recorded by this branch of Israel. He gave Mr. Smith power to reveal the contents of those records to the nations of the earth. Now, how does this testimony of Joseph Smith agree with the book of John's prophecy given on the Isle of Patmos? John testifies that when the dispensation of the gospel is again committed to the nations, it shall be through the medium of an angel from heaven. J. Smith testifies that a dispensation of the gospel for all nations has been committed to him by an angel. The one uttered the prediction; the other testifies its fulfillment. Though Mr. Smith had taught a perfect doctrine, yet if he had testified that his doctrine was not restored by an angel, all would at once have known him to be an impostor. How came Mr. Smith, if an impostor, to not only discover a perfect doctrine, but also to discover the precise medium through which that doctrine should be restored to the earth? Did Swedenborg, Irving, Wesley, or any other persons, not only teach a pure system, but at the same time did they declare that it was committed to them by an angel from heaven? If not, however pure and holy their teaching, they were not divinely authorised to administer in ordinances. If Mr. Smith had professed to have accidentally discovered those records, and that he was inspired to reveal their contents through the Urim and Thummim; or if he had professed to have received a message of the gospel through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, or the Urim and Thummim, or in any other way but that of the ministering of an angel, we should, without further inquiry, have known him to be without authority. How came Mr. Smith, if a deceiver, to think of all this? Did Martin Luther, Wesley, Whitfield, Swedenborg, or Irving think of this? Whence his superior intellect—his depth of understanding—his extensive foresight—that he should so far surpass all former impostors for 1700 years? John testifies that when the everlasting gospel is restored to the earth it shall be by an angel. Smith testifies that it was restored by an angel, and in no other way. This is another presumptive evidence that he was sent of God.

Third.—A revelation and restoration to the earth of the "everlasting gospel" through the angel Moroni would be of no benefit to the nations, unless some one should be ordained with authority to preach it and administer its ordinances. Moroni might reveal a book containing a beautiful and glorious system of salvation, but no one could obey even its first principles without a legally authorized administrator, ordained to preach, baptize, lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, &c. Did Moroni ordain Mr. Smith to the apostleship, and command him to administer ordinances? No, he did not. But why not confer authority by ordination, as well as reveal the everlasting gospel? Because in all probability he had not the right so to do. All angels have not the same authority—they do not all hold the same keys. Moroni was a prophet, but we have no account of his holding the office of an apostle; and if not, he had no right to ordain Mr. Smith to an office which he himself never possessed. He no doubt went as far as he was authorized, and that was to reveal the "stick of Ephraim"—the record of his fathers containing the "everlasting gospel." How then did Mr. Smith obtain the office of an apostle, if Moroni had no authority to ordain him to such office? Mr. Smith testifies that Peter, James, and John came to him in the capacity of ministering angels, and by the laying on of hands ordained him an apostle, and commanded him to preach, baptize, lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and administer all other ordinances of the gospel as they themselves did in ancient days. Did Swedenborg—did Irving's apostles—or did any other imposters during the long age of darkness—profess that the apostleship was conferred upon them by those who held it last—by an angel who held the office himself? No; and therefore they are not apostles, but deceivers. If Mr. Smith had pretended that he received the apostleship by the revelation of the Holy Ghost, without an ordination under the hands of an apostle, we should at once know that his pretensions were vain, and that he was a deceiver. If an impostor, how came Mr. Smith to discover this? Why did he not, like the Irvingites, assume the apostleship without an apostle to ordain him? How came he to possess so much more wisdom than Irving, as to discover that he could not be an apostle without being ordained under the hands of an apostle? If Mr. Smith be a false apostle, it must be confessed that he has exhibited far more judgment than all the false apostles who have preceded him, learned and talented as they were. Is not this another presumptive evidence of Joseph Smith's divine mission? Such a correctness upon matters of so great a moment, and upon subjects on which millions have heretofore erred, indicates something more than human—it indicates inspiration of the Almighty. The purity of Mr. Smith's doctrine—the perfect coincidence of his testimony with that of John's, in relation to the manner of the restoration of the everlasting Gospel to the earth, and the consistency of his testimony in relation to the manner of the restoration of the apostleship, are strong presumptive evidences that beautifully harmonize with and strengthen each other; the evidence is therefore accumulative, and increases with every additional condition or circumstance in a multiplied ratio, and seems almost irresistibly to force conviction upon the mind.

Fourth.—Joseph Smith not only professes, through the medium of angels, to have received a dispensation of the gospel, and the power and authority of the apostleship, but he also professes to have received, through revelation and commandment from God, a dispensation for the gathering of the Saints from all nations. Now the doctrine of the gathering of the Saints in the last days must either be false or true; if false, then J. Smith must be an impostor. It matters not how correct he may have been in all other points of his system, if this one point—the doctrine of the gathering—be false, he must be a deceiver. Why? Because he professes to have received this doctrine by direct revelation and commandment. On the other hand, if the doctrine of the gathering of the Saints be a true doctrine and scriptural, this will be another presumptive evidence that Mr. Smith was sent of God.

Now a doctrine may be true and not be scriptural; as for example, Newton's doctrine or law of universal gravitation is a true doctrine, but not a scriptural one; that is, it can neither be proved nor disproved by the scriptures. So, Noah's doctrine of gathering into an ark—Lot's doctrine of fleeing out of Sodom—Christ's doctrine to depart out of Jerusalem and flee to the mountains to escape destruction, were all true; but neither of them could be proved or disproved by any scripture given to any of the former prophets. So likewise Mr. Smith's doctrine of the gathering of the Saints in the last days might be true, even though there should be no former scripture that predicted such an event; but in this case such a doctrine would be no evidence that Mr. Smith, who advocated it, was sent of God; but if such a doctrine can be proved to be a scriptural doctrine, that is, if the gathering of the Saints was predicted in ancient scriptures as an event to take place in a certain age, in a certain way, and through certain means, and Mr. Smith comes in that age, professing to have a message to gather the Saints in such way, and by such means as the scriptures have foretold, then the exact and perfect agreement between the professed message of Mr. Smith, and the scriptural predictions relating to such a message or work, would be a presumptive evidence of great weight in favor of his divine mission.

The doctrine of the gathering of the people of God, including Israel, is one so