87. Luke iii:16. Matt. iii:2. Acts i:4, 5.
88. The languages spoken are enumerated by the writer of The Acts ii:9-11.
90. I think it proper here to call the attention of the student to the fact that the principles of the gospel in this discourse of Peter's are stated in the same order that they were unfolded in the ministry of John the Baptist and Messiah. First, John came bearing witness of one who should come after him--Christ, the Lord. Hence, he taught faith in God (John i:15, 16, also verses 19-36). After that, the burden of his message was, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;" then followed his baptism in water with a promise that they should receive the Holy Ghost. So Peter first taught the people faith in the Lord, proving from the scripture that Jesus was both Lord and Christ; and when they believed that, then he taught them repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, and promised them the Holy Ghost.
95. It is generally supposed by Biblical scholars, Mosheim, Neander, Kitto, Murdock and many others, that these men were deacons only. There is nothing, however, in the Acts of the Apostles or other parts of the New Testament which would lead one to believe that such was the case. We have evidence on the other hand that one of them at least held a higher priesthood than the office of deacon. In modern revelation we have it stated that neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament or lay on hands for the Holy Ghost (Doc. and Cov., sec. xx:58); yet we have Philip, one of the seven, going down into Samaria, teaching the gospel "and baptizing the people" (Acts viii), hence we may know that he held a higher priesthood than that of deacon. Yet when it became necessary to confer the Holy Ghost upon these same converts by the laying on of hands, Philip, it would seem, had not the authority to do it; but the Apostles hearing that Samaria had received the word, sent Peter and John down and they conferred upon the Samaritans the Holy Ghost. And though Philip was present he appears to have taken no part in it. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that since Philip had authority to baptize, he therefore must have held an office higher than that of deacon, or even of teacher; but since he evidently had not authority to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, his office was something less than that of an Elder. Hence it is most likely that he was a priest--priests have the right to baptize but not to lay on hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost (Doc. and Cov. sec. xx)--as perhaps also were his six associates, appointed to preside over the temporal affairs of the Church, especially to see after the poor.