  ARRIVAL IN FRANCE—PREPARATIONS FOR WORK—MONSIEUR LE MAIRE—PERMISSION TO LECTURE—MEETINGS IN BOULOGNE-SUR-MER—IMPUDENT PRIESTS—A CHALLENGE—GREAT DISCUSSION—MINISTERS FLY THEIR COLORS—UNFAIR CHAIRMAN—DEFENSE OF ELDER TAYLOR. After a brief stay in England Elder Taylor sailed for France, arriving in Boulogne-sur-Mer—a fortified seaport town in the North of France—on the 18th of June. He was accompanied by Elder Bolton and William Howell, from Wales. The latter had preached the gospel in various places in the Jersey Islands and on the coast of France, and had baptized a few into the Church. Elder Taylor's first step was to call upon the mayor of the city and find out the extent of his privileges in preaching. He explained to that officer that the object of his visit to France was religious not political; that he wished to preach the gospel, and that his principles taught him to uphold the laws and government wherever his lot might be cast; and that he might not infringe upon the laws of France or of that city, he called upon him as the chief officer in the place for information. Monsieur le Maire was all politeness and attention. He first inquired if Monsieur Taylor had any papers, and upon having placed in his hand a letter of recommendation from the Governor of Deseret, signed by the Secretary of State, he expressed himself as satisfied; and informed the Elder that if he preached in a consecrated church nothing more would be required; but if he preached in a hall not consecrated, it would be necessary to address a note to him, specifying his intention and the doctrines he would preach; naming the hall and his place of residence, and he would then give him the necessary liberty. Such was the law at the time, that if this routine was not observed, the person attempting to hold the public meeting was liable to be imprisoned or banished from the country. At first the conversation was carried on by Elder Bolton acting as interpreter; but the mayor either wishing to display his learning or accommodate Monsieur Taylor, undertook to make his replies in English. Elder Taylor observing the mayor's imperfect English, and not to be outdone in politeness, was soon trying to answer his grace in equally bad French. Elder Pack joined the little party in Boulogne on the 26th of June, and the same evening they walked down on the sea-shore, and as the friendly shades of night shut them out from the rest of the world, they bowed down in prayer, in which Elder Taylor was mouth. He thanked the Lord for preserving them in their travels over mountains, deserts, plains, oceans and seas; and solemnly dedicated himself and his brethren to the labors to which they had been called by His own voice through His servants. He prayed for wisdom, for intelligence—in short, for the co-operation of God in their efforts to introduce the gospel in that land. His next step was to secure a hall for preaching, near the center of the city, and announce a course of lectures on the principles of the gospel. He also wrote a number of letters to the editor of the Interpreter Anglais et Francais, in which he explained the object of his mission, and gave a brief account of the restoration of the gospel, with an explanation of its leading principles. These letters were published both in French and English. The lectures were not very largely attended. The French people are notoriously indifferent to religion. They are lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; are gay, volatile, careless, happy, intelligent. Anything in fact but religious. Therefore the announcement of these religious lectures did not create much interest. There were a number of Protestant ministers in the town and they not only attended his lectures, but made themselves particularly obnoxious by their impudence. The evening of his first lecture a Mr. Robertson, an Independent minister, arose in the meeting and wanted the privilege of asking a few questions. Fearing, however, that to grant such a request might lead to disorder, and the mayor under those circumstances might withdraw his permission for holding the meetings, Elder Taylor told the reverend gentleman that he would answer as many questions as he might think proper to ask at his lodgings, or he would call on the gentleman at his house and answer them there, but could not admit of anything that might lead to a disturbance. Mr. Robertson pleaded that it was for the good of the public, and his friends who were there, that he wished to ask the questions. Elder Taylor replied that he might bring his friends with him, or he would meet them at his house. Not satisfied with this, Mr. Robertson followed him out into the street and being joined by a Baptist minister, began to abuse "Joe Smith," calling him an impostor, etc. "Whom do you speak of," said Elder Taylor, "I was personally acquainted with Mr. Joseph Smith; he was a gentleman, and would not treat a stranger as you do me." They still followed him, but he paid no more attention to them. A few days after this occurrence, he received a challenge to a public discussion from the Revs. C. W. Cleeve, James Robertson and Philip Cater. This challenge he enclosed to the mayor, with a note, asking if there would be any objection to such a meeting. Being informed there would be no objection, the challenge was accepted, and the preliminaries arranged. The questions for discussion were stated as follows: First, the late Joseph Smith; his public and pretended religious career. Second, the Book of Mormon; is it a revelation from God? Third, are the ministers of that people [the Mormons] sent of God by direct appointment? The fourth article of the agreement stated that "Mr. Taylor will have the privilege of discussing the validity of the faith and calling of his opponents." The discussion began on the evening of the 11th of July, and continued three nights, from seven until ten, each party having thirty minutes alternately. The first two nights, and one hour of the third evening were taken up on the first three questions, leaving Elder Taylor only an hour in which to enquire into the doctrines and callings of his opponents; yet, as we shall see, that was sufficient. In discussing the character of Joseph Smith, Elder Taylor's opponents introduced the infamous statements of Doctor Bennett, the Rev. Henry Caswell and others, charging Joseph with a number of crimes and immoralities. Elder Taylor had no documentary evidence to rebutt these slanders, but he offered his own testimony to the character of the Prophet: and as Elders Bolton and Pack both knew him personally, he called upon them to testify, which they did. Elder Taylor's own testimony was especially strong. Burning with just indignation at the slanders against his friend, repeated by these priests of a dead theology, he said: "I testify that I was acquainted with Joseph Smith for years. I have traveled with him; I have been with him in private and in public; I have associated with him in councils of all kinds; I have listened hundreds of times to his public teachings, and his advice to his friends and associates of a more private nature. I have been at his house and seen his deportment in his family. I have seen him arraigned before the courts of his country, and seen him honorably acquitted, and delivered from the pernicious breath of slander, and the machinations and falsehoods of wicked and corrupt men. I was with him living, and with him when he died; when he was murdered in Carthage jail by a ruthless mob with their faces painted, and headed by a Methodist minister, named Williams—I was there, and was myself wounded. I, at that time, received four balls in my body. I have seen him, then, under these various circumstances, and I testify before God, angels and men, that he was a good, honorable, virtuous man—that his doctrines were good, scriptural and wholesome—that his percepts were such as became a man of God—that his private and public character was unimpeachable—and that he lived and died as a man of God and a gentleman. This is my testimony; if it is disputed bring me a person authorized to receive an affidavit, and I will make one to this effect." In another part of the debate, he remarked on the testimony of himself and brethren: "We have heard from our opponents about testimony that would be received in a court. The testimony of three living witnesses against a criminal, if his crime was murder, would hang him." Chairman: Oh, no! oh, no! A gentleman in the audience: (a barrister) "It would." Elder Taylor: "I say Mr. Chairman, that it would. Let three respectable men make affidavit before a court, that they had seen one man murder another, and if their testimony was unimpeached the man would hang—their testimony would be conclusive." Replying to his opponents remarks about not coming prepared with documents to answer their scurrilous charges, and about his testimony being that of an interested party, or of a particular friend, Elder Taylor said: "Mr. Cleeve * * * thinks I ought to bring documents to be accredited, as if it were necessary for us to bring replies to all the trash ever published against us! Now, what testimony had St. Paul when he preached at Athens, at Rome or at Antioch? He said that he had seen a vision, the people, of course, could believe him or not, as they thought proper. The wicked Jews were sent after him and his colleagues to testify evil. How could he rebutt it? Where were his documents? The Jews could state that he had been found guilty in several places, and whipped and imprisoned. Could he deny it? Assuredly not. They could testify that Jesus whom he preached, was crucified, as a blasphemer and an impostor, by the Jews, his own people. Could he say that this was not a legal decision? It seems to me that these gentlemen have never studied their Bibles, or they would have known more about such things; they must see that they are taking the same stand that the Pharisees and chief priests did formerly." He then showed his opponents what position they would be in providing they were transplanted to a nation that did not believe in Jesus or the Bible. As the passage is both instructive and amusing, I quote it in full:— "Now, I will speak a little about the position of my opponents. I suppose they are considered gentlemen here; their doctrines are believed, at least, by their respective flocks, if they have any. The Bible is believed by all. Suppose we transplant them to Hindostan or China. What evidence would they have to present before the people? They present the scriptures, and tell the people they are true. But how are we to know it, say the people. We tell you so. That is all very well, but we want some proof. Well, say you, they speak of Jesus coming to atone for the sins of the world. "Yes, but the Jews tell us he was an impostor and a wicked man." "But we believe Him to be a good man, and the son of God." "Did you ever see Him?" "No." "Did you ever see anybody that had seen him?" "No." "How do you know anything about Him then?" "We believe Him to be good." "Who wrote this book?" "His apostles." "Oh, his particular friends!" "Yes." "Did you ever see them?" "No." "Did you ever see anybody that did?" "No." "Well, we don't put much confidence in your remarks; but we will read your book." Having read it they say: "Oh, I perceive that certain signs are to follow them that believe—the sick are to be healed, devils cast out, they are to speak in other tongues, have the gift of prophecy, etc. Do these signs follow you? "Oh, no!" "But you say you are believers, and your Bible says these signs shall follow them that believe." "Oh, they are done away with and not necessary." "But one of your apostles says, 'follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts.'" "But they are not needed." "Strange! Your Apostle St. Paul says, 'the eye cannot cay to the ear, I have no need of thee; nor the head to the foot, I have no need of thee.' But shall we not receive these gifts if we believe in Jesus, repent and are baptized?" "No." "Oh, you have a friend here, I see who is also a Christian minister. Do you believe in the same book, sir?" "Yes." "Do you believe in the same doctrine?" "No." "But do you get yours from the same book?" "Yes." "And does it teach you differently?" "We believe differently." "But you have, we perceive, another friend here; is he also a minister?" "Yes." "Which of your doctrines does he believe?" "Neither." "Do you all believe the Bible?" "Yes." "Do you believe it to be true or false?" "True." "Does a true book teach three different ways [of salvation]?" "Those are our opinions." "Oh, I thought you had come to teach us truth; if opinions are all, we have plenty of them already and can dispense with your services." When the discussion turned upon the doctrines and authority of his opponents, he made short work of it. He proved very clearly that they were without authority to act in the name of God; that their doctrines were out of harmony with the scriptures and their religion a mere form of Godliness without the power thereof. To his statements and arguments they refused to reply, but still continued harping on the character of Joseph Smith. Paying no heed to their vain repetition of the slanderous charges against the Prophet, to which he had once made answer, he continued to unmercifully bombard their religious citadels, until, seeing them tumbling about their ears, the reverend gentlemen sought safety in flight. The following is, in part, the bombardment before which they finally fled: "What about their calling? Are we to have no answer to this subject? I have positively proved and demonstrated that they have no authority to preach, and they never attempted to disprove it, but have given us another rehearsal of the old ditty [the character of Joseph Smith]. Gentlemen, you sit down very quietly under the appellation of false teachers; of course we must believe that you are such unless you can prove to the contrary. Mr. Robertson, indeed, honestly says that he has no authority. Then God has nothing to do with him or his calling. He, of course, acknowledges that he is administering in the name of one who never sent him. We shall take him at his word, and set him down as a teacher whom God has not sent. In France or England they would punish persons as imposters for committing an act of forgery. But the judgment of those who administer falsely in the name of Jesus has not yet come; but the time will come when some will come and say, we have preached in thy name; and He will answer, depart from me, I never knew you (confusion). We shall set Mr. Cater on the stool with Mr. Robertson. Mr. Cleeve will not degrade himself by investigating the matter! Will he tell me why he, as a gentleman, undertook to discuss a subject, and published that engagement, which he is now disgusted with? And why he did not express his feelings of disgust before he heard the argument? I presume a criminal would express his disgust at an executioner for being so impolite as to put a noose round a gentleman's neck. But it is there, and there it will remain, Mr. Cleeve, until it is removed by you. It needs more formidable weapons than disgust or contempt to remove it; and we shall still say you have no authority, that you are a false teacher, and that God has not sent you, unless you can show some reason to the contrary." (Confusion.) Elder Taylor, amid considerable confusion, hastily sketched the outlines of the doctrines of Christ as contained in the New Testament, the organization of the Church and the gifts and powers that attended the primitive Saints, all of which was to be perpetuated in the Church. "Now let us examine how this doctrine agrees with that of these gentlemen; for be it remembered that St. John says, 'He that transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrines of Christ hath not God, but he that abideth in the doctrines of Christ hath both the Father and the Son.' (II John, 9.) Now, have they apostles? No. They ridicule the idea of them. Have they prophets? No. They tell us there is to be no more prophecy. Have they evangelists, pastors and teachers—inspired men? No. They don't believe in inspiration, and tell us the cause of inspiration has ceased. Do they speak in tongues? No: you have heard in turned into ridicule time and again. Do they have prophets among them who prophesy? This they call a delusion. If any are sick, do they do as St. James says, 'send for the Elders of the Church that they may pray for them, and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord?' No. That they call fanaticism. Do they baptize in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins? No. Do they lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost? No. What have they got that in the least resembles the gospel? They have not even a clumsy counterfeit. How will they stand the test? 'He that abideth not in the doctrines of Christ hath not God.' I will not, however, call them imposters, that I shall leave, and go on to examine their doctrines more in detail. "First, I will commence with Mr. Cleeve. He professes to be a Methodist minister. I am somewhat acquainted with their doctrines. Their ministers are not all ordained as Mr. Cleeve is; they have their class leaders, local preachers, exhorters and itinerant preachers, made just at random, according to convenience. But I will here take Mr. Cleeve and Mr. Cater and compare their doctrines. Mr. Cleeve believes in sprinkling; Mr. Cater in immersion; neither of them believing in baptism as Peter did, for remission of sins. (Interruption.) But the Methodists have arranged the matter more conveniently, for according to the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, they have three different modes of baptism—they will baptize either by sprinkling, pouring or immersion. This is the doctrine of the Episcopal Methodist Church in America; so that after teaching a person what they call the plan of salvation, they do not know as teachers how to baptize, but must apply to the person whom they are teaching. Thus Mr. Cleeve would—" Mr. Cleeve.—I am not a Methodist, sir. Elder Taylor.—I certainly understood you were a Wesleyan Methodist. Mr. Cleeve.—I have nothing to do with the Wesleyan Methodists, either directly or indirectly.[ Elder Taylor.—Then I must say that I am laboring under a mistake; this was certainly my understanding. I will therefore turn to Mr. Cater. I understand that he is a Baptist minister. Mr. Cater.—I am not a member of the Baptist Association.[ Elder Taylor.—I was certainly told and understood until now that you were, sir. Pray, gentlemen, what are you? (Great laughter and no answer.) At this point the Rev. Mr. Long, evidently ashamed of the cowardice of the ministers that were flying from their colors, arose in the audience and exclaimed, "I am not ashamed of my profession, sir; I am a clergyman of the Church of England." (Great laughter.) Elder Taylor.—I certainly think the gentlemen have taken a strange position, they seem to be afraid of acknowledging what their profession is. However, I will proceed. I have three different ministers to do with of some persuasion, for they all call themselves Reverends. Now, do their doctrines agree with the scriptures? Have they the organization, ordinances, gifts, prophecy, revelations, visions, tongues, apostles, prophets? No. This they cannot deny, for they have all of them opposed these things; yet all of these things were associated with primitive Christianity. Their offices, their doctrines, their calling, their teaching, their ordinances are all incorrect, they are devoid of the blessings, powers, unity, certainty and revelation, and are left struggling in the mazes of confusion, division, strife, uncertainty and error. They know not God nor the power of God. (Interruption.) There is scarcely a principle that these gentlemen have that is correct, even the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins they treat lightly; yet Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch—when he believed, he immersed him in water; John baptized in non because there was much water there; St. Paul was told to arise and wash away his sins, and Jesus says that except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he can in no wise enter the kingdom of God. Chairman.—(to Elder Taylor) Do you wish to continue, the gentlemen on the opposite side are satisfied that it rest here? Elder Taylor.—I certainly did not anticipate this. I expected to investigate their principles further, according to agreement. Chairman.—They do not wish to say any more. Elder Taylor.—If they have no reply to make, of course I must let it rest. Here the debate closed, and the Champion of Truth was triumphant. The chairmen of the meetings, Mr. Luddy, Dr. Townley and Mr. Groves made some remarks at the close of the debate, and very unfairly, as Elder Taylor could have no opportunity to reply to them, undertook to rescue the vanquished ministers. In the published report of the discussion, however, he wrote out his replies to their strictures, and very effectually answered them. There is one item connected with this discussion that should be dealt with, since it is a matter that the enemies of Elder Taylor have sought to make much of in casting reproach upon his veracity and moral courage. In the course of the discussion his opponents rehearsed all the charges of crime and immorality made in the writings and lectures of John C. Bennett after he was excommunicated from the Church; and accused the Saints with practicing the grave immoralities described by this arch apostate. Among the immoralities charged were those of promiscuous sexual intercourse, a community of wives, the keeping of seraglios, polygamy, illicit intercourse by permission of the Prophet, and the keeping of spiritual wives. To all this Elder Taylor made a general and emphatic denial, and read from an article then published in the Appendix of the Doctrine and Covenants, expressing the belief of the Church on the subject of marriage; and inasmuch as he knew of and had obeyed the law of celestial marriage, including as it does a plurality of wives, he has been accused of falsehood, and of seeking to deceive by denying the charges then brought against the Church. The polygamy and gross sensuality charged by Bennett and repeated by those ministers in France, had no resemblance to celestial or patriarchal marriage which Elder Taylor knew existed at Nauvoo, and which he had obeyed. Hence in denying the false charges of Bennett he did not deny the existence of that system of marriage that God had revealed; no more than a man would be guilty of denying the legal, genuine currency of his country, by denying the genuineness and denouncing what he knew to be a mere counterfeit of it. Another illustration: Jesus took Peter, James and John into the mountain and there met with Moses and Elias, and the glory of God shone about them, and these two angels talked with Jesus, and the voice of God was heard proclaiming Him to be the Son of God. After the glorious vision, as Jesus and His companions were descending the mountain, the former said: "Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of Man be risen again from the dead."[ That Elder Taylor neither lacked the courage of his convictions on this subject, nor the boldness to proclaim them, nor the skill to defend, was amply proven in subsequent years, when, after the law of celestial marriage was proclaimed to be the law of the Church, he went to the city of New York to publish a paper, and there in the metropolis and center of civilization of America, fearlessly proclaimed that doctrine, and successfully defended it against all comers. Footnotes |
|
