," will be discussed further on. These writers view it as certain that this James was the president at Jerusalem. It is clear, too, that this James could not be the son of Alphaeus, because the son of Alphaeus was chosen as one of the original apostles (Matthew 10), and this James did not believe in Jesus at that time (Matthew 13:55; John 7:3), and it would be ridiculous to assume that Jesus placed a man who did not believe in him in the apostolic quorum. We shall produce further evidence from the writings of eminent authors that it was James that was constituted the president at Jerusalem, and that he was not the son of Alphaeus, nor did he belong to the college of apostles. It should be borne in mind that this theory that obtained, that James the Lord's brother was the son of Alphaeus, was an "invention" of Jerome, three hundred and fifty years after the time of Christ, presumably to cater to the Romish sentiment that Mary was "ever virgin"; a theory which has been the fruitful source of darkening counsel by all writers holding Romish views and superstitions in regard to the office and work of Peter. Later and better informed writers, who are further removed from Romish superstitions and traditions, present the matter in a better light, and more nearly in harmony with the scriptural view, as may be seen by a careful reading. George T. Pures, D. D., LL. D., recently Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis, in Princeton Theological Seminary, author of "Christianity in the Apostles' Age," writes (page 16): "Christianity originated in the appearance among the Jews of Jesus Christ, and especially from the belief in his Messiahship created by the events of his career, his teaching, and unique personality. The Gospels show that the immediate object of Jesus during his life was twofold. On the one hand, he offered himself to the Jews as one who had come from God to establish the kingdom of heaven, inveighed against current Judaisms as a false interpretation of God's commands, and summoned the people to accept him as the revealer of the true religious life. On the other hand, foreseeing from the start their rejection of him (see John 2:19; 3:11, 14, 19; Luke 4:24-27; Matthew 8:10, 12; 12:39, 41; Luke 11:49-51; Matthew 9:15; John 6:51-56; Matthew 16:21-23, etc.), he addressed himself to the task of attaching to himself and his teaching a nucleus of believers who should carry on, after his death, the establishment of the kingdom. But he did not organize them into a separate society, save by the appointment of twelve apostles. These he constituted his personal representatives and the official heads of the new Israel (Matthew 10:40; Mark 3:14, 15; Matthew 17:19; 18:18; 19:28; Mark 10:37; Luke 22:29, 30) ; but he attempted no further organization."

Page 11: "The apostles were the official witnesses (Acts 1:22; 10:41; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 4:5-8; John 21:14), though their testimony was confirmed by that of many others. . . .Peter, the most conspicuous witness in Acts,-the appearance of Jesus to whom is specifically mentioned by Luke (24:34) and Paul (I Corinthians 15:7),-never represents it as resting on his own testimony or that of any other individual, but on that of all the apostles." (See for example, Acts 2:32; 3:15; 10:41.)

Page 17: "The apostles returned from Jerusalem from their Lord's ascension, to wait for the promised Spirit, . . . the company, however, comprised more than the eleven apostles. Mention is made of certain women, who were perhaps wives of the disciples or others mentioned as witnesses of the resurrection, with perhaps still others who, like Mary and Martha of Bethany, had been followers of Jesus; . . . The mother of Jesus also belonged to the company, and with her were his brethren. The latter had not believed in his Messiahship even towards the close of his life (John 7:5). But to one of them, James, he had appeared after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7), and doubtless this, with the other evidence, had secured their faith." It will be noted that this doubting James, according to the theory set forth in the Appendix to the Exegesis, was placed as one of the original apostles, as the son of Alphaeus, which is absurd upon the face of it. His brethren did not believe in him, no matter whose children they were. After reciting the setting apart of Matthias to the apostleship, this writer continues, on page 23, "His [Peter's] conduct, therefore, shows that it was recognized by all that the new community had been organized by Christ under the direction of the body of apostles. Peter's prominence indicates neither that he occupied a position of primacy, nor that the authority of the apostolic body as a whole did not yet exist. His words imply quite the contrary. He was simply the most active leader of the governing body. The power of further organization had also been, it is clear, left by Christ with his disciples." Referring to further organization, page 41, he says, "The complaint of the Hellenists, however, suggested to the apostles the necessity of some arrangement to meet the difficulty; and this was accomplished in a way that satisfied all parties and harmonized with the supremacy of the apostles and the rights of the community. Seven men were chosen by the brethren and were set apart to the work by the imposition of hands of the apostles. Thus the apostles again appear as the authoritative founders of the church, whose special function, however, was teaching. The advance in organization, it should be noted, was brought about by the pressure of practical needs and without reference to any previous program. The whole congregation was recognized as having the right to choose their officials." Page 96: "Thus must be explained the origin of the Christian office of elder. No specific account of its institution is given. We simply find it existing; but there can be no question that it was copied from the office of the same name among the Jews. In each Jewish community the elders were the governing body." Speaking of the apostles, page 95, "But they now appear more and more to have directed their efforts to the superintendence and advancement of the cause at large. So Peter's activity, quite early in this period, is expressly described. (Acts 9:32.) So, too, had Paul, as we have seen, been sent forth to Selicia. From this time forth we hear no more of most of the original apostles. We can not doubt that they went abroad as tradition affirms (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 1) as missionaries and founders of new churches." Page 96: "Jerusalem indeed continued for many years to be headquarters of the faith, and to it they may have returned like Paul himself from time to time. But the progress and organization of the Judean churches appears to have delocalized the apostles and made it a traveling and scattered body, delivering in wider circles the gospel of the risen Lord."

It will be observed that Peter was no exception to this scattering: "And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda." It was thus while Peter was passing "throughout all quarters" that he was directed to the house of Cornelius. (Acts 9 and 10.) Peter is not president of the church here; he is simply out on a mission, and in the community where he was chief laborer as an apostle, he is sent to Cornelius. The apostles all scattered abroad now, Peter included, we ought to soon find some leading character in charge of the church at home, the headquarters. So this writer goes on, page 130, "After the Herodian persecution (A. D. 44) the most conspicuous individual among the Palestinian Christians was James 'the Lord's brother'" (Galatians 1:19; compare Galatians 2:9; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Josephus' Antiquities 29:1; Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 23). He is not to be identified with the apostle James, the son of Alphaeus, for the brethren of the Lord are distinguished by the evangelists from the apostles. (Matthew 12:46; John 7:3, 5; Acts 1:14.) Paul's language (Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 15:7) has indeed been thought to imply that James was an apostle, and the hypothesis has been advanced, that after the death of James, the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the brother of the Lord was chosen to fill his place. Others think that in these passages Paul, contrary to the usual custom, uses the term "apostle" in a loose sense. But his language does not impel either of these interpretations. That in Galatians 1:19 James is not necessarily to be included among the apostles is shown by the example of other sentences similarly constructed (see Romans 14; Luke 4:26) ; while in I Corinthians 15:7 the order of words in the original would seem to imply that James is rather distinguished from those included among them. As already observed, also, it is questionable whether he was meant to be included among the apostles by Luke in Acts 2:27. Certainly apart from these very doubtful witnesses, he is not called an apostle; and what is most significant, he does not so call himself in his epistle. It is more likely that after the apostolate had become delocalized by the progress of the organization of the Judean churches, James, who remained in Jerusalem, became the practical head of the Jewish Christians, and this leadership, on account of his personal character and high spiritual gifts, rather than because of any office held by him, became so marked that he exerted an influence equal to that of the apostles themselves (Galatians 2:9), and was remembered in after times as the head of the mother church. (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 1.)

At any rate the prominence and influence of James are beyond dispute. Peter, when fleeing from imprisonment, sent word of his escape to "James and brethren." (Acts 12:17.) At the council at Jerusalem James' opinion had decisive weight. (Acts 15:12, 21.) It was "certain from James" whose presence at Antioch led Peter to withdraw from fellowship with the Gentiles. (Galatians 2:12.) On Paul's final return to Jerusalem it was James and the elders who received him. (Acts 21:18.) The epistle witnesses to the authority and wide influence of its writer; and the author of Jude introduced himself to his readers as the brother of James. (Jude 1.) To this may be added the testimony of secular history and tradition. Josephus (Antiquities 20, 9, 1) relates that after the recall of Festus A. D. 62, the high priest Annus secured the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus, and some others, on the ground that they had broken the law, but that the better citizens complained of the act, so that in consequence Annus was removed from office by Agrippa II. The respect in which James was held by the whole city is attested by traditions. Hegesippus relates (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 23) that he was known as the "Just" and as the bulwark of the people; that he lived the life of a Nazarite; that he had a high reputation for piety of a rather ascetic type. But the evidence wherever we find it, discloses a man of large influence, impressive character, and intense piety according to the finest Hebrew ideals; one, therefore, most likely to attain to leadership among the Jewish disciples. (Page 132.)

"In order to form a still clearer image of James, we must go back to the Nazarene home in which Jesus was reared. The 'brethren of the Lord' were either the children of Joseph by a former marriage, or the children of Joseph and Mary born after Jesus. The latter view seems best to accord with the intimations of the gospels. The view advanced by Jerome and elaborated by others that they were the cousins of Jesus on his mother's side is beset with difficulties, of which it is sufficient to mention the fact that it identified James with the son of Alphaeus and so makes him one of the original apostles."-Page 133.

"There is still less foundation for the view that they were cousins of Jesus on Joseph's side. In any event James had been the daily associate of Jesus in the Nazarene home. We infer that from early life he had been an earnest, religious character, steeped in the teaching of the Old Testament and in later Hebrew literature. The tradition of his devoted piety can hardly have been without some foundation, yet with all of his piety James did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. This does not exclude, however, sympathy with much of Jesus' teaching, nor warm affection for his person. His unbelief may have been due to Jesus' rupture with many Jewish conventionalities; also to James' exalted view of the glory of the Messiah, and the impression of Jesus' loneliness produced on one who had himself shared it. The fact that Jesus, after his resurrection, appeared to James (1 Corinthians 4:7) is a testimony to the latter's high character as well as his brother's love for him and foresight of his future usefulness.

"We can not wonder, then, that when convinced of the Messiahship of his former brother and now risen Lord, James soon ranked high in the new community. It is not clear what office he occupied in the Jerusalem church. Later traditions made him its first bishop, chosen to that office by the apostles (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 2, 23); and among extreme Jewish Christians of the second century, he was represented as the bishop of the entire church. (Church Homilies.) But these traditions read back later ideas into the apostolic age. He was doubtless one of the elders of the church; and if the eldership of Jerusalem had a president-which there is no proof-James presumably held that office."-Page 134.

This is all that might be expected to be conceded by one who does not believe in the idea of a first president or first presidency. It is clear, however, that James was the prominent man in Jerusalem, which is enough to support our contention, and that this James was not the son of Alphaeus. True, the name of the office he held is not recorded; but in after-years when the word bishop was used to dignify the highest church official, or designate his office, it was read back and the same title or office was accorded to James the Lord's brother, in speaking of him. The above citations are given from this eminent scholar and author, for the reason he discusses the questions at issue quite fully, and certainly fairly; and he is an up to date man. His treatise from which these selections have been made is a rare work, of value to any student. It will be observed that after the ascension of Jesus, the completion of the organization of the church was left to the apostles as a body. That when the church was supplied with competent local officers and set in order, the twelve were "delocalized" and went into all the world. That the organization was kept up in Jerusalem and its authority was recognized everywhere. That Peter held no preeminence other than the president of the quorum over the other apostles; they acted together. That "James, the Lord's brother," by proper selection and choice became the recognized head or president of the church at Jerusalem. As to his prominence there is no dispute. That Peter's preeminence appears nowhere more than when Jesus was on earth with the disciples, and it could hardly be claimed that Peter outranked Jesus in official standing. That James "the Lord's brother" was the son of Joseph and Mary, is the most probable view, and that he could not have been the son of Alphaeus. That the theory that James, Joses, etc., were cousins of Jesus, and not brothers, was an "invention" by Jerome over three hundred and fifty years after the time of Christ; that this was gotten up most likely to harmonize with the Roman Catholic sentiment and claims of the times, that the church was built on Peter and that Mary was "ever virgin," etc. So the contention made by the writer of the Appendix to the Exegesis of the Priesthood is shown to be without foundation in the main view presented.

But the evidences are extended.

"I am led by close examination of evidence to the conviction that James, the son of Alphaeus, and James, who is styled in Galatians 1:19 the brother of the Lord, were different persons (see John 7:3; Matthew 13:55). The former was an apostle; the latter does not seem even to have been a believer in Christ at all till after the resurrection. Immediately on his joining the little Christian church, however, he took a prominent position, being president of the council at Jerusalem. It is my opinion, from the statements made in Scripture, that James was the son of Joseph and Mary; and consequently, as stated by Paul, the brother of our Lord. He was the author of the epistle."-From the Self Interpreting Bible, under the head of the General Epistle of James, page 480.

Again, page 512, the following occurs:

"Had the author of this epistle (Epistle of Jude) been the same as Judas Lebbeus, one of the twelve, there is scarcely a doubt that he would have called himself an apostle. This would at once have given his epistle the stamp of authority. As he has not done so, it seems in the highest degree probable that he was not an apostle, and that James mentioned as his brother was the well-known president of the council at Jerusalem and author of the epistle that bears his name. Jude was then one of the brethren (or as I believe, a brother of the Lord).-From notes in the Self Interpreting Bible by Reverend James W. Lee, D. D., Josiah L. Porter, D. D., LL. D., Henry Cook, D. D., LL. D., John Brown, D. D., LL. D., published by R. S. Peale and J. A. Hill, New York."

These writers rank among the most eminent scholars in Europe and America. In point of scholarship there is no better authority.

It will be noted that these writers take the same view in regard to the brother of the Lord, Jude and the son of Alphaeus, that is presented in Presidency and Priesthood. In Tell's Popular Encyclopedia, page 1363, under the head of James, the following occurs:

"James the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve apostles (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is called James the less, either as being younger than James the son of Zebedee or on account of his low stature (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10). James the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:18). Whether this James is identical with the son of Alphaeus is a question which Doctor Neander pronounces to be the most difficult in the apostolic history, and can not be considered as settled. It is probable however that he was a different person."

It will be observed, however, that all of the eminent authors cited above, place the probabilities of this question upon the side that they were two distinct persons; and some take strong grounds, being convinced that the brother of the Lord was not the son of Alphaeus, but none other than the son of Joseph and Mary and brother of Jesus as affirmed by Paul. But it may be important to examine this Appendix to the Exegesis of the Priesthood more minutely.

On the second page, the writer endeavors to convince his readers about a matter concerning which there is no dispute, viz., "that Peter, James (the son of Zebedee), and John were the messengers sent to Joseph Smith, the Seer, and Oliver Cowdery, and that John the Baptist acted under their direction," also the quotation from Doctrine and Covenants 110:20 in regard to the "voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna," etc. There is no difficulty about these texts,-it is only the conclusions arrived at by the writer that mystifies, and gets him into trouble. He says, page 145, "Now if there was a James, the Lord's brother, who held the keys of the presidency subsequent to Christ's departure, why did not he and his associates Jude and Silas, as stated by some, appear and confer the keys of the presidency upon Joseph Smith?" We answer, for the best of reasons. Neither James, Jude, and Silas, nor Peter, James, and John woe directing the matter. Jesus Christ, the great Head of the church in heaven, was doing the sending. The Savior sent the men whom he selected for his special ambassadors at Jerusalem, and gave commission to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;" and again, "and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Jesus had said unto them in similar speech which was addressed to Thomas B. Marsh, "Unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come." (Doctrine and Covenants 7:2.) The keys of this ministry related to the preaching of the gospel and bringing souls unto Christ, as the context shows, home and foreign missions, and has not the least allusion to a presidency on earth. It referred to their work in the ministry in this world, and their standing and work in heaven when they should become angels, next to Christ, his prime ministers to be sent. These keys were to be held by them until Christ comes, then they are to appear on thrones (Matthew 19:28), not as presidents, but as judges. So their authority and work are set out on earth, in heaven, and in the millennium, standing next to Christ as chief ministers, not church presidents. Again, it is nowhere written that one first presidency is to send another first presidency, and most especially this would be true if the work in view had been assigned to others to do. Jesus, the great First President, sent three of his apostles according to law and order, and not the presidency of the church at Jerusalem, or any other church; but men to whom this work belonged, under the direction of the First President in heaven. Jesus was always careful to keep the law on his side.

The writer of the Appendix, then, is not supported in his theory by this text. The trouble with the Exegesis is that it does not sufficiently set out the proper presidency that belongs to the "high priesthood," which consists of a presidency and a second presidency; and then the keys held by the second presidency are made to belong only to the first. But sections 104, 105, 80, Doctrine and Covenants, made clear the places of the two, arranging each presidency in its place with its proper "keys of the kingdom," or keys of the Melchisedec priesthood. The second presidency are the messengers sent. So Jesus, the great Head and President in heaven, sent those to whom he gave the keys of this ministry, under whose direction the Aaronic priesthood was conferred upon Joseph Smith, Jr., and Oliver Cowdery by the imposition of the hands of John the Baptist, and the Melchisedec by the command of God through the laying on of hands of Joseph Smith upon Oliver Cowdery, and Oliver Cowdery in turn laying his hands upon Joseph Smith; after which, Joseph says, "I should be called the first elder, and he (Oliver) the second." There was nothing conferred here but what is admitted that Peter, James, and John were invested with at Jerusalem, during Christ's ministry on earth, and also their associates; only now, these three are empowered with an increased authority, that is, a dispensation of the gospel for the last time and the fullness of times, showing that they had received new keys since becoming angels. Peter, James, and John, John the Baptist, and Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, were all instruments through which these ordinations occurred and priesthoods were bestowed, but it was Jesus Christ who did the ordaining. Jesus says, "by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles and special witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry." Nothing but the admitted authority held by Peter, James, and John, as apostles, at Jerusalem, is here indicated as having been conferred; but had there been other, that authority and the keys could have been bestowed by the great Head who sent them, just as well as he could confer on them the authority and keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times, that perhaps none will claim they held at Jerusalem, whatever their place in the church.

When the church had been sufficiently organized, so as to require a permanent local president, it was provided for according to law, as shown in the revelations already quoted, viz.:

"Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding offices, growing out of, or appointed of, or from among those who are ordained to the several offices of these two priesthoods. Of the Melchisedec priesthood, three presiding high priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith and prayers of the church."-Doctrine and Covenants 104:11.

This is the course that was pursued by the apostles and church at Jerusalem after the ascension of the Savior. Peter, James, and John "did not contend for the honor as to who should occupy the highest seat, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem." As a second step, after the death of James, it is written:

"Sometime after his death, as Eusebius relates from ancient traditions, the apostles and disciples of our Lord, as many as were yet in being, met together with our Savior's kinsmen (several of whom were alive) to consult about choosing a successor in Saint James' room, and they unanimously agreed upon Simeon, son of Cleopas, our Savior's cousin according to the flesh, thinking him the most fit and worthy person." -Antiquities of Christianity, p. 28.

This "choosing" of a president of the church at Jerusalem is in harmony with the rule as cited in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, but who ever read anything about Peter, James, and John being "chosen" as presidents of the church? According to this law and precedent, Joseph Smith, Jr., was "chosen" president of the Church, and ordained at a conference held at Amherst, Ohio, and, too, ordained by those holding a like priesthood with himself, thus refuting the claim made by some, that in every case of ordination, the one receiving ordination must be set apart by one holding a higher office in the priesthood than the one being ordained. If there is a higher officer present or available, he is considered and recognized, otherwise a commandment from God to ordain is the end of controversy. This is what occurred in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, and what occurred at Amherst, Ohio; the stream never rises above the fountain, for the fountain is in heaven; men are "ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost which is in the one who ordains." So in referring to Joseph and Oliver, the Savior is made to say, "Whom I have ordained."

On page 3 of the Appendix, reference is made to Peter, James, and John going with the Savior upon the Mount, of their being permitted to enter the sick room (Luke 8:13), and selected to be with Christ during his trial at Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37, 38), and all of this is made to bend to the notion that these experiences were for the purpose of fitting them for the presidency of the church. But the references do not warrant the conclusion. They were present as witnesses. Christ in answering his accusers, said, "Ask those who heard me," "In secret have I said nothing." The transfiguration scene claim has been already noticed and refuted, however.

Further on, the writer of the Appendix is disturbed over the number of Jameses mentioned in the New Testament, and states:

"If the Lord had a brother James in the flesh, then there were three who held the apostleship, viz.: First, James the son of Zebedee and the brother of John; second, James the son of Alphaeus (see Matthew 10:2, 3); third, James the Lord's brother and son of Joseph (see Galatians 1:19), and in paragraph 19 he says, 'James, the son of Zebedee, was slain by Herod, about 44 A. D.' (see Acts 12:2). When and where was James the son of Alphaeus slain? This must be shown to get the matter as claimed, beyond question. If his death can not be accounted for, how can it be construed that every quotation containing the name of James, after the year 44 A. D., refers to James, the Lord's brother?"

In reply, we say we know of no such claim being made that every passage containing the name James after 44 A. D. refers to James the Lord's brother. It may be, however. As an explanation they could refer to James the Lord's brother just as well as James the son of Alphaeus, if it be true there is but one referred to. "The son of Alphaeus is only named in the four lists of apostles."-Britannica, p. 552, vol. 13. It is not necessary, however, that we show the death of the son of Alphaeus in order to clear up the matter. The case is clearly made without this. First, we avoid the inconsistency of making James the son of Alphaeus the president of the church at Jerusalem, as he was one of the twelve apostles. James the Lord's brother did not belong to the quorum of apostles at any time. Second, when the son of Alphaeus was chosen one of the twelve, James the Lord's brother did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and it is impossible that Jesus would select an unbeliever for a place among the other believing apostles. When Jesus was born it was announced that he was Mary's "firstborn"; and it would be very inconsistent for the historian to speak of a "firstborn," had there not been a second. See also the discussion of this in the main evidence by others in this article.

No "figurehead" is made of the son of Alphaeus either; he simply stands in his own place as do the other members of the twelve, and always will in this world and the one to come. He went abroad as his calling required of him, as did the others, and most likely was finally slain, as others were, for the testimony he bore, a reliable account of which we do not have-nor do we have of but few, if any, of the other apostles.

In regard to the Oxford Teacher's Bible and Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott, they likely teach just as claimed, but what of it? Oxford is so close to Rome in tradition and sentiment that she could not be expected to reflect but the current traditional sentiment, the "inventions" of Jerome of the fourth century, gotten up long after the actual occurrences and under the flavor of the Roman Catholic claims of power through Peter as the head, and are of a piece with the theory of the immaculate conception of Mary, that she was a goddess, and all who are saved, are saved only by means of this divine mother, etc. Their value is no more, so far as deciding the question is concerned, than the statement of Jerome, which, unsupported, is too shaky to base anything of fact upon.

On page 147 the writer says:

"In Acts 12:17 we read, 'But he (Peter) beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison, and he said, Go show these things unto James (son of Alphaeus) and to the brethren.' Here Peter recognizes James the son of Alphaeus as prominent among the apostles in the year 44 A. D., and shortly after the death of James the son of Zebedee. This same James, in connection with Peter, presided at Jerusalem in the year 52. (See Acts 15:13.) This could not have been James, the Lord's brother, because we find that six years later (Galatians 1:19) James, the Lord's brother, was only called 'an apostle,' which shows conclusively that he was not yet 'chief apostle' nor 'president.'"

It is a little amusing to note how our author manages to inject into the passages cited, "son of Alphaeus, as though he had settled the matter. It reminds one of the story of the smart boy at the cornhusking, who claimed he could squeeze cider out of cotton. When challenged, he just dipped the cotton into the cider, so it was no difficult task to squeeze it out. He first put it in. That is the way the writer of the Appendix gets the son of Alphaeus into these texts; he just puts it in. But this is the point to be proven. How quick and easy our author fills up the vacancy caused by the death of James the son of Zebedee, with the appointment of the son of Alphaeus. If this were true, what becomes of all his claim about Peter, James, and John being upon the mountain; in the sick room; at Gethsemane, etc., in order to make church presidents of them? The son of Alphaeus was not of these favored three; but if these experiences were essential to their election as the first presidents, they would be for him also. But he was not so favored. Acts 12:17 does not read, then, as set out in the Exegesis, and the insertion by the author of the words "the son of Alphaeus" is a blunder of the worst kind. Again, whoever heard anything about Peter and James presiding at Jerusalem? (Acts 4.) This is more cider in the cotton. Again, page 147, it is stated that "James the son of Zebedee was killed in 44 A. D. James the son of Alphaeus must have presided at Jerusalem in connection with Peter 52 A. D., as James, the Lord's brother, is still called 'an apostle' when Paul went up to Jerusalem in the year 58 A. D."

But the theory here presented makes the son of Alphaeus and the Lord's brother the same person, which is not correct, as we have shown. It would be quite as easy of explanation by assuming that it was James the Lord's brother who presided at Jerusalem. So it is not "conclusive" that he was not president for twenty-five years after the ascension, etc. But as this is answered elsewhere it is not necessary to further consider it here.

On page 148, what is said of the Emphatic Diaglott and other matters is of a piece with what has already been answered in a general way. Why Jesus used the language he did while on the cross, to John, in connection with his mother, is not stated. If he intended to put her in John's care, he evidently had a good reason for it, whether she had children or not. We have read somewhere that John had means and a home; if so, this may account for it. Jesus loved John and his mother, and in a gospel sense, they were mother and son (Matthew 13:48, 50). Jesus knew and likely his mother knew-that she would be safest with John. The "opinion embraced by Augustine, and by the majority of the Romanists and Protestants," is of the same class that has been considered.

But the author of the Appendix goes on: "There is but one statement in the Bible where it is said, James, the Lord's brother, viz.: Galatians 1:19, nor is there any reference whatever made to him in the revelations of the latter days."

Well, this is interesting. There is one place in the Bible where James is called the Lord's brother; but there is not even one place where it says he was not his brother. It appears, therefore, that the evidence is decidedly in favor of James being the brother of the Lord. But James' name does not occur in "the latter-day revelations." Does that of the son of Alphaeus? No. Then what? Lost the point again! Again, page 148, the author states: "We now present historical proof that James, called the 'Lord's brother,' was cousin to Jesus in the flesh. . . . Jerome appears to have been the first to suggest the more probable explanation."

Who is this Jerome who appears to have been the first to suggest the "more probable explanation"? Why, he was a writer of the fourth century of the Christian era. He was t he "first to suggest the more probable explanation,"-in fact one writer says be "invented" it. He was three hundred and fifty years removed from the scenes enacted, with Roman Catholic theory, tradition and sentiment out of which to "invent" the "more probable theory." No doubt this theory was suited to the demands of the times, a strong point to keep Mary "ever virgin," and the church on Peter. This theory was copied into the manuscripts of other writers, until of late years, scholars further removed from Catholic traditions and sentiment, and of deeper research, discard this "invention," as may be seen by the weight of testimony furnished in this article. The theory never was heard of until Jerome presented it, who was not in possession of the facts relating to it. It is simply a theory.

On page 149, we are told that, "We are at liberty, then to assume that the word adelphos among the Jews may be applied indifferently to the relation of brother, or to the relation of cousin. Hence, it may be so applied. (Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3.) That is, some of the persons there mentioned by name, may be strictly brethren, the rest may be merely cousins of the Lord."-Greswell's Works, vol. 2, p. 119.

Let us try this method of interpretation:

Mark 1:16: "he saw Simon, and Andrew his brother" -adelphos.

Mark 1:19: "he saw James. . . . and John his brother."

Mark 3:17: "And James . . . and John the brother of James."

Mark 6:3: "the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judah and Simon."

Mark 6:17: "for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife."

Mark 12:19: "If a man's brother die, and leave (his) wife."

Mark 12:19: "that his brother should take his wife."

John 1:40: "One . . . was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother."

John 11:23: "Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again."

In all of these instances and many others which might be cited, brother is from this original word adelphos. Can it properly mean cousin in a single one of these citations?

It will be observed that when this text is relieved of its assumptions and maybes (which we have italicized), it is divested of pretty much all of its force. Again, "Some of the persons there mentioned by name, may be strictly the brethren," and as we take it, before it can interpret or reflect the view in Matthew 13:55, some of the persons should be "strictly the brethren," before "merely cousins" could be included.

But it is a paragraph further on that seems the worst. "The four brothers and their sisters were always found living and moving about with the Virgin Mary." Rather a natural place for a mother's children to be found, we think. But read on, "If they were the children of Cleopas the Virgin Mary was their aunt." Why, of course. "Her own husband would appear without doubt to have 'died between A. D. 8 and A. D. 26. Nor have we any reason for believing Cleopas to have been living during our Lord's ministry." [And none that he was dead.] "What difficulty is there in supposing that the two sisters (in law) should have lived together?" Why, none at all, of course. No difficulty in "supposing" anything. If they were children of Cleopas, there might be something in the supposition, but as this is the point to be proved, there is nothing in it whatever. But here again, "It is noticeable that Saint Mary is nowhere called the mother of the four brothers." Just so. But there is another thing "noticeable"-it is nowhere stated that she was not the mother of the four brothers. It is affirmed, however, that she "brought forth her firstborn son." This implies a second born son, and Paul affirms that James was the Lord's brother; and in Mark it is said of Jesus, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, brother of James, and Joses, and of Jude, and Simeon? And are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55.) It is, indeed, quite "noticeable" that these children were the family of Joseph and Mary, and not cousins, as claimed.

On page 150, "the Hieronymian hypothesis" is presented, said to have been advocated by this same Jerome, already noticed, in A. D. 382, which assumes that the children referred to above were nephews and nieces of Saint Mary. This "hypothesis" was likely put in vogue to make people stare and wonder, so they would take down the theory, genealogical map and all, as a learned conclusion. But without facts sustaining it, it remains an assumption and is entitled to no credence whatever.

On the last line of this same page, we are relieved with a new line of thought. That is, it is claimed, "First, Christ did not come from the lineage of Joseph, but through the lineage of Mary." However, Matthew and Luke both count it through Joseph Matthew 1, Luke 3.) Besides, if the lineage of Jesus could be counted through his mother, that of the second son could also, and in either case they were brothers and heirs to the priesthood, and if only cousins of Jesus would be first entitled to considerations in priesthood lines.

On page 157, we have: "Second, the order is from father to son; and James is not the son of Jesus but of Joseph; therefore James' only right by lineage would be through his father, Joseph, and not through Christ. Hence, no right to the presidency by the above order of lineage, as it was not to be handed down from brother to brother, but from father to son. Except in case of transgression or disqualification."

It is true enough that lineage is counted from father to son, as a rule. But there are exceptions. Two are admitted, and this is not all. Another is where there is no heir to occupy under the rule. Then another rule obtains, it goes to tie nearest of kin, all other things being equal. This is shown in the Nephite history. The lineage as counted may be traced by the transfer of the sacred things. They went from Nephi to his brother Jacob. From Enos to Jarom (Jarom 1:1), from Jarom to Omni (Omni 1:1), in regular succession. From Amaron to his brother Chemish (Omni 1:3, 4) ; from Chemish to Abinadom (paragraph 5), Abinadom to Amaleki (paragraph 6). Amaleki, having no children, delivered the plates to King Benjamin. They went on down to Alma, then to his son Helaman (Alma 17:5-14); from Helaman to Helaman's brother, Shiblon (Alma 30:1); finally to Amos, then to his brother Ammaron (Nephi 1:11), etc. It will be observed that the descent of the sacred records indicating the lineage or genealogical line, was from father to son, and brother to brother; and when there was no brother, to others, which shows the theory of the writer of the Appendix wrong on this point, also.

Again the writer goes on: "We will now proceed to offer further proof to show that Peter occupied the position of 'chief apostle' and president. 1. Because he was the first called to the apostleship by our Savior (Matthew 10:1), and according to all rules of choosing or appointing them the first named is president, where not otherwise designated."

Allowing this as a rule in business, for which the Bible makes no provision, in case of the appointment of a committee, what would the first member selected be president of? Of the committee, of course. A committee appointed by Congress, then, would not make the chairman of that committee, according to this rule, president of the United States. So accepting that Peter was chairman of the council of apostles, there is a long distance between that position and his being made president of the church.

But we read on: "2. It is evident that he continued in this chief office and leadership from beginning to end, and was so recognized by Christ both before and after his ascension."

Some very bad logic here. Because a man is appointed the head of a committee or quorum he is declared to be the head of the church, and what is equally as bad, he is continued in the leadership "both before and after his ascension." According to this Peter was president of the church both before and after the crucifixion and ascension. But what was Christ doing all of this time, that Peter was presiding over the church previous to the ascension? All of this because he was selected first among the apostles, as head of a "committee." But this is not all; he is continued "in this chief office and leadership from beginning to end." Why, yes. From the beginning to end of what? The beginning and end of the church, or what? Or is it the beginning and ending of Peter's call to the apostleship to his death? All there is of fact in any of this is that Peter may have been the recognized leader of the apostolic quorum both before and after Christ's ascension, but could not have been the president of the church in either case, more especially if he continued in the position "from beginning to end." Again, if Peter was made president because of being selected first, then Andrew should have been given the second place, on similar grounds of being selected second; but no, James is admitted to have been second. What becomes of this supposed to be evidence, then, adduced to prove that Peter was made president of the church because he was first called to the apostleship?

"3. In the transfiguration, Peter is the first named and is spokesman for the rest." This has been answered in another place. It will be difficult to show, however, that Peter spoke for anybody but himself on this occasion.

"4. He was chief speaker when the matter of choosing an apostle instead of Judas was under consideration.

"5. Peter was chief speaker on the day of Pentecost, when the important question was asked by the multitude, etc., and the question was directed first to him; second, 'and to the rest of the apostles.'" All there is in any of this is, that the reading shows the apostles to have been in charge as a body. "Peter stood up with the eleven." There is nothing indicating a president or presidency about it. Peter is shown to be the most active member or leader of the apostolic body, that is all. He stood with the eleven and was therefore one of them in order to make the twelve.

"6. Peter was first of the twelve to whom Christ appeared after the resurrection." If there is any point in this, then Mary Magdalene should have been the president, for Jesus "first" appeared to her. But our author should have cited more passages in Peter's favor. He could have said, Peter was the first and only one that cursed and swore and denied his Lord, therefore he was to be the president of the church. He was the first to try walking on the water by faith, but sank, therefore he was to be the president.

"7. Peter was chief in pronouncing the judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira." This only shows Peter in his accustomed place, speaking for the apostolic body. The goods were to be "laid at the apostles' feet," not at Peter's feet only, not the feet of the presidency. So there is no president of the church indicated here either.

"8. Peter denounced the sorcerer Simon." (Acts 8.) We reply that Paul "denounced" and rebuked Elymas the sorcerer (Acts 13), so that if rebuking a sorcerer was evidence that Peter was to be the president of the church, the same class of evidence will make Paul the president. Hence the writer of the Appendix gets more presidents on hand than he can dispose of. It only shows that there is nothing in his assumed positions and method of reasoning.

Again, page 151: "9. Peter received knowledge of the Father, and Christ here commits the keys of the kingdom to him. (Matthew 16:16.) But the objector says that the keys, herein referred to, applied only to Peter's presidency over the quorum of the twelve."

Who this "objector" is, we are not informed. The writer of the Presidency and Priesthood, however, holds that all of the twelve hold "keys," and also other ministers, including those of the Aaronic priesthood, but the ones in chief, as in Peter's case, especially so; as is clearly presented in Doctrine and Covenants 105. Anyway, Thomas B. Marsh is especially mentioned as the one to hold the "keys."

But our author goes on, "We frankly confess that we never before knew that the terms 'quorum' and 'kingdom' were synonymous." But who has said they were "synonymous"? The writer of Presidency and Priesthood made no such statement. The Lord says to Thomas B. Marsh, "Thou art the man whom I have chosen to hold the keys of my kingdom." He then qualifies by saying ("as pertaining to the twelve"): but were they not "keys of the kingdom" all the same? Did it indicate that they were not "keys of the kingdom," because it is explained what "keys of the kingdom" they were and who was to hold them? It really looks as though our author, finding himself in a strait, has descended to a little sophistry in order to help his theory out. Taking the man of straw set up in this ninth citation a weak conclusion might be reached, but as it reflects nothing affirmed by us, or any other that we know of, it is meaningless, as it only reflects its own absurdity.

The position held by the writer of Presidency and Priesthood on the text in Matthew 16 is that the question propounded by Jesus as to who he was, was addressed to the twelve. Peter answered for himself and his associates, and when Jesus said in answer, calling Peter by name, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shalt be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," the other members of the twelve were included in the authority to be received, as seen in John 20:23, when Jesus breathed on the twelve, he said, and to all of them, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." In harmony with this, Doctor William Smith says:

"The early church regarded Saint Peter generally . . . as the representative of the apostolic body; a very distinct theory from that which makes him their head, or governor in Christ's stead. Peter held no distinct office, and certainly never claimed any distinct powers which did not belong equally to all his fellow apostles."-Bible Dictionary, p. 427.

This view is the Bible view, and the one expressed in Doctrine and Covenants 105:12: "For unto you (the twelve) and those (the first presidency) who are appointed with you is the power of this priesthood given. . . . the keys of the dispensation which ye have received come down from the fathers, and last of all being sent down from heaven unto you."

The power of this priesthood was given to these two quorums: "The keys of the dispensation which ye have received have come down from the fathers, and last of all being sent down from heaven unto you." "And again I say unto you [Thomas B. Marsh] that whosoever ye shall send in my name, by the voice of your brethren, the twelve."-Paragraph 8. This shows that the twelve acted together, held the authority and the keys along with the presidency, and they were "keys of the kingdom." So much for that ninth criticism.

Again it is urged: "10. Christ, the third time having appeared to his disciples after his ascension, still recognizes Peter as chief apostle and president unto whom he had previously given the keys of the kingdom and not quorum." When did Jesus give Peter the "keys of the kingdom and not quorum"? He promised to give them the keys of the kingdom, but when did Peter receive them? Oh, I see; it was upon the Mount, for which there is not an item of proof. Does the author of the Appendix still hold that the keys given to the twelve are not keys of the kingdom? But to the conversation held by the Savior with the apostles by the seaside: Jesus said to Peter, "Feed my sheep."-John 21:15, 16. Though this conversation was addressed to Peter, the responsibility to look after and "feed my sheep" rested upon all of the twelve. So it is written, "Now, I say unto you,-and what I say unto you I say unto all the twelve,-Arise and gird up your loins, take up your cross, follow me, and feed my sheep."-Doctrine and Covenants 105:6. It is far from "plain to be seen," then, that Peter's "charge was not only over the quorum of the twelve, but to the whole church, either congregated together or scattered abroad." It seems "plain to be seen" that no such thing was intended, if revelation can be depended upon.

Again: "In purview of this charge (to feed my sheep), Peter writes to the 'scattered saints,' called 'strangers' and endeavors to 'feed' them as the Savior had commanded him. (See 1 Peter 1.) Again, in his second letter he addresses 'all those who have obtained like precious faith with us,' thus obeying the injunction 'feed my sheep."' (2 Peter 1:1.)

There is nothing in this to indicate that Peter held any position in the church but that of an apostle. Light on this point is seen in the following statement by Paul: "Then fourteen years after, I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation."-Galatians 2:1, 2.

No doubt some were of greater repute among their fellows than others. Of the conference, Paul speaks, in verse 7, "When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter." Verse 9: "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they give to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." Thus Peter is made the leading apostle among the Jews and Paul among the Gentiles. Both went abroad to their fields of labor, Peter to preach among the circumcision, and Paul among the uncircumcision. In after-years, both of these apostles addressed letters to those among whom they had labored and built up churches, and so far as an ecumenical character in their address, Peter's shows no preeminence over that of Paul's. The Galatian letter was addressed by Paul to the Galatians. His first Corinthian letter, "Unto the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours."-l Corinthians 1:2. Nothing that Peter wrote partook so much of the ecumenical character as this letter written by Paul. Peter's first epistle was addressed, "To the strangers abroad throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." His second letter was addressed to the same people (see 2 Peter 3:1) and he writes, "That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior."-Ibid., 3:2. Here Peter puts himself with the other apostles. Peter addressed his letters to those among whom he had labored, as is admitted by all scholars. Hence there is nothing in the claim made that Peter was a whit ahead of Paul. If there is evidence for Peter's being president, there is more for Paul; and as indicated before, this brings to the surface too many presidents, so defeats the assumption of the writer.

The facts in regard to the saying, "Feed my sheep," etc., are these: The apostles, it appears, had become discouraged, and Peter said, "I go a-fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee." This was their old employment, and Peter was their former captain and leader in the business, before they started to follow the Nazarene. At least Peter and Andrew were in company with James and John and their father Zebedee, and they had hired servants as helpers. Peter was the leader. This will account for the fact that the other apostles looked to Peter so readily as a leader. He was a man of affairs, prominent and relied upon in a business sense before Jesus appeared among them. On the occasion here referred to Jesus perceived that they had a longing and desire to return to their former vocations, and thereby seek a livelihood, rather than go to the harder task, that of the ministry; so Jesus put the question, and to the leader, "Lovest thou me more than these?" These what? Why, these fishes and nets that were the means of their living and wealth. Jesus wished to impress upon their minds, that if they loved him, they would have to make the sacrifice and give up the fishing business and attend to the ministry,- "Feed my sheep." He knew they loved him, and he used this strongest tie and motive force to win them from their nets, and encourage them not to labor for the things that perish, but to carry out the commission to preach the gospel and catch men. Peter was the most culpable of any for this seeming desertion, as he was the leader in and out of the church. Only a few days had passed since he was cursing and swearing and denying the Lord. Hence Jesus plied him thoroughly, and what he said to Peter was meant for the rest as well, as expressed in Doctrine and Covenants 105:6: "What I say unto you I say unto all the twelve-Arise and gird up your loins, take up your cross, follow me, and feed my sheep." So the claim to Peter's primacy fails here also.

But we will take up and consider the point presented by the writer of the Appendix to Exegesis on Acts 15, in regard to the conference held at Jerusalem by the apostles and elders. There had been a growing feeling and contention between the Gentiles at Antioch, whose rights under the gospel were defended by Paul and Barnabas, and the Jewish converts in regard to keeping the law of Moses. The Jewish converts insisted that certain Jewish customs that were mentioned in the law should be observed by the Gentiles. The contention went on until it came to be so serious that it was necessary to carry it before the church authorities at Jerusalem. Paul was strongly in sympathy with the Gentile claims, and defended them, being the apostle to the Gentiles. Peter, on the other hand, was the apostle and leader among the circumcision, sometimes standing firm for the rights of the Gentiles, at other times vacillating and catering to the demands of the Jews. So it was necessary for Paul, in defending the rights of the Gentiles, to oppose Peter. He says, "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."-Galatians 2:11. The dissension began at Antioch, by the Jews insisting, "Except ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye can not be saved." Paul and Barnabas took the matter up to Jerusalem, where the contention was going on also. "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter."-Acts 15:6. The assembly was organized and had a chairman. The writer of the Appendix assumes that Peter was the president of that council. But in this he stands alone. No other writer whom we have read after so holds, whether he follows the theory of Jerome or not. In the council Paul and Barnabas were the chiefs on one side, and Peter on the other. These great, experienced leaders sat in silence while the conflict went on among the more contentious ones; the hotheads were to the front. So, "after there had been much disputing, Peter arose" (not from the chair, but down on the floor) and simply reiterated his experience he had years before, down at Joppa and the house of Cornelius, and concluded by objecting to the view being held by some, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples. "Then all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul." They made their speeches. The chief ministers to Jew and Gentile had now been heard, together with those who had stirred up the dissension. Then what? "And after they had held their peace, James answered saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me."-Verse 13. "My sentence is that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God."-Verse 19. This decision closed the matter. As is well expressed in the Diaglatt, "Therefore I judge." Correct enough,-be had to judge in order to cast "sentence." But in his ambition to do something for Peter, the writer of the Appendix makes Peter the president and has him decide the matter, and then James decides it, and finally the Holy Ghost decides it. But what is worse, he has it, "Peter was the first to rise and render his decision as presiding officer." Still the discussion goes on just the same. Nothing is said about Peter deciding anything, or presiding, yet it is clear to this writer that he did. However, the discussion went on until the chief leaders had spoken, and then James said, "My sentence is," etc., after which there was no more discussion, but a general agreement or assent to the decision of James, and letters of instruction and congratulations ordered sent abroad. So our critic has lost his point on this.

We are told that this "was a special conference of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, and not of the church in general." But the Book says, "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men," etc.

Page 153, Appendix, states: "We wish to call attention to another important point that supports the position that Peter was the president of the church. The fact that God who sent his angel to Cornelius (Acts 10) and directed him to send for Peter to present unto them the 'words of life and salvation,' and also the vision which God gave Peter, proves emphatically that God recognized Peter as the head of the church on earth."

But there is nothing required here but what is provided for in Peter's calling as an apostle. It was in the line with the sending of Ananias to seek out the unconverted and blind Saul of Tarsus; Philip joining himself to the chariot (Acts 8); and Paul being beckoned to go into Macedonia. This work belonged to the ministry abroad and not to a localized president. At this time, however, as in the case of filling the place of Judas, the day of Pentecost, the rebuking of Ananias and Sapphira, the selecting of the seven, etc., there may have been no permanent president selected at Jerusalem.

We are not told just when James was made president; neither are we told when and how elders and bishops were introduced. We find them in existence, and in due time James was made the president of the church.

"With the apostles, James, the brother of the Lord, succeeds to the charge of the church,-that James who has been called 'Just' from the time of the Lord to our day, for there were many of the name of James, etc."-Hegesippus.

Again: "For the church of Jerusalem, James, the Lord's brother, was the first bishop thereof, as all ancient writers agree, though when and by whom he was ordained they are not so unanimous; for some say by the apostles, after the Lord's crucifixion; others, by Christ himself; and others again, both by Christ and the apostles."-Bingham.

But there is no history that places Peter as president either by Christ or the apostles or anybody else.

Again, the position assumed by the writer of the Appendix is absurd, in the light of the commission and authority given to the apostles, to require that the president of the church should perform all the work in person outlined by the writer. There is neither law nor precedent for it. The Lord works through whom he will. The apostles were his chief ministers abroad, and he directed them in the work to be done in the ministry abroad. He said, "Lo I am with you always." Peter, with the other apostles selected at Jerusalem, lived and died apostles (those of them who did die) and are apostles yet in heaven, under the direction of Jesus Christ the great head of the church, and can be sent by him to minister to men on earth; hence Peter, James, and John were sent by their Master to Joseph Smith, Jr., the Seer, and Oliver Cowdery to direct in the bestowing of the priesthood upon them and their ordination. It was not required to send a former president of the church on earth, whoever he may have been, to do this work, neither to come himself. He trusted the three strong ones, those best known, of the old guard, Peter, James, and John, and sent them. So everything is orderly and right, if only the right view is had. So the criticisms and evidences adduced by the writer of the Appendix to the Exegesis of the Priesthood fails to maintain his "contention," and much of it is not strong, to say the least, and is only noticed because of the importance of the subject in hand, and for the benefit of the inexperienced who are likely to read it.

Further evidence on the disputed points raised, is continued as follows, to which the reader's attention is called:

"James, Epistle of, one of the books of the New Testament canon, which has been ascribed to James the son of Zebedee, to a pseudo James who assumed the name to get authority, to James the son of Alphaeus, and to James the brother of the Lord. . . . The entire recent literature on the epistle is reviewed in the Studin und Kritiken, January, 1874., by Professor Berschlag, who believes that it was written by James, the brother of the Lord, whom he distinguishes from both the apostles of that name."-The American Encyclopedia, vol. 9, p. 519.

"James the son of Alphaeus. He also was one of the apostles, and is mentioned in all the four lists (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13) by this name, but in no other place. It is, however, thought by some that he is the same with "James the Lord's brother. In Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3, the brethren of the Lord are named James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. It is also to be remarked that they are in both places spoken of as the children of the carpenter, that is, of Joseph the husband of the Virgin Mary. But it has been urged that they were called sons of Joseph and Mary because the children of two families,-of Mary the Virgin and Mary the wife of Clopas, her half sister-were brought up together. Those who in this way make James, the Lord's brother, to be a son of Alphaeus require to establish (a) that Clopas is the same name as Alphaeus; (b) that Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25) was the sister of the Virgin Mary, and (c) that this Mary, wife of Clopas, is the same who is called (Matthew 31:56; Mark 15:40) Mary the mother of James and Joses, and (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10) simply the mother of James, in which four passages the same person is evidently intended.

"But the identity of the names Alphaeus and Clopas is by no means certain. Those who maintain it take Clopas as the Aramaic Chalpai, and Alphaeus to be a Graecized form thereof. But when we turn to what might be supposed the best source of evidence on this point, viz., the Peshito version of the New Testament, instead of finding the two names treated as the same word, we find in all cases Chalpai where the Greek has Alphaeis, and where Clopas or Cleopas occurs, it is simply transliterated Kleeopha. The same is the case with the Jerusalem Syriac. The identity of these names is, thus, far from being established. Then in John 19:25, the versions and best authorities are in favor of making four persons of those there mentioned: 'his mother, and his mother's sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.' This is the Peshito rendering, and, even if the conjunction were not there, it is not uncommon in scriptural enumeration to find names given in pairs without any conjunction, while to make Mary the wife of Clopas the Virgin's sister would be to assume two Marys in the same family of sisters, which is not very probable. Whether Mary wife of Clopas was the mother of a 'James' (called in one place 'the little') and of Joses can neither be asserted nor denied from the evidence in the Gospels; but, when the other two assumptions have so little foundation to rest on, it seems impossible to consider the son of Alphaeus the same person with the 'brother of the Lord.'

"Further, James the Lord's brother was bishop of Jerusalem (compare Galatians 1:19 with Galatians 2:9-12), and was president of the church in its earliest days. (Acts 12:17; 20: 13; 21:18.) Such a position required him to be a resident in Jerusalem, while had he been an apostle (as the son of Alphaeus was) we should have expected him to take his share of the missionary labor of publishing the gospel in distant lands. But this bishop of Jerusalem was the author of the epistle of Saint James. He simply styles himself in the introduction thereto 'a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.' He who could thus write with the certainty of being identified must have been the most famous person of his name in the church, must have been what Saint Paul in a passage (Galatians 2:9), where he places James before both Peter and John, calls him 'a pillar' of the Christian society. And again Jude, when commencing his epistle, calls himself the brother of James, with no other mark of distinction. Here too the same James must be intended, and when we read Saint Jude's epistle (17, 18) we find him distinguishing himself from the apostles, and as it were disclaiming the apostolic dignity. This is as it would be if James and Jude were both brethren of the Lord and were not apostles, but we should certainly expect one or other would have left some indication in their letters had they been of the number of the twelve, and most surely neither of them would have been likely to give us reason for believing that he was not an apostle.

"The two passages (1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19) from which it might be argued that James the brother of the Lord was an apostle can not be relied on, for we find the same title given to Barnabas, and it is certain that the name 'apostle' began to be more widely applied after the ascension than it is in the Gospels.

"Once more, the brethren of the Lord are expressly said (John 7:5) not to have believed on Jesus at a period much later in his ministry than the appointment of the twelve; while in mention of them in Acts 1:14 there is given first a list of the eleven, who are said all to have continued in prayer with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brethren. Such a studied severance of the brethren of the Lord from the number of the apostles is very significant, while the position which they hold in the list may well be due to the fact that it was only at a late period that they had become disciples of Jesus. The change in their opinions has been thought by many to be sufficiently accounted for by the statement of Saint Paul (I Corinthians 15:7) that after his resurrection Jesus 'was seen of James.' Such a demonstration of the truth of what others had long believed and Jesus himself had taught could not fail to work conviction on a mind which, if we may accept the tradition of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' (which also testifies to this appearance of Christ to James), was somewhat inclined to believe, even before the crucifixion.

"It seems right, therefore, to conclude that James the son of Alphaeus, one of the apostles, was a different person from James the Lord's brother and bishop of Jerusalem. Of the history of the former we are told nothing except that he was an apostle. The latter is spoken of by Saint Peter (Acts 12:17) as if he were at that time the recognized head of the Christian community in Jerusalem. Again (Acts 15:13), after the debate at Jerusalem about the circumcision of the Gentiles, it is he who sums up the arguments and declares the sentence of the council, as if he were the chief person among them. In Acts 21:18, on Saint Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, he holds the same position, and receives the visit of Saint Paul in the presence of all the presbytery. In Galatians 1:19; 2:9, he is placed foremost among 'the pillars' of the church at Jerusalem."-Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 13, pp. 532, 533.

The interested critic will peruse with satisfaction the learned disquisition of Reverend T. K. Cheyne, M. A., D. D., Oriel Professor of Holy Scripture, Oxford, in this connection as being among the best thoughts upon the subject from the other side of the water, and which is herewith submitted:

"James (Jacobus), the name of three persons preeminentiy mentioned in the New Testament-James the son of Zebedee, James the son of Alphaeus, and James the brother of Jesus. The first two of these are included in the lists of the apostles given in the Synoptic gospels and Acts (Matthew 10:2 F, Mark 3:17 F, Luke 6:14 F, Acts 1:13). The former of this pair was a brother of John; their father a Galilean fisherman, probably a resident of Capernaum.

"Of James the son of Alphaeus, called in Mark 15:40 James the less (minor, younger) little is recorded in the New Testament. According to the same passage, his mother was a certain Mary, who is there mentioned as a witness of the crucifixion. . . . The question whether James the son of Alphaeus was identical with James the brother of Jesus must be discussed before the consideration of the latter. Doubtless in early times, and perhaps latterly, a prepossession in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus has had an influence in determining some scholars to maintain the affirmative of this question. It is argued that from Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25 the inference may be drawn that Mary the mother of Jesus had a sister Mary who was the wife of Cleopas, and that she was the mother of two sons, James the little and Joses. Moreover, since James, Joses (or Joseph), Judas, and Simon are mentioned in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 as brothers of Jesus, and since in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 a James and a Jude are included among the apostles, it has been argued that these latter were identical with the James and Judas mentioned among the brothers of Jesus, yet they were not his brothers, but cousins. In support of this hypothesis it is maintained that James called the brother of Jesus, mentioned explicitly by Paul in Galatians 1:19 as such, and frequently elsewhere as simply 'James,' and always indicated as holding a prominent place in the church at Jerusalem, was no other but James the son of Alphaeus, who is identified by the hypothesis with Clopas of John 19:25. Thus he would be shown to have been a cousin of Jesus, being a son of a sister of Mary, Jesus' mother, and one of the original apostles.

"This argumentation is, however, beset with insuperable difficulties. If the apostle Lebbeus (Matthew 10:3; but R. V. and W. H. Thaddeus) who is called Thaddeus in Mark 3:18, and who by the hypothesis was identical with 'Judas of James' of Luke and Acts was by the first evangelists known to have been a brother of James the son of Alphaeus, it is improbable that this writer would not have indicated the fact after the analogy of Simon and Andrew his brother, and James and John his brother. It is no less improbable that if Judas and Simon were sons of Alphaeus and the Mary in question, they would not have been mentioned along with Joses in Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40.

"It is also evident from the attitude of Jesus' brothers toward him, according to Mark 3:21, 31, that they could not have belonged to the friendly apostolic group. For they are here represented as 'standing without,' and were probably of the 'his friends' who went out to lay hold on him, because he was, they thought, beside himself. (Compare John 7:5.) In this connection the fact is important that wherever they are mentioned in the New Testament they are distinguished from the apostles (Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, John 7:3, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5; 'the other apostles' [besides Paul] and the brother of the Lord). Besides there is nowhere an intimation that any one of the apostles was either a brother or cousin of Jesus. The attempt to show from John 19:25 that Mary, the so-called wife of Clopas (identified by the hypothesis with Alphaeus), was the sister of the mother of Jesus and that hence James the son of Alphaeus was his cousin, is hazardous. For it is doubtful whether Clopas and Alphaeus are Aramatic and Greek forms of the same name, since the Syriac version uniformly transliterates them differently (Cleopha and Halpai) . . . . The opinion that four women instead of three are mentioned here has the support of the Syriac version and many of the highest authorities (see Meyer on the passage, and Mesler in St. Kr. 40, p. 650). Besides, the position is quite tenable that according to the prevailing usus loquendi, 'Mary of Clopas' means Mary the daughter of Clopas, in which case Clopas would be known only as the father of the Mary mentioned in John 19:25; see Clopas. Thus in any case the improbable supposition that in the same family there were two sisters of the same name is obviated.

"Still, even if it could be shown that James the son of Alphaeus was a cousin of Jesus, it would not follow that another James was not his brother, since better reasons than those given by Lange and Meyrick are required to justify the abandonment of the natural meaning of adelphos. Nor is it necessary to resort to the supposition of stepbrothers; for according to the obvious sense of 'firstborn' (protokos, Luke 2:7; Matthew 1 25 Sin. Syr.) Mary was the mother of other sons than Jesus.

"James the brother of Jesus, surnamed the Just, although sharing with the brothers, of whom he was probably the oldest, in their opposition to Jesus during his public ministry, appears to have been converted to his cause soon after the resurrection. According to Galatians 1:18, 2:9, Paul finds James holding a prominent place in the Christian community in Jerusalem along with Peter and John, and with these three, 'reputed pillars of the church' he came to an arrangement respecting his mission to the Gentiles. So great was the influence or authority of James that Peter was controlled by him at Antioch in the matter of eating with the Gentiles. For when 'certain' from James came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision (Galatians 2:12). From this fact and from Paul's statement that, yielding from the emissaries, the rest of the Jews dissembled, 'and even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation,' the inference is obvious that this brother of Jesus was the acknowledged head of the Jewish Christian party in the church of Jerusalem, and a zealot for the strict observance of the Jewish law."-Encyclopedia Biblica, edited by the Reverend T. K. Cheyne, M. A., D. D., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford and formerly Fellow of Ballial College, Canon of Rochester, and J. Southerland Black, M. A., LL. D., formerly assistant editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 2, pages 2317, 2320.

"James the Lord's brother; author of the 'Epistle of James.' He is described as holding office in the church at Jerusalem, and appears to have been president of the council that met there in A. D. 50 or 51."-The Century Cyclopedia, p. 539.

The article of the celebrated scholar and historian, Doctor Philip Schaff, is also submitted as furnishing the best attainable evidences from the standpoint of a faithful historian, as follows:

"JAMES, the name of three important characters of the New Testament.

"I. James, the son of Zebedee.-Hismother, Salome, was a follower of Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:41). He was a brother of John, and older than he, as is very probable from the fact that his name is almost always mentioned before John's (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:17, etc.) It is likely, though not certain, that he became a follower of Christ immediately after the baptism in the Jordan (John 1:32; sqq). He and his brother were surnamed Boanerges, i. e., 'son of thunder,' by Christ (Mark 3:17). The reason for giving this designation is not recorded. He certainly did not intend an allusion to their eloquence, as the Fathers supposed. The more probable view is, that the surname had reference to their passionate and vehement nature, both in thought and emotion, which sometimes showed itself in ambitious aspirations (Mark 10:35; sqq) for a place of honor in the Messianic Kingdom, but also in an ardent attachment to the person of Christ.

"James belonged, with John and Peter, to the narrower circle of Christ's more intimate disciples; was admitted into the chamber of Jairus' daughter (Mark 5.37), to the vision of the transfiguration (Mark 9:2), and to the scene of the agony in Gethsemane (Matthew 26). Nothing further is recorded of him than his death by the sword, under Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). He was the first of the apostles to suffer martyrdom; and thus, in a more pronounced measure than in the case of John, the prediction of Christ was fulfilled in his experience, that the brothers should indeed drink of his cup, and be baptized with his baptism (Mark 10:39) ; and at least in point of time, he received the second place of honor in the kingdom of heaven. Ecclesiastical tradition says that the accuser of James confessed Christ, and, after receiving the apostle's pardon, himself suffered martyrdom (Clement Alexander in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 2, 9). The Church of Spain boasts that he shared in its foundation, but its fables are in conflict with the statements of the New Testament.

"II. James, the son of Alphaeus-One of the twelve disciples of Jesus. He is so designated in four places,-Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. No other passage can with certainty be regarded as referring to him or his family, and nothing further is known definitely of his life. The alleged blood relationship of his family with the house of Jesus lacks all evidence. This hypothesis identifies his farther Alphaeus with Clopas, and makes 'Mary the wife of Clopas' (John 19:25) a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, or Clopas a brother of Joseph (Hegesippus). These suggestions are pure assumptions; for it is not at all certain that Maria e tou Klopa means the wife of Clopas. It may mean the mother, or daughter, of Clopas. Nor has the identification of the name Alphaeus with Clopas anything in its favor. A further objection is that sisters would not be apt to have the same name, Mary. It is possible that he is the James whose mother is called Mary (Matthew 27:56; Mark 16:1); and who is styled 'James the Less,' and the brother of Joses (Mark 15:40). The title 'the Less' contained an allusion to his stature, and was not given to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee (Meyer). But it is possible that another James is here mentioned, as we would rather expect the expression, 'James the son of Alphaeus.' Of his further experiences we know nothing, except that according to tradition, he labored in Egypt, where he suffered martyrdom by crucifixion, in the city of Ostrakine (Niceph. 2:40).

"III. James the Just, the brother of the Lord, the head of the church at Jerusalem, is distinguished from the two apostles of the same name in Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19; 2:9, 12; James 1:1; Jude 1; and is mentioned by Josephus (Antiquities 20, 9, 1), Hegesippus (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 2, 33) and the church fathers.

"In the early church the existence of our James as a distinct person was denied by some: he being identified with one of the two apostles of that name; and more generally with James the son of Alphaeus. The fraternal relation reported to have existed between James and Jesus was explained as a relation between cousins. But Tertullian is a witness to the fact that the distinction between James and the apostles was still held in his day. He speaks of the consummation of Mary's marriage with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, and of the brothers of Jesus (De carne Christi 7, adv, Marc, 19), to prove the reality of the incarnation over against Gnostic objections. At a somewhat later date the Apostolic Constitutions (2.55, 6.12, 13) declare for the same view, when they mentioned as the representatives of Catholic doctrine the twelve apostles, Paul and James the brother of the Lord, who is also placed among the seventy disciples. That a fraternal relation is here meant is vouched for by another passage (7:46) : 'I James, a brother of the Lord according to the flesh.' The testimony of Eusebius is also very important. He clearly distinguishes James, the brother of the Lord, from the twelve apostles, places him among the seventy disciples, and counts fourteen apostles in all, Paul being the thirteenth, and James the fourteenth (Com. Jes. 17:5; Ecclesiastical History 1, 12;2, 1;7, 19) ; and the passage (Ecclesiastical History, 2, 1) in which he speaks of him as the 'so-called' brother of the Lord does not refer to a more distant relationship, for he prepares the way for his expression by stating that Jesus was born before the consummation of the marriage between Mary and Joseph. Gradually the presumption of the perpetual virginity of Mary gained currency, and the fraternal relation of James was resolved into the relation of a step-brother. It is a matter of doubt whether this was done by Hegesippus, and in the pseudo-Clementine writings; but it is certain that there is not a trace in either of an identification of the brother of the Lord with an apostle. Hegesippus clearly makes this distinction (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 2, 23). In the Protevangelium Jacobi, which originated in Essenic Christian circles, Joseph is represented as having been an aged man, surrounded with grown-up sons, before his espousal with Mary. It was only with hesitation that some learned Fathers, under the influence of a growing devotion to Mary, adopted this fable. The first trace of it occurs in Clement of Alexandria,-whom Origen followed, leaning upon Josephus and some others, (tines in the Greek) Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Ecumenius, Hilary, and others.

"From this hypothesis, which was entirely wanting in historical confirmation, it was natural to proceed farther, and resolve the fraternal relation into that of cousin, and identify the so-called brothers of our Lord with the apostles of the same name. It is quite possible that Clement of Alexandria identifies James the brother of the Lord with James the son of Alphaeus; for he speaks of only two men by this name-the one thrown from a tower, the other executed with the sword (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 2:1). But the first to declare himself distinctly for this identification was Jerome, who wrote a work against Helvidius, advocating the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. He speaks of the theory that James was a son of Joseph by a former marriage as an ungrounded fancy taken from the Apocrypha, and tries to prove that our James was the same as James the son of Alphaeus by identifying Mary of John 19:25 ('Mary the wife of Clopas') the sister of Jesus' mother, with the wife of Alphaeus. He seems after to have renounced this theory; for in his commentary on Isaiah (17:6) he mentions fourteen apostles,-the twelve, James the brother of the Lord, and Paul. Augustine spoke of James as the son of Joseph by a former marriage, or as a relation of Mary. To the latter view he gave the preference. These various views have had their advocates among modern divines. The theory that James the Just was a son of Mary and Joseph, and is to be distinguished from the apostles, has been held by Herder, Stier, Credner, De Wette, Wieseler, Neander, Schaff, Lechler, Reuss, Huther, B. Weiss, Bleck, Keim [Alford Farrar], and others; Stier, Wiesler, however, referring Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18, Galatians 2:9-12 to James the son of Alphaeus. Semler, Hug, Schneckenburger, Hoffmann, Lange, and others identify our James with James the son of Alphaeus. And Theirsch and [Lightfoot] hold that he was a son of Joseph by a former marriage. The statements of the New Testament emphatically favor the first view. The expressions in Matthew 1:25, and Luke 2:7 most naturally imply that the marriage between Joseph and Mary was consummated after Christ's birth; and the expression 'first-born son,' by the analogy of the other cases in the New Testament (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 11:28; Revelation 1:5) indicates) that other children were born to Mary. The subsequent close relation in which the so-called brothers of our Lord stand to Mary (Matthew 12:47; sqq; 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Acts 1:14) likewise strongly favors this view. The word brother (adelphos, in the Greek) is never used in the New Testament of any other than the fraternal relation; and the few cases adduced from the Old Testament are indefinite; and special terms are employed for kindred (suggenes in the Greek) and cousin (enepsios Mark 6:4; Luke 1:63, 2:44; Colossians 4:10). To these arguments must be added the fact that James the brother of the Lord and the Lord's 'brethren' are distinguished from the apostles (John 2:12; Acts 1:13; 1 Corinthians 9:5). In John 7:5 it is stated that in contrast to the disciples, the brethren of the Lord had not believed; and in Matthew 12:46 Christ institutes a comparison between his brethren by blood and by moral affinity.

"Paul's expression in Galatians 1:19-'other of the apostles saw I none save James the Lord's brother'-refers back to Peter, and not forward to James. He afterwards (Galatians 2:9) calls James a 'pillar' of the church, avoiding the expression 'apostle,' but in 1 Corinthians 15:7 he is as little distinguished from 'all the apostles' as Peter is from the twelve (1 Corinthians 15:5). The expression Servant of the Lord (James 1:1) does not prove anything at all against the view; for the appellation the brother of the Lord, which was given to him by others as a mark of distinction, would have been out of place in his own mouth. The objection that the names of the four brothers of the Lord correspond to the names of four of the apostles ought to be of little weight when we remember that Josephus mentions no less than twenty-one different persons by the name of Simon, and sixteen by the name of Judas. James was, therefore, the full brother of Jesus, and a different person from the two apostles of that name. James was the representative of the conservative Jewish party at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and stood at the head of the local church. The party of the Ebionites took him as a Nazarite, who from his childhood had drunk neither wine nor strong drink, had never been anointed with oil, never bathed, never worn any but linen garments, and whose hair had never been cut. He was surnamed the Just, and represented as having prayed constantly at the temple for the forgiveness of his people. According to Hegesippus, he suffered martyrdom in 69, by being thrown from a pinnacle of the temple by the Pharisees; but according to Josephus he was stoned to death by the Sadducees in 62 or 63.

The latter passage is of doubtful authenticity, and the former statement is to be preferred.

LIT.-Schaff : D. Verhaltniss d. Jakobus, Bruders d. Herrn zu, J. Alphaei, Berlin, 1842; NEANDER: The planting of the Christian Church; [LIGHTFOOT: Commentary on the Galatians, Excursus (pp. 247-283). On the brethren of the Lord, 2d Ed., London, 1866; EADIE: Commentary on Galatians, Edinburgh, 1869, pp. sqq., and the Commentaries on the Acts, and Epistle of James]. SIEFERT.-Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 2, pp. 1139-1141. Published in 1891.

To conclude. The reader will have observed:

1. That James the son of Alphaeus and James the Lord's brother were two distinct persons.

2. That James was a brother of Jesus and not a cousin, as claimed. That he was a son of Mary the mother of Jesus.

3. That the son of Alphaeus belonged to the apostolic quorum. James the Lord's brother did not.

4. James the Lord's brother was made president of the Jerusalem church after the ascension of the Savior.

5. No facts either in sacred or secular history point to Peter, James, and John as a presidency of the church at Jerusalem.

6. That there is no foundation for the theory invented that the brethren of the Lord were not his brothers according to the flesh, but cousins. That this invention was put in vogue hundreds of years after Christ's ascension, to support Roman Catholic views, of Mary being "ever virgin," etc.

7. That the best authorities deny the contention of our opponents.

8. That nothing authoritative is had as statements made by Joseph Smith, on the disputed questions. If he said what is claimed for him, no reason is assigned for his opinion, hence it is worth what any other unsupported opinion would be and no more.

9. In the light of the facts herein presented the contention of our opponents is not supported, and James the Lord's brother, a son of Joseph and Mary "beyond question" was after the ascension of our Lord constituted the president of the Jerusalem church and acted as such, and not Peter, James, and John, as claimed.

LAMONI, Iowa, June 8, 1903.

APPENDIX H

It has been assumed that the omission to restate, or reproduce, positions taken originally by the writer upon this question is proof that they are abandoned, and that therefore Jude and Silas were dropped out by the force and "magic" of the wonderful attack upon the position. This is a hard blow to our critic's seer-ship and weakens our faith in his ability to read the handwritings on the wall. He should have learned that facts keep over, while it is necessary to parade fancy and error. This gives us an opportunity, however, to restate our positions relative to Jude and Silas, (see pages 70 and 71 of Presidency and Priesthood,) as follows:

"The best evidence obtainable, however, points to the Apostle Jude as being one that was associated with the president of the church." . . . "As to who the other assistant was, it is yet more doubtful. It is highly probable, however, that it was Silas, possibly 'Judas, surnamed Barsabas.'"

There is not the strong and well supported evidence for Jude and Silas being counselors that there is for James being the president, and it was so admitted in Presidency and Priesthood. With these names given and others suggested, the matter was left open for further research. The likelihood of Jude having been one of the counselors has better support than in the case of Silas. Jude was one of the brethren of Jesus, as we believe, hence in his epistle he identified himself before the church as being "the brother of James," and not as one of the college of apostles. It would be quite natural that two brothers of the highly favored family should be selected to act together at the head as other brethren or kindred of the same family were selected to succeed James. But it is the president-in-chief that is claiming our attention in particular in this investigation. Other positions are of minor importance and are so treated. Never mind the side issues.

It will be observed that our critic in his effort has not moved a single position taken in our previous article, or met the overwhelming force of evidence adduced. It is much easier to assume the role of a Daniel and read an imaginary handwriting on the wall, than to marshal reliable evidence in support of a theory.

The criticism is unnecessarily lame, as we conceive, wherein he bases an argument upon the proposition that there is no "clear statement of either position in the New Testament." Not clear-cut, but circumstantial evidence. It is the circumstantial evidence that is relied upon of which we have offered an abundance of proof, and the fact that James actually presided, received reports from Peter, and when they are associated in the writings James is named first and made the most prominent by the Apostle Paul.

Right here I will "be pleased" to furnish our critic a little more circumstantial, yet positive, evidence from the New Testament for consideration, the like of which in point of clearness and relevancy he will never be able to summon anything in favor of his theory to equal or even approach.

After the crucifixion the apostles were in charge for a time and there was no presidency in the sense of a first presidency. Our opponent contends that Peter, James, and John were first presidents then, and in charge, were ordained upon the mount long before the crucifixion, etc. In the light of this assumption the following will be interesting reading: When Philip had preached the word at Samaria and believers were made to the cause, it is written, "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 is this sending Peter and John, two of our critic's "first presidency"? Read again, the apostles "sent" them; but our critic in Herald, volume 51, page 7, again says, "Nowhere are the twelve given any authority to direct the presidency." Just so. Hence Peter and John were not presidents when the apostles directed them to go to Samaria. This is true or, according to the theory advanced by the opposition, we have a reversal of things in this experience, the twelve sending the presidency. So the writer of the Exegesis is put in direct conflict with himself. Peter and John, I suppose, had forgotten all about their ordination, again, as presidents upon the mount, and that they held presiding keys, and so they depended upon the apostles to send them to Samaria. Why did not Peter and John send themselves if they were at the head, or direct in some manner? The case is clear that they had no directing authority in the sense of being a presidency, and depended upon the other apostles to send them, so they went as the apostles directed them.

This is in harmony with the statement in Acts 2, "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles, doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." It is the "apostles doctrine" and the "apostles" that "sent" our critic's presidency to Samaria; yet, the writer of Exegesis states that he will "be pleased to call attention to an ample supply of Scriptural evidence that Peter, James, and John constituted the presidency."

Again, "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom ye may appoint over this business."-Acts 6:2, 3. Our critic's first presidency had not become conscious of their high position of being ordained upon the mount and placed at the head yet. The apostles are running the presidency, according to his theory, and everything else. All of this shows there is nothing in the criticism made on the advanced theory of Peter, James, and John having received an ordination as presidents upon the mount.

But the author of Exegesis still argues that his Millennial Star quotation must be received and honored as authority, notwithstanding its absurdity, as shown in a previous article. There is no claim for this report that it was influenced by the Holy Spirit in being brought to mind like the things that Jesus taught were brought to the minds of the apostles, or as in the inspiration of angels conversing with Joseph Smith and others. It was simply a talk and report after an ordinary fashion; besides being printed under the auspices of the Brighamites and made to read in perfect keeping with their views of church organization and government, it is suspicious to begin with. It has been shown to be in conflict with facts, no matter who got it up, hence is not worthy of credence.

But the author of Exegesis says: "Bro. Kelley arrives at the conclusion that all historical matter contained in their church (Brighamite) publications is unreliable and can not be accepted as authentic." Bro. Kelley arrives at no such conclusion. There is a wide difference between some and all. There would be no object in any one changing history in any particular except it was that part that would need to be changed to conform to their peculiar claims, and that is where this text from the Millennial Star is made to do duty. New Testament facts and history are all against its being true; but it is in harmony with the claims made by the Utah church, therefore doubtful. They acknowledge to having revised the history, under the inspection of President Young, who knew above all others how to eliminate, mold, and change things to support his pretensions. Would any man of sense suppose there would be a change affected where it was not in conflict with their pretensions?

It is not correct either that our historians have inserted unquestioned the historical matters as they appear in the Times and Seasons and Millennial Star. The Reorganization opposed that by resolution. We are sorry that the writer of Exegesis has been so careless, in view of his coming so "widely before the public," just now, as to make the statements he has concerning this. But as the historians themselves have published an article covering this point, it is not necessary to consume further space with it here. The reader is referred to their statements, Herald for January 20, 1904, page 70, from which the following extracts are taken: "In answer to inquiry as to the extent that the writers and compilers of Church history depended upon publications issued by the church in Utah for historical matter, we say that we did not, as a rule, record important events upon such authority alone. Though we sometimes quoted from such publications, it was not until the events related were verified by reference to other authority. We did not, always verify all the details, but became satisfied that the leading events happened as recorded. We tried to keep in view the resolution of the General Conference of 1893 which says, 'Resolved, that in our judgment much of the church history contained in the Millennial Star, and also in Times and Seasons, is of extremely doubtful character, and can not be safely relied upon, therefore it should not be employed as authority in matters affecting the government of the Church'-Conference Minutes, p. 72. . . . Elder Charles W. Wendell, who died in Australia, March 14, 1875, while commenting upon the history of Joseph Smith as published in the Deseret News in1855, makes the following statement: 'I notice these interpolations because having been employed (myself) in the historian's office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph's death his memoir was "doctored" to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and, systematically by Richards.'-Church History, vol. 4, p. 97. This is admitted by the Utah church in their preface to volume one of their church history published in 1902, pages 5 and 6."

As further evidence, the following is in point, Times and Seasons, volume 5, page 638. At a special meeting held August 8, 1844, over which Brigham Young presided, the question was put: "'All in favor of supporting the twelve in their calling, (every quorum, man and woman,) signify it by the uplifted hand'; and the vote was unanimous, no hand being raised in the negative."

In the Millennial Star, volume 25;215, 64, an account of the same meeting is given, as follows: "Do the church want and is it their only desire to sustain the twelve as the First Presidency of the church and at the head of this kingdom in all the world, stand next to Joseph walk up in their calling and hold the keys of this kingdom, every man, every woman, every quorum is now put in order . . . manifest it by holding up the right hand. (There was a universal vote.)"

Comment is unnecessary here to show that history is made to read in harmony with the changed sentiment of the people. One time the twelve are sustained "in their calling"; at another, they are sustained as the "First Presidency." Change wrought to support the views of the Brighamite church claims; just what we have contended was done.

In referring to the inconsistency of the thought that a conference or high council was called upon the mount of transfiguration we are met in reply, "May I not ask to be informed what high council or general conference authorized the ordaining of James the Lord's brother to the presidency?" In the light of the fact upon which all agree, that we have but a scrap of the history of those times, this is a stunner. However, as nearly as can be, with present knowledge, the desired information will be given. In order to do so one of the Exegesis' witnesses will be put upon the stand to testify-Doctor William Smith. In speaking of the manner of procedure after the ordination of the seven (see Acts 6), he says, "We incline to the hypothesis which makes the seven the originals of the deacons. From this time, therefore, or from about this time, there existed in the church (1) the apostles; (2) the deacons and evangelists; (3) the multitude of the faithful. We hear of no church officer till the year 44, seven years after the appointment of the deacons. We find that there were then in the church of Jerusalem officers named presbyters (XI 30) who were the assistants of James, the chief administrator of that church (XII 67). The circumstance of their first appointment is not recorded. No doubt they were similar to those under which the deacons were appointed. The name of presbyter or elder implies that men selected were of mature age. By the year 44, therefore, there were in the church of Jerusalem (1) the apostles holding the government, holding the whole body in their own hands; (2) presbyters invested by the apostles with authority for conducting public worship in each congregation; (3) deacons or evangelists invested with the lesser power of preaching and baptizing believers and distributing the common goods among the brethren. . . . It was in the church of Jerusalem that another order of the ministry found its exemplar. James, the brother of the Lord, remained unmolested during the persecution of Herod Agrippa in the year 44, and from this time he is the acknowledged head of the church of Jerusalem. A consideration of Acts 12:17; 15:13, 19; Galatians 2:2; 9:12; Acts 21:18, will remove all doubt on this point. Whatever his prominence was, he appears to have borne no special title, but it is impossible to read the epistles addressed to them without seeing that they held an authority superior to that of the ordinary bishops or priests (I Timothy 3;5: 17, 19; Titus 1:5, 7.)"-Bible Dictionary, under heading of Church, p. 99.

The time and place then of the appointment and ordination of James and elders and bishops are not given, but that they were selected and ordained is proven by the fact that they held offices in the church. In Latter Day Saint parlance, Timothy and Titus would have been called seventies, most likely; and James, the president of the church. It appears from this statement of Doctor Smith, that James the President (though Doctor Smith gives him no title,-others call him bishop), together with elders and bishops, were ordained sometime between the ordination of the deacons and the year 44, no history giving the specific occasion or details, but in reasonable probability the action was orderly and, to a Latter Day Saint, in harmony with the law which says, "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church!" "Every president of the high priesthood or presiding elder, bishop, high counselor, and high priest is to be ordained by the direction of a high council or general conference."-Doctrine and Covenants, p. 17, pars. 16, 17.

Again the criticism is made in Herald, volume 51, page 7, as follows: "Now, dear reader, please notice the fact herein stated by Peter, James, and John to Joseph, and Oliver, that they (Peter, James, and John) possessed the keys of the kingdom and not the keys as pertaining to the, twelve," etc.

This statement, dear reader, is not correct, as you may see by reading the paragraph quoted. The statement is not made that they do not possess the keys as pertaining to the twelve. No such thought is expressed. This is more cider in the cotton. The language to Thomas B. Marsh was, "Thou art the ma n whom I have chosen to hold the keys of my kingdom abroad among all nations." We have left out the parenthetical statement "(as pertaining to the twelve)" on purpose that our critic may see, if he will, that the keys held by the twelve are the keys of the kingdom, and refer to the ones by which the gospel was to be preached to the nations, the same that Jesus conferred upon the apostles together with the special favor extended to Peter, James, and John, as the following proves, and there is no first presidency hinted at even, in anything or at any time when authority was being talked of or was bestowed upon them. Section 7, Doctrine and Covenants: "I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire, but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men, than what he has before done; yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth; and I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come." The work of Peter and John differ. Had it been a work of the presidency it would have been identical. This conversation took place at the Sea of Tiberius, the third time that Jesus showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection, on that memorable occasion that Jesus said unto Peter: "Feed my sheep." The keys of the kingdom specially designed for Peter, James, and John were yet to be given to them, not to be a presidency, but to act in "this ministry," given to those who were to be heralds of salvation or chief ministers and apostles abroad. John's special desire was to do a greater work "yet among men, than he had before done," but along the same lines. The power and keys of "this ministry" were to be given them to hold as men and angels whose duty it was to preach the gospel to all the world and minister to those who were heirs of salvation. It would appear, then, that the especial keys of the kingdom promised to those three in addition to what they already held were bestowed after Christ manifested himself to the twelve at the Sea of Tiberius. Nothing strange that they should appear in the last days with the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times, which no one will have the courage to claim they held at that time in Palestine. This will enable our opponents to figure out more closely the time when these especial keys were bestowed. The question is not, Did the apostles receive keys, authority, and commission? but, Were Peter, James, and John constituted a first presidency? This latter we deny and think the facts support our claims.

"The Melchisedec priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church."-Doctrine and Covenants 104:3. The church officers appointed to hold the keys of this presiding priesthood were, (1) "a patriarch," (2) "a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, revelator, a seer, and prophet," (3) twelve apostles, "which twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature," etc.-Doctrine and Covenants 107:37-46.

Then follows the naming of the several officers of the priesthood down to that of deacon, with the specific statement: "The above offices I have given unto you, and the keys thereof, for helps and for governments, for the work of the ministry, and the perfecting of my saints, and a commandment I give unto you that you should fill all these and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them, at my general conference, and that ye should prepare rooms for all these offices in my house when you build it unto my name." These keys are recognized as belonging to the several officers of the priesthood all the way from the office of deacon to that of the first president, and the keys are held by the ones occupying the respective offices in the priesthood; so we read in the address to the elders: "Lift up your hearts and rejoice, for unto you the kingdom, or in either words the keys of the church, have been given."-Doctrine and Covenants 42:18.

"Again I say unto you that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who hath authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority."-Ibid., par. 4.

This authority and keys are in the office to which one is assigned. So priesthood and keys are held by the several ordained officers in the church. What of that notion then that the twelve do not hold the keys of the kingdom?

This twelve has been shown to be the second presidency in this presiding priesthood, holding the keys of the kingdom to carry the gospel to every creature. It was the keys of this ministry that were given to Peter, James, and John as shown in Doctrine and Covenants 6, and not as a located presidency. There was no second presidency in the church at the time of the giving of the revelation of Doctrine and Covenants 80. When the twelve were selected, they were authorized with the keys of the kingdom as the "presidency" or twelve apostles; so we read, "Rebel not against my servant Joseph, for verily I say unto you I am with him and my hand shall be over him, and the keys which I have given unto him and also to youward," etc., which shows that the authorizing of the twelve was through the Seer, and this twelve were to go abroad among all nations the same as the twelve of which Peter was a member, was commissioned to go.

In reading the Book of Doctrine and Covenants it will be observed that the First President and First Presidency are not always referred to by the same terms. They are designated as "the presidency"; ",the presidency of the high priesthood"; "quorum of the presidency"; "the presidency of the high council of the high priesthood"; "president of the office of the high priesthood"; "presiding elder over all my church"; "three presiding high priests"; etc.

The same is true of the twelve apostles: They are designated as a "traveling high council"; "twelve traveling council"; "the twelve traveling counselors"; "twelve apostles"; "special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world"; "the second presidency"; "quorum of the twelve"; "quorum of the twelve, my servants"; "traveling council of the twelve"; "the twelve"; "the quorum"; "council of the twelve"; "the council"; "the traveling high council composed of the twelve!"; etc.

The several officers composing these two leading quorums occupy position in the presiding high priesthood (see section 104, paragraphs 3 and 9), hold the chief authority and keys of the same, so we read: "Therefore see to it that ye trouble not yourselves concerning the affairs of my church in this place, saith the Lord; but purify your hearts before me, and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it; and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned. For unto you (the twelve) and those (the first presidency), who are appointed with you, to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fullness of times, which power you hold in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation; for verily I say unto you, The keys of the dispensation which ye have received, have come down from the fathers; and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you."-Section 105:12.

Again, speaking of the president of the twelve: "Thou art the man whom I have chosen to hold the keys of my kingdom (as pertaining to the twelve) abroad among all nations."-Paragraph 7. "Which twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth."-Section 107, paragraph 40. Notwithstanding this plain reading we are gravely told that the twelve apostles do not hold the keys of the kingdom, and that the president of the quorum holds no more authority than others, except in quorum session. Yet this president was to hold the keys of the kingdom "abroad among all nations." Was it to be done in quorum session? What next?

In order to emphasize the relationship of the two leading quorums, their respective callings, authority, and keys, etc., the following is added:

It will be observed that: "The power and authority of the higher, or Melchisedec priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church; to have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven"; etc.-Section 104, paragraph 9. Paragraph 31: "Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed, of the high priesthood. . . . and he shall be called president of the high priesthood of the church, or, in other words, the presiding high priest over the high priesthood of the church," etc. This leading officer is to be selected from among those holding the high priesthood. "And again, the duty of the president of the office of the high priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses. Behold, here is wisdom, yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet; having all the gifts of God, which he bestows upon the head of the church.:-Paragraph 42. This president will his two assistants or counselors constitute "the presidency of the council of the high priesthood" (paragraph 35), or fills "the office of the high priesthood," and of course holds all the keys and gifts pertaining to that office. But who would conclude from this that these men hold all the offices, keys, and gifts of the high priesthood? By reading this same section, it will be seen that the various offices in the priesthood are mentioned in their order, concluding with paragraph 44, which says: "Wherefore, now let every man learn his duty, and to act in the office in which he is appointed, in all diligence." Among the presiding officers mentioned it is said: "The twelve are a traveling, presiding high council, to officiate in the name of the Lord."-Paragraph 12. "Being sent out, holding the keys to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ."-Paragraph 13. What are the keys held by this twelve? "The keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth."-Section 107, paragraph 40. "Hold the keys of my kingdom (as pertaining to the twelve) abroad among the nations."-Section 105, paragraph 7. This is the second presidency of the presiding priesthood. Of the second presidency it is said: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." The first and second presidency occupied offices in the same presiding high priesthood, possessing the keys and gifts of the respective offices held. The first presidency occupying "the office of the high priesthood," are at the head-the "presiding elder," "over all my church," at a "seat"; the second "abroad." Doctor W. Smith has very fittingly expressed the relationship of these two quorums. He says, "Here we find James on a level with Peter and with him deciding on the admission of Saint Paul into fellowship with the church at Jerusalem; and from henceforth we always find him equal or in his own department superior, to the very chiefest apostles, Peter, John, and Paul. For by this time he had been appointed to preside over the infant church in its most important center."-Bible Dictionary, p. 2371. So the "three presiding high priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office," (section 104, paragraph 11,) "constitute a quorum and first presidency, to receive the oracles for the church" (section 107, paragraph 39).

"The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the twelve apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ, in all the world"; "And they form a quorum equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned," etc.-Section 104, paragraph 11. These two quorums hold equal authority and power in the church by reason of the positions they occupy in the presiding priesthood, hence are presidents, holding the chief authority of that priesthood at home and abroad.

The keys or authority to preach the gospel in all the world was committed unto Peter and his associate apostles; the keys of "the office of the high priesthood" was occupied by a "presiding elder over all my church"; and with his two counselors constituted a first presidency.

This first and second presidency held the keys of the kingdom in chief at home and abroad. The one at a "seat"; the other to go into all the world and preach the gospel. So the second presidency or twelve apostles do hold the keys of the kingdom, as well as the First Presidency, who occupy "the office of the high priesthood," with its still higher gifts of office, keys and prerogatives.

The authority of the priesthood is transferable as well as the gifts of office, and may be held by persons on earth and in heaven, and at the same time, or be exercised by more than one on earth at a time. So it is said of Judas, "His bishopric let another take."-Acts 1:20; of David Patten: "His priesthood no man taketh from him, but verily I say unto you, Another may be appointed unto the same calling." -Doctrine and Covenants 107:40. Hyrum Smith was appointed to the "priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery"; and was also appointed to be "a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph." (Ibid., 107:29.) Of Joseph it is said: "The keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come."-Ibid., 87:2. The keys of this ministry (proclaiming the gospel) were given to Peter, James, and John until the coming of Christ. (Ibid., 7:2.) The church was established, however, and men on earth held the keys of the kingdom for the work to be done on earth; and by the same authority, rights, and keys, the work relating to the redemption of man is going on in heaven. Yet we are asked to believe that the First Presidency alone holds keys of the kingdom on earth. But this view of the matter is too palpably absurd to require further notice here. It will be time enough for the opponents to extend their criticisms when they are able to point out from some authentic source that Peter ever held any office in the church except that of one of the twelve apostles. They have not yet been able to so point out, and it is safe to say they never will, for it is not to be found. When the Lord refers to Peter he speaks of him as "Mine apostle of old, whose name was Peter." (Doctrine and Covenants 49:2.) The Lord most likely knew what office Peter held in the church.

In this connection the following from the pen of the Reverend George Waddington, D. p 1, M. A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Prebendary of Ferring, in the Cathedral Church of Chichester, taken from his History of the Church from the Earliest Ages to the Reformations, should be read with interest by the truth-seeker, and none will even suspicion that he wrote with the least taint of Latter Day Saint leaning in chronicling his views on church history. He says: "The converts of Jerusalem naturally formed the earliest Christian society, and for a short time probably the most numerous." Continuing he says: "About the year 69 A. D., James, surnamed the Just, brother of the Savior, who was the first president, or bishop of the church of Jerusalem, perished by a violent death; and when its members subsequently assembled for the purpose of electing his successor their choice fell an Simeon, who is also said to have been a kinsman of Jesus. Shortly after the death of Saint James, an insurrection of the Jews broke out, which was followed by the invasion of the Roman armies, and was not finally suppressed until the year 70, when the city was overwhelmed by Titus and utterly destroyed." Again, "during the next sixty years we read little respecting the church of Jerusalem, excepting the names of fifteen successive presidents, called 'Bishops of the Circumcision,' fourteen of these only belong to the period in question, since the destruction of the city by the emperor Adrain. . . . The church over which they presided seems to have perished with them; yet it would appear from scripture that some sort of authority was at first exercised by the mother church over the Gentile children; and that the decrees ordained by the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem found obedience even among distant converts."-Chapter 1, pages 29, 30. Considering that this learned writer was a Congregationalist in belief renders his statements the more forceful, as he was partial to the Congregational view of church government.

There is no controversy over the fact that there was a division of duties, keys, and callings in regard to the first and second presidency. In the presiding priesthood, the authority is the same. There is a distinguishing difference in the offices held and the duties and gifts belonging to the ones occupying. Our critic's effort on this was all wasted.

On page 8, volume 51, we are told: "We are asked to believe that Peter answered for the rest of the apostles in Matthew 16:17." Replying to this we cite the words of our critic's witness again. Doctor Smith referring to the selection and naming of the apostles says: "From this time there can be no doubt that Peter held the first place among the apostles, to whatever cause his precedence is to be attributed. He is named first in every list of the apostles, he is generally addressed by our Lord as their representative, and on the most solemn occasions he speaks in their name."

Peter assumed the same prominence from the time of his choosing that he did after, i. e., was in the lead of the twelve-spoke for them. "Thus when the first great secession took place in consequence of the offense given by our Lord's mystic discourse at Capernaum (see John 6:62-69), Jesus said unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe and are sure that thou are that Christ, the Son of the living God."

"Thus again at Caesarea Philippa, Saint Peter, speaking as before in the name of the twelve, though as appears from our Lord's words with a peculiar distinctness of personal conviction, repeated that declaration, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' . . . The early church regarded Saint Peter generally, and most especially on this occasion, as the representative of the apostolic body."

Again, Doctor Smith, in speaking of the Savior with the apostles, John 21, says, "He (Peter) then received the formal commission to feed Christ's sheep, rather as one who had forfeited his place (in denying his Lord), and could not resume it without such an authorization."-Bible Dictionary, under the heading Peter, pp. 427, 428.

The writer of the Exegesis seems to have imbibed the idea that because Peter took the lead and spoke for the twelve that he did all of their thinking and concluding; that whatever was his view the rest were bound to agree to it. But this is a grave error. No such thought is held or believed by any writer. No trace of any such thing appears. There was order. Peter was in touch with the other members of the quorum, knew their views and convictions, so on proper occasions, as the leader, he spoke for them. Each apostle retained his individuality, agency, and liberty of action.

The writer of the Exegesis goes on, as if there were some argument in it, "It is evident that the president of the Quorum of the Twelve does not answer for his brethren of the quorum in our day. For instance the claim that James the Lord's brother was president of the ancient church, and many other things. Moreover the president of the Quorum of Apostles has no more authority or keys than any other member of the Quorum of Twelve, outside of quorum sessions, etc."

It would be interesting to learn how our critic found out all of this wisdom. Will he be so kind as to tell us who it is from and by what process it is done, that the president of the quorum receives the authority and keys when the quorum meets, and to whom they are relinquished when they disband? He does not seem to possess them out of quorum session according to this theory. Where are they during the time of adjournment from one session to another? It may be that the president leaves the authority and keys hanging on the peg where his hat hung during the session as he goes out at dismissal. This volunteered opinion we think is likely to strike people with amazement, coming from one who is essaying to put things in order.

Tired of following the subject matter in hand, it seems a new issue is raised here, i. e., the question of the authority of the president of the Twelve. We are not in a very advantageous position to discuss or say much about the rights and prerogatives that inure to the office of the president of the Twelve, neither does the question properly belong here, hence this is deferred to a proper time. It might turn out, after all the returns are in, however, that the office of president of the Twelve does mean something and that the president holds some authority and prerogatives that apply outside of quorum sessions, as well as presidents of other quorums or organized bodies, and that hitherto they have not been properly recognized or anything said about them. At least we dissent from the exposition of our critic. The writer is loath to conclude that the president of the Twelve is merely a figurehead from the closing of one session to another of the quorum's meetings in his relationship to the quorum and the church. If the criticism be true, the office might be abolished without injury to the body.

Again, "Though my statement may be absurd wherein I contend that it was James, the son of Alphaeus, that continued on down after the death of James, the son of Zebedee, yet I have failed to see anything presented to prove it to the contrary." But since our critic has failed to see what is against him it will necessitate a restatement of a few things. The learned Doctor Philip Schaff says, "James the son of Alphaeus-one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. He is so designated in four places,-Matthew, 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. No other passage can with certainty be regarded as referring to him or his family, and nothing further is known definitely of his life. The alleged blood relationship of his family with the house of Jesus lacks all evidence." Again, "They are pure assumptions." "James the Just, the brother of the Lord, the head of the church at Jerusalem, is distinguished from the two apostles of the same name." "The fraternal relation reported to have existed between James and Jesus was explained as the relation between cousins. But Tertullian is a witness to the fact that the distinction between James and his apostles was still held in his day. He speaks of the consummation of Mary's marriage with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, and of the brothers of Jesus to prove the reality of the incarnation over against agnostic objections. At a somewhat later date the apostolic constitutions declared for the same view." That the fraternal relation is vouched for by another passage, "I, James, a brother of the Lord according to the flesh."-Herald, vol. 50, pp. 1103, 1104. But, Doctor Schaff says the first to declare himself distinctly for this identification (that James the son of Alphaeus and James the Lord's brother was the same person) was "Jerome." Further, "James was, therefore, the full brother of Jesus, and a different person from the two apostles of that name." (Herald, vol. 50, pp 1103, 1104.) The argument for the identification of the son of Alphaeus with the brother of Jesus is "beset with insuperable difficulties." (T. K. Cheyne, M. A., D. D.) This same author says, "James the son of Alphaeus. He also was one of the apostles, and is mentioned in all four of the lists by this name but in no other place."-Herald, vol. 50, p. 1079. "The son of Alphaeus is only named in the four lists of apostles."-Britannica, vol. 13, p. 552. Does our critic see anything to the contrary? Better reread!

But objections are continued; he says: "It would hardly be supposed that those who had been preferred by our Lord and set apart by him to preside over the Melchisedec order of the priesthood and to have care of Spiritual things would contend for the honors of being the bishop whose calling is to minister in temporal affairs." More cider in the cotton! The very points at issue to be proven are here assumed in this jingling of words together. It would "hardly be supposed." Of course not, for there is nothing in the assumption. It has already been shown that the most learned confess to not knowing the title of office given to James in his day, but in after years it was the custom to call the highest officer in the church, "bishop"; so historians adopted it and applied this title to James, by reading back; later writers use the term "president" to designate his office, as will be seen. Further, it is also admitted that it is not known from historical evidence the distinguishing titles of offices given to Timothy and Titus or when ordained; or when and the circumstances when presbyters were ordained. This is sufficient reference to the jugglery of words about James being one of the presidency, counselor to Peter, bishop, and Bro. Kelley looking for something to make this same person "patriarch." It is so interesting, hence our notice of it at all.

But he goes on: "We are surprised that Bro. Kelley did not quote the foot-note on page 36 of Eusebius' History." There need be no "surprise" about that. Eusebius did not write it. It is simply a foot-note put in by somebody else, most likely to make a showing that Eusebius sustains Jerome's views. It is found in the edition of the Reverend C. F. Cruse, A. M., with notes selected from the edition of Valesius as a foot-note. It is not in the edition by Isaac Boyle, D. D., printed in 1869. This ought to cause all "surprise" to subside. The footnote is an interloper.

Page 9, "Again the claim is made that James was converted and made president of the church immediately after the ascension of Christ. In three days." Who makes this claim? It is another man of straw, seemingly set up for diversion, and the writer goes on again referring to the visit to the house of Cornelius, which was exploded in our last article, in which it was shown that there was no need of a first president to do the work that Peter did at the house of Cornelius, as it was in line with Peter's calling and commission as an apostle to do that work. So there is nothing "conclusive" in that the Lord recognized Peter as at the head of the church any more than it is "conclusive" that Philip or Ananias, who were directed similarly in their work, were presidents. There is nothing singular about the transaction even if James was then the active president of the church. Peter did just what any apostle has a right to do, that is, obeyed the voice of God when in discharge of his ministerial work. It is not expected that any minister will be dictated to by the First Presidency or any one else in all that he does. The minister is free to obey God at all times.

Again if the president of the Twelve were sent to Jerusalem to preach to the Gentiles, and when he arrived there God should command him to preach to the Jews, he would not stop to hear what the First Presidency says about it, but would go right on obeying God, and as Peter did, take his chances before the church when called in question. The Presidency would not immediately recall him either. The advice and direction of the Presidency is not intended to supplant the individual freedom of a person to be guided by God's wisdom in his ministerial work. The imputation that it does smacks of rank heresy. How does the writer know that when the time comes to preach to the Jews a revelation to that effect must needs come through the First President? The preaching of the gospel was extended to the Gentiles through the ministration of an apostle at Jerusalem, and this was right and proper, no matter if the country were full of first presidents. What occurred once may occur again. An apostle is a servant of God and has a right to obey his voice in his ministerial work, independent of any direction of the First Presidency. Hence there is nothing "evident" in the plea on page 10, of Herald, January 6, 1904.

In Herald, volume 51, page 29, we are referred again to the "brethren" question, which was exploded in a previous article, and Gressler, Lardner, and the Emphatic Diaglott are cited again in evidence in an effort to prove that "brethren" in the Bible means cousins. But if the reader will turn and read the references relied upon to support this view of Jerome the weakness of the texts will appear at once and there will be no difficulty in deciding where the truth lies. Read Genesis 26, also 29:15. Doctor Schaff says the word brethren (adolphus, in the Greek) is never used in the New Testament of any other than the fraternal relation; and the few cases adduced from the Old Testament are indefinite, and special terms are employed for kindred and cousin."-Herald, vol. 50, p. 1104. On the same page it is objected that Jerome was the first writer that gave prominence to the notion that the "brethren of the Lord" were but cousins. Doctor Schaff says, "But the first to declare himself distinctly for the identification was Jerome, who wrote a work against Helvidius advocating Mary's perpetual virginity." Our critic against the Doctor.

Again, our critic has great worry because Jesus committed his mother to John's care. But Jesus calls John her son and Mary his mother. So there is no use fretting over this. It is only a question as to whether the higher spiritual union in the gospel is not stronger and more worthy of trust than the earthly, even though it was important that she be committed to the care of a natural son. At the time, her children were unbelievers. Jesus said, "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."-Matthew 12:50. In this high ethical and spiritual sense Jesus committed his mother to the care of Jesus' brother, and of course the son of Mary.

But we are further criticised [criticized] as follows: "The reason assigned by the opposition is that her sons were unbelievers at the time in question, and in the next breath we are told that he was converted and made president of the church immediately after the resurrection, the long space of three days," etc. How magical! But stop a moment! Who was it said the reason that Jesus committed his mother to John was that his brethren were unbelievers? Who was it said that James was converted and made president immediately after the crucifixion-in three days? It would be very interesting to know.

Again, "If Christ failed to appoint his successor previous to his crucifixion, the church on earth was without any visible head for several days." Well, that is about the history of it, unless Mary was at the head; or the apostles,-and they went fishing. Who rallied them? Was it not the stranger who journeyed to Emmaus, the true head, upon his return? The apostles were next in charge, it seems, so when tidings came that Samaria had received the word, "the apostles" sent two of their number, "Peter and John"-two of the assumed first presidency of our critic-"to Samaria, to aid the work there." But when the persecution arose about Stephen and the disciples were scattered abroad, the gospel was received at Antioch. "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch."-Acts 11:22. It appears that the church at Jerusalem was then in a comparatively organized condition and some one in charge, hence the sending of the missionary Barnabas to Antioch without his being directed by the apostles. It does appear that James was then in authority. In the next chapter is recorded the statement of Peter, "Go show these things unto James and to the brethren." So we find James fully in power and with the church caring for the churches abroad. Jesus was crucified 33 A. D. This would give between seven and ten years for the conversion and appointment of James and a complete organization of the church with a president, and not "immediately after the crucifixion-two or three days," and as it is admitted by all that Christ appeared to James he could, easily have appointed him his successor. Christ met with the disciples often. Was seen by above five hundred at once. No trouble here. We do not "concede" either that Jude was one of the college of apostles. It will help our critic to reread Doctor Schaff's article if he is looking for light. Presidency and Priesthood holds a different view.

Yes, T. K. Cheyne, M. A., D. D., once Professor of Holy Scriptures, Oxford, "is all right." Some men are sufficiently large, capable, and free from bias as not to follow the beaten track of others, but declare for facts in any event. T. K. Cheyne seems to be of that make-up. Then if his sympathy is with Rome and Oxford traditions, he is all the better witness for us. When a man is compelled to testify perforce of facts against commonly received opinions in order to be right, he is a good witness.

Now our critic states, however, that "Eminent writers differ widely and we can not depend on what they write but must look to the Scriptures for authentic support of our ideas." Just so. Some time ago the claim was made that all the best authorities were on his side of the question. Why this change? But he will find it more difficult to get a clear statement from the Scriptures in favor of his position than from the best historians as he holds out a prominent historian that arose in the fourth century who was the cause of misleading writers and darkening counsel ever since, to fall back on. But we can get light if we will read extensively enough. Our critic apologizes by saying he used a considerable amount of historical matter simply to show that our most "eminent writers differ widely and can not be depended upon." We knew that before; this is an age of inquiry.

Again, "The effort to refute my position on lineage is far-fetched." What difference does it make just so it is "fetched"? Yes, our critic insisted strongly that the lineage was from father to son. This was not denied, however, but there are exceptions to this general rule, which we have shown. This is the clue that spoiled the objection of our critic.

The old argument about woman's seed should bruise the serpent's head is again introduced in the criticism. But who is it that can not see that if Jesus, being begotten by the Holy Ghost, was recognized as lineal heir of the seed of David and was counted through Joseph, that a son of Mary, the father of whom was Joseph, would be counted in the same lineal line? If the real efficacy in one case comes by reason of the mother, why not the same efficacy obtain in the natural born? The evidence we adduced was from the Book of Mormon, and anything from that book to a Latter Day Saint ought not to be considered very "far-fetched"; and it was not "a hard nut to crack." However, there is not sufficient revealed on all questions to present them with desired ampleness of historical certainty that is all satisfactory. What is revealed belongs to us and our children'-the rest to God. Wrong theories lead into difficulty. Hence our critic seems to be in a maze of difficulty in following his theory.

But the criticism proceeds: "There is nowhere to be found a promise that this right might descend from mother to son." It is equally true that it is nowhere written that it could not so descend, and it is also true that Jesus was of the lineage of David and yet there was no blood of David in him but that received from his mother. If this mother's blood gave Jesus the lineal right through the seed of David manifest in his mother, why not the lineal right be recognized in the line of David through the same man and the mother of Jesus to James? Sure enough!

This is followed by a reincarnation of the old argument exploded that Peter was always "first," etc., which does not need further notice for there is nothing in it pointing to a presidency except that Peter was a leader of the twelve-one of the most active of the apostles, a man of affairs-relied upon before and after his call to the apostleship.

But we are informed, "He will find it to be quite a task to get the people to believe that the terms quorum and kingdom are synonymous." No, we would not have them believe that way. No one holds to that belief that we know of. We do not on this side of the question. Do not have to believe it.

Then follows a revamping of the assertion that Peter was the president of the conference held in Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15. It is sufficient comment on this to say that we know of no author who supports the position. All agree that James was president of that assembly. In Latter Day Saint belief the highest in authority presides always. We are sorry that our friend persists in arraying himself against all historical evidences that are at hand upon this question which we have seen, no matter which side of the main question they were on.

Our critic's "summary" is too funny to extend this article further in examining. Those who have not, should read it. We are loath to express an opinion. The reference given about what Hegissippus says about what Hegesseppus said we have not been able to find, so can not pass upon it in its true light. At best it would be but a statement of what one writer says another wrote at an early day which has no confirmation. It might properly be questioned, however, by us, for the spirit of apostasy and the introduction of false views began at an early day in the church, so that after the deaths of the apostles and first witnesses, there was talk and conjuring of things to fix up the growing apostate belief to keep Mary "ever virgin"; and the "brethren of Jesus" standing in the way, there would be speculation and theories invented and talked of to get them out a the way. This would be natural. But as shown in this article, Jerome was the man that introduced distinctly this theory into history which has been followed largely since, until of recent years the learned are exploding the old misleading fancy along with other errors that crept up under Roman Catholic formation and rule, and the truth about the fraternal relations of Joseph and Mary are brought to light.

It will be observed that a president has been maintained for the ancient Jerusalem church; and that this was James the Lord's brother. That his seat was at Jerusalem, and that he presided over the church at home and abroad. That he did not belong to the college of apostles. That he had two assistants or counselors, who may have been Jude and Silas, though this is not conclusive. That the Roman Catholic claim and tradition that the "brethren" of Jesus, Matthew 13:55, means that they were his cousins, is a fake. That the right of the presidency in the priesthood and succession belonged to the house of Joseph and not to the house of Zebedee; that Peter never was the president of the church, nor a pope; that this claim for Peter is another fake: a false position whether held to by Latter Day Saints, Roman Catholics, or Protestants. That after the crucifixion and ascension of the Lord, the twelve apostles were in complete charge for a time, and then there were called into office, deacons, elders, bishops, and a presidency within the space of about seven or ten years. Each occupied specific places in the organizations assigned; the president and apostles acting together and supervising the work at home and abroad. That the twelve apostles lived and died occupying the identical office to which Jesus called and assigned them, and that in the millennium, or when his kingdom shall rule on earth, they will hold these separate and distinct offices as his prime ministers, and "set on thrones." That Peter, James, and John were made special witnesses and leaders because of a peculiar personal fitness belonging to them, which was recognized by the Savior on their first acquaintance; but that they never were constituted a presidency of of the church either as men or angels. Peter was a leader by nature and had charge of men and a business when Jesus first met him. John was dearly beloved because of natural endowments belonging to him, and James was a strong, devoted character upon whom the people relied, hence, were made the chief witnesses for Christ.

While writing Presidency and Priesthood, it was not designed to use text-books in support of the positions assumed other than the Bible and secular history; but the criticisms advanced have been based chiefly on Latter Day Saint sayings and revealments, so it became necessary to refer to these in making this reply, and also necessitates an enlargement of the volume.

This article or reply has been in readiness for over twelve months, but was held up, it would seem, on the ground that it was producing controversy and inquiry, causing people to think, a false sentiment having crept in which is at variance with the spirit and genius of the Reorganized Church from its inception, and of the ancient Jerusalem church, that it is wrong to examine into and discuss a matter of religious belief in order to arrive at an intelligent conclusion in regard to it. In the midst of research and comparison of views-search for light, some one cries out "There is contention-lack of unity, it weakens the faith of members," etc. So the doors of free inquiry and discussion are closed, and ignorance is enthroned as the mother of unity and devotion, while the best means known to human experience to arrive at a desired unity, that of inquiry and discussion, is ruled out. It would be highly interesting, however, to see a body of people come to a unity concerning some important matter of which they were wholly ignorant and refused to inform themselves,-just standing around with their hands in their pockets waiting for unity, or the dictation of some accepted boss, and finding fault with people who are delving into the facts and bringing them to light.

Salt Lake furnishes a splendid ideal of a unity reached in this "down with controversy" way. Russia is another example. There is a wide difference between discussion and a proper inquiry into a matter in order to ascertain the truth of it, and wrangling contentions.

Unless our critics can bring something new and much more in point and potency in the way of evidence and argument than anything yet seen from that side, this will conclude our articles on the question. We have no disposition to bicker over words and phrases to no purpose or strive for mere mastery. All readers among Latter Day Saints should be benefited by this investigation. The doctrine, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good," applies to this as well as other questions. When Latter Day Saints are asked to assign a reason for their belief, if they are not conversant with the reasons they can not assign them, but will have to remain mute when interrogated. Both sides in this inquiry believe in a president, but the question is, Who was he?

Personally, with the writer it is no matter who he was, but from the evidence in sight, James, the brother of Jesus, stands, "beyond question," the president. Do not get a wrong idea of what is meant by the phrase "beyond question." In a sense anything can be questioned. We have heard it questioned that there ever lived such a man as Shakespeare, of the existence of the souls of men; of hell; of God; of heaven; and of the Devil. What we mean is, that the evidence in the Bible and history strongly preponderates in making it reasonably certain that James was the president of the Jerusalem church. There is nothing for Peter;-not a line. If the author of the "Exegesis" will furnish a single text of clear statement from the New Testament or reliable history that Peter was ever appointed to be, or acted as the president of the church, the writer of this will take pleasure in seeing that he is amply rewarded for his new discovery.

This reply will be added to the answers of the other criticisms made and put in pamphlet form, so that those who wish can examine and compare at their leisure; and it will also appear in the future editions of Presidency and Priesthood................Wm. H. KELLEY.

LAMONI, Iowa, June 20, 1905.