Again, I say, there is much in the so-called "New Theology" which we cannot accept, such as the denial of the atonement, its treatment of the Scriptures and the like, but in so far as these fundamental principles of it are concerned--the immanence of God in the world, and the identity of the race of man and divine beings--there can be no question as to their accuracy. And those Christian people who are not accepting these ideas are not moving forward with the far-flung thought-line of God's revelations on these matters. We next come to the subject of priesthood. It is declared by the reviewers that the teaching of the Church upon this important doctrine is not candidly set forth in our Address. Then they give us a long line of quotations, most of them from the _Seer,_ upon the subject of priesthood; and insist that the priesthood involves the possession and exercise of arbitrary power in all things, in things both spiritual and temporal. I read to you a passage or two from the Address on the subject of priesthood that you may see the injustice of this charge: "We affirm that to administer in the ordinances of the gospel, the authority must be given of God; and that this authority is the power of the holy priesthood. "We affirm that through the ministration of immortal personages, the holy priesthood has been conferred upon men in the present age, and that under this divine authority the Church of Christ has been organized." The reviewers quote this far, and then stop to remark--but without returning to quote again from the Address--"so it is declared; but the teaching of the Church on this important doctrine is not herein candidly set forth." Then why did not you reviewers go to another part of the document where the matter is more explicitly set forth and quote that? Following the fragment you do quote occurs this passage which declares the express purposes for which the priesthood was given: "We proclaim the objects of this organization to be, the preaching of the gospel in all the world, the gathering of scattered Israel, and the preparation of a people for the coming of the Lord." But you reviewers say this "power extends not only to things spiritual, but to secular matters as well." Within certain limitations, granted; and the acknowledgment of the fact is found in the Address itself which you charge with being uncandid. Here is the passage: