Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Volume 1 of 2)

by B. H. Roberts

I. The Lord's Day.[A]

[Footnote A: An article in the Improvement Era, Vol. I, No. I, 1897.]

A justification for the regarding the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, or "The Lord's Day."

From Elder George W. Crockwell, laboring in Sioux City, Iowa, we recently received a letter in which occurs the following:

"There are a great many Seventh-day Adventists in this city, and in talking on the gospel with them I have been unable to confute their arguments, to my satisfaction, against our worshiping on the first day of the week. In reading the scriptures I find only the following passages that in any way refer to the matter, but they are not conclusive: John 20:19-26; Acts 2:1; Acts 20:6, 7; I Cor. 16:1, 2; Rev. 1:10; Mark 2:27, 28; Luke 6:5; II Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:15. Any information you may give me will be thankfully received; and allow me to suggest that a tract covering this question would undoubtedly be of material assistance to Elders laboring in sections of the country containing Adventists."

Seventh-day Adventists constitute a religious sect whose chief characteristics are that they believe in the personal and glorious coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; and that the holy day of worship appointed of God is the seventh day of the week instead of the first. Hence their name—Seventh-day Adventists.

Owing to the fact that modern Christians deny the continuation of revelation after the days of the apostles, and as they cannot point to any direct revelation, or positive apostolic institution in the New Testament by which the first day of the week was substituted for the old Jewish Sabbath, the seventh day, which Jesus during his lifetime honored by observing, the Adventists have other Christians at somewhat of a disadvantage in this controversy. The Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, need not be embarrassed by the arguments of Adventists, since the Church of Christ in this last dispensation has the warrant of God's word, by direct revelation, for keeping holy the Lord's day, that is, the first day of the week, as a day Of public worship and thanksgiving, a holy Sabbath unto the Lord. It is not our intention, however, to avoid a discussion of the question by thus placing it on entirely new ground, and making the success of the issue depend upon one's ability to make it clear that God has given such a revelation, although that is a position that can be consistently taken by our Elders. But we desire to point out the evidence we have (1) from the New Testament, and (2) from the practice of the early Christian church, for observing the first day of the week as a day of public worship, sanctified and set apart as the Lord's day. By doing so we shall be able to show at least that there is a very strong probability that the change from the seventh to the first day of the week was made by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, after his resurrection; that it was perpetuated by his apostles and the early Christian church; and then, in conclusion, shall cite the revelation referred to which, to the Latter-day Saints, changes this "probability" into fact and confirms with divine sanction our custom of worshiping on the first day of the week. By pursuing this course we shall draw the strong probability to be derived from the scriptures and the practice of the early church to the support of the revelation referred to, while the revelation, as already indicated, will transform the "probability" of the New Testament scriptures into positive fact.

We begin with the arguments to be derived from the New Testament:

It is related in John's gospel that on "the first day of the week," Mary Magdalene, early in the morning, met the Lord Jesus, after his resurrection, and conversed with him. This she told the disciples. "Then the same evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in their midst and saith unto them, 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. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John xx:19-23).

Thomas, of the Twelve, was not present at this meeting nor would he believe the account delivered to him of it by his fellow apostles, but declared he must see the print of the nails in the Master's hands, and thrust his hands into his sides before he could believe. "And after eight days," which of course brings us to the first day of the week, "again his disciples were within and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the door being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, peace be unto you" (John 20:26). He then dispelled the doubts of Thomas, and did many other things which are not written.

Let this much be held in mind from the above: Jesus arose from the dead on the first day of the week and appeared to his disciples when they were assembled together. Then, "after eight days," which brings us again to the first day of the week, his disciples were again assembled, and he appeared unto them. We have no account of his appearing to any one in the interval, a significant fact; and one which makes it easy to believe that the second meeting on the first day of the week was appointed by the Lord himself, and since all that he did on this and other occasions was not written (John xx:30 and Ch. xxi:25), it is not impossible, nor even improbable, that he then sanctified this day, and appointed it as a holy day, to be observed as sacred by his followers. This view is sustained by the continued practice of the apostles in meeting on the first day of the week.

It is a significant fact that the day of Pentecost, upon which day the apostles received their spiritual endowment by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, "that year fell on the first day of the week." [A] "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place" (Acts ii:1). They received the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and publicly preached the gospel and administered baptism. This assembling together on the first day of the week was doubtless in continuation of that new order of things with respect to the Sabbath which Jesus had ordained.

[Footnote A: See Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Hackett & Abbot's edition, Vol. II: Art. Lord's Day, p. 1677. Also Bramhall's works, Vol. V: p. 51, Oxford Ed., Discourse on the Sabbath and Lord's Day.]

Many years after Pentecost, in giving the account of Paul's journey from Philippi to Troas, the writer of the Acts of the Apostles says that the journey was accomplished in five days; and at Troas the apostolic party abode seven days; "and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight" (Acts xx:4-7).

Again: Paul sends the following instructions to the Saints at Corinth—and it is to be seen from the passage itself that he had given the same instructions to the churches of Galatia: "Now, concerning the collection for the Saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no gatherings [i. e., collections] when I come" (1 Cor. xvi:1,2).

These passages prove very clearly that the custom of meeting together for acts of public worship and the preaching of the gospel was firmly established in apostolic times, and since that is the case it doubtless was ordered by Messiah's own appointment. Surely the apostles would not presume to establish such an order of things without divine sanction. Within the life time of the last of the apostles, too, this Christian Sabbath had received its name—"the Lord's Day." John's statement—"I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day, and heard behind me a great voice," etc., can have reference to no other thing than the fact that on the first day of the week which had come to be known by them as "the Lord's Day," John was in the spirit. "The general consent, both of Christian antiquity and modern divines, has referred it to be the weekly festival of our Lord's resurrection, and identified it with 'the first day of the week,' on which he rose; with the patristical 'eighth day,' or day which is both the first and the eighth; in fact with the 'Solis Dies' or 'Sunday,' of every age of the church."[A]

[Footnote A: Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II; p. 1676.]

Following is the argument of a very respectable authority upon these New Testament passages, and it seems to us decidedly strong:

"As the death of Christ made atonement for sin and symbolized the death of his church to the world, so did his resurrection mark the beginning of a new spiritual life, or, in the words of Paul, 'a new creation in Christ Jesus.' This new creation was the higher renewal of that first one which sin had marred; and therefore we find the disciples, from that very day, celebrating the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's day, on which he met for worship and fellowship. These assemblies began on that very evening when the risen Lord entered the chamber where the eleven apostles had met with doors shut for fear of the Jews, saluted them with the blessing of peace, showed them his wounded body, and ate bread with them; and then breathing his spirit upon them he repeated their commission, to preach the gospel to every creature, and to baptize all believers, conferred on them the power to work miracles, and gave them the authority of remitting and retaining sins. Such was the first meeting of the apostolic church on the first Lord's day. And after eight days again his disciples were within, the doors being shut as before, when Jesus stood again in their midst, with the salutation of 'peace,' and satisfied the doubts of Thomas, with the tangible proof of his resurrection."[A]

[Footnote A: Student's Eccl. Hist. (Philip Smith, B.A.) Vol. I: pp. 21, 22.]

The same authority continues the argument in a foot note thus:

"The meetings of the disciples on each eighth day have the more force as an argument from the very fact of their being only incidentally recorded. The correspondence of the interval with the week, and the distinction of the day from the old Sabbath, are facts which admit of no other explanation; and all doubt is removed by Paul's plain allusion to the meetings of the disciples on the first day of the week, and by the testimony of the heathen as well as Christian writers to the practice from the earliest age of the church. John in mentioning the day as a season of spiritual ecstasy, in which Christ appeared to him and showed him the worship of the heavenly temple, expressly calls it by the name which it has always borne in the church, 'the Lord's Day.'"[B]

[Footnote B: The Student's Eccl. Hist. Vol. 1: P. 22, Note.]

These arguments may be further strengthened by the following considerations: When the Jews were stickling for a very strict observance of the old Sabbath, Jesus, with some spirit, replied that "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." And furthermore gave them to understand that "the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath," (Mark ii:27, 28). It follows then that since Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, it would clearly be within the province of his authority to change the old Mosaic institution of the Sabbath if he so elected. Paul in his day said: "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold all things have become new" (II Cor. v:17). Again in his letter to the Ephesians, the apostle represents Christ as "having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." And again in his letter to the Colossians:

"And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the hand writing of ordinances that war against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. * * * Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come" (Col. ii: 13-17).

From this it is clear that many things in the law of Moses being fulfilled in Christ were done away, or changed to conform to the law of the gospel; and to say the very least of the argument set forth up to this point, it is very probable that the Sabbath was among those things so changed.

Turn we now to the argument to be derived from the custom of the primitive church:

Next to the New Testament writers Clement of Rome, a companion of the apostles, is most relied upon as stating correctly early Christian practices, and in his epistle to the Corinthians, speaking of things commanded of Christ, he says:

"Now the offerings and ministrations he commanded to be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And when and by whom he would have them performed he himself fixed by his supreme will: that all things being done with piety according to his pleasure might be acceptable to his will. They therefore that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed; for while they follow the instructions of the Master they cannot go wrong."[A]

[Footnote A: Clement's Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 40. We use Rev. Geo. A. Jackson's translation of the passage.]

From this it, appears that Jesus himself did fix set "times and seasons" for "offerings and ministrations," as well also by "whom" as "when" they should be performed, and that, too, according to "his supreme will." This represents the Lord as having arranged matters in the church—including "times and seasons" for "offerings and administrations"—more definitely than any of the New Testament writers credit him with doing. Is it unreasonable to think that among these was the transition from the Jewish Sabbath to the Lord's Day?

In the Epistle of Barnabas, written in the early part of the second century, it is said by that writer, speaking of the Christian custom as pertaining to the Sabbath: "We keep the eighth day unto gladness, in the which Jesus also rose from the dead, and after that he had been manifested, ascended into heaven." (Epist. Barnabas, Ch. 15.)

The younger Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia, in describing the custom of the Christians to his friend, Trajan, the Roman emperor, says:

"They were accustomed on a stated day to meet before daylight, and repeat among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a God, and to bind themselves by an oath with an obligation of not committing any wickedness; * * * after which it was their custom to separate and to meet again at a promiscuous, harmless, meal [the Sacrament?] from which last practice they desisted, after the publication of my edict."[B]

[Footnote B: Pliny's letter to Trajan and the emperor's reply will be found in full in Roberts' "New Witness for God," Vol. I, pp. 54-57.]

It is only claimed for this passage that it proves that the Christians had a stated day on which they met for the worship of God, and the renewal of religious covenants; and doubtless that stated day was the eighth day of the week mentioned by Barnabas, and which corresponds with the "first day" of the week mentioned by the New Testament writers.

Justin Martyr, one of the most learned and highly esteemed of the apostolic fathers, is very clear upon this subject. He says, writing in the first half of the second century, almost within shouting distance of the inspired apostles:

"In all our obligations we bless the Maker of all things, through his son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost, and on the day which is called Sunday, there is an assembly in the same place of all who live in cities or in country districts; and the records of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as long as we have time. Then the reader concludes, and the president verbally instructs and exhorts us to the imitation of those excellent things. Then we all arise together and offer up our prayers. And, as I said before, when we have concluded our prayer, bread is brought and wine and water, and the president in like manner offers up prayers and thanksgiving with all his strength, and the people give their assent by saying, amen. * * * But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God when he changed the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead: for the day before that of Saturn he was crucified, and on the day after it, which is Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them these things which we have given to you also for your consideration" (I Apology, Ch. 67).

We have not the space to further examine the testimony of the fathers, nor is it necessary. Sufficient has been quoted to show that in that age immediately succeeding the apostles, the practice, which seems to have begun even under the immediate supervision of the Lord himself, was firmly established in the early church. The learned writer in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Rev. James Augustus Hessev, who there treats this subject, says:

The result of our examination of the principal writers of the two centuries after the death of St. John are as follows: The Lord's day (a name which has now come out more prominently; and is connected more explicitly with our Lord's resurrection than before) existed during these two centuries as part and parcel of apostolical, and so of scriptural Christianity. * * * Our design does not necessarily lead us to do more than to state facts; but if the facts be allowed to speak for themselves, they indicate that the Lord's day is a purely Christian institution, sanctioned by. apostolic practice, mentioned in apostolic writings, and so possessed of whatever divine authority all apostolic ordinances and doctrines (which are not obviously temporary, or were not abrogated by the apostles themselves) can be supposed to possess" (Vol. II, page 1679).

Yet after all this is admitted, and the strength of the argument is very great in my judgment, it must still be confessed that it falls somewhat short of being absolutely conclusive. It cannot be made out clearly and positively that Jesus or the apostles by direct, official action authorized the observance of the first day of the week as a day of public worship, dedicated to the service of God, and designed to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath. The most that can be claimed for the evidence here adduced—and it is the strongest if not all that can be marshalled in support of the proposition is that it is probable that such a change was instituted. Revelation Baden Powel, professor of geometry at Oxford University, states the case as it stands most truly. He says:

"To those Christians who look to the written word as the sole authority for anything claiming apostolic or divine sanction, it becomes peculiarly important to observe that the New Testament evidence of the observance of the Lord's day amounts merely to the recorded fact that the disciples did assemble on the first day of the week, and the probable application of the designation of the Lord's day to that day."[A]

[Footnote A: Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature. Art. Lord's Day.]

That Catholics regard what is written in the New Testament as insufficient to justify them in the observance of the first day of the week instead of the seventh is evident from the fact that they appeal to the tradition of the church or "the unwritten word of God" in justification of their practice, and upbraid Protestants for their rejection of the authority of tradition, which alone, in their view, justifies the change from the seventh to the first. The author of the Catholic work, "End of Religious Controversy," after citing the scripture commanding the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath, then says:

"Yet with all this weight of scripture authority for keeping the Sabbath or seventh day holy, Protestants of all denominations make this a profane day, and transfer the obligation of it to the first day of the week, or Sunday. Now what authority have they for doing this? None whatever, except the unwritten word, or tradition of the Catholic church; which declares that the Apostles made the change in honor of Christ's resurrection and the descent of the Holy Ghost on that day of the week" (End of Religious Controversy, letter 11).

It is this element of uncertainty in the evidence, and the consequent inconclusiveness in the argument that those who contend for the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord take advantage of; but, as stated in the beginning, the Latter-day Saints need not share the embarrassment that other Christians generally feel over the question, for the Lord has set the matter at rest by a revelation in the last days to his church. In a revelation to his servant Joseph Smith, given in August, 1831, he said:

"Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day; for verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High. Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times; but remember that on this the Lord's day thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren and unto the Lord. And on this day thou shalt do none other thing only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or in other words that thy joy may be full" (Doc. & Cov. xlix:8-13).

This is in clear allusion to the first day of the week; and thus the matter is set at rest. The observance of the "Lord's day" as the day sacred to the worship of Almighty God, so far as the Latter-day Saints are concerned, does not rest upon the "probability" that it was of divine or apostolic institution, as is the case with Protestant Christendom; nor does it rest upon the "tradition" of the church that it was of apostolic institution, as is the case with the Catholic church; but the observance of that day comes to the Church of Christ by direct appointment of the Lord by revelation to the head of the church in this dispensation; and that revelation transforms the "probability," that the first day of the week was substituted for the old Jewish Sabbath, into a certainty.

In conclusion, let us ask our young Latter-day Saints to observe with what solemnity God hath dedicated this day, and set it apart for the worship of the Lord; and how strictly he hath prohibited other occupation than this on that day; and so much as our "certainty" outstrips the "probability" of other Christians that the "Lord's day" is the proper day for public worship, so let our strict observance of it outstrip theirs.[A]

[Footnote A: At the Seventy-seventh Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah, April 5, 6, 7, 1907, Anthon H. Lund of the First Presidency of the Church, speaking on this subject of the Sabbath Day and justifying the practice of the Church in observing the first day of the week as our Christian Sabbath, employed among other arguments the following:

"It is impossible for all to keep the Sabbath day at the very same time all over the globe. If all the people lived on one longitude or meridian they could keep it at the same time, but as they are now scattered around the globe, there is a great difference in time. For instance, children went to Sunday School in New Zealand yesterday at half past two o'clock. It was Saturday to us; [President Lund made these remarks on Sunday forenoon.] it was ten o'clock Sunday morning to them. The children on the Hawaiian Islands will go to Sunday School about one o'clock today, and it will be ten o'clock then for them. Thus, at a given time it may be Sunday for one set of people and Saturday for people in another place. The teachers in the Hawaiian Sunday School might say today to the children, 'Your brethren in New Zealand met yesterday, when it was twelve o'clock here, in their Sunday School,' and the children would likely say, 'Why, they have Sunday School on a Saturday!' The line which divides the time, or which indicates where day begins, is an arbitrary one made by men for the sake of convenience. It is located the very best place that it could be, because there are very few inhabitants that the line will strike. It passes over the Pacific Ocean, and in order that no island shall have Saturday on one side and Sunday on the other, they have turned the line around the groups in the Pacific Ocean, so that those pertaining to the same country, under the same government, may have the same day; but this is all an arbitrary arrangement. If, then, the Lord accepted the devotions of those who worshiped Him yesterday, calling the day Sunday, and accepts the worship of those living a short distance eastward who call today Sunday, the important question seems to be, not so much the exact time as the fact that one day in every seven is set apart to be a day of rest.">[

II.
Anglican Orders.—Decision of Leo XIII Considered.—The Protestant Dilemma.[A]

[Footnote A: This article was offered to the press of Cincinnati, Ohio, soon after Leo XIII promulgated his decision on the subject of Anglican orders, when the discussion of the subject was at its height, and declined by them, for reasons obvious to the Latter-day Saints. It subsequently appeared in the Deseret News of November 7th, 1896.]

A Consideration of the Question of Divine Authority.

Preliminary Statement.

In the month of June, 1896, something of a sensation was created in England in respect of an expressed desire for a closer union between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The desire was voiced in the form of a statement by Mr. William Ewart Gladstone, communicated through the Archbishop of York. The question of unity among the Christian churches had been agitated in several quarters in that year, and the Pope had addressed a letter to the English people in fact appealing to them to return to the Church of Rome, and it is said a movement "having for its purpose the same general result, had been going on for some time among clergymen and laymen who belonged to one section of the Anglican church." Lord Halifax, who was the chairman of a great Anglican organization, under the title of the English Church Union, had been prominent in this movement, and had several interviews with the Pope and his counselors, seeking "to ascertain how far Rome on the one hand and the English church on the other were willing to advance toward a basis of union. One of the questions which came up for discussion was that of the validity of Anglican orders; that is, whether Rome would or could recognize the right of an Anglican clergyman to seek, as such, admission to the clerical order in the Roman church, if any change of opinion should lead him that way." And thus the question of the validity of Anglican orders became a subject of formal investigation by the authorities at the Vatican.

Mr. Gladstone's position upon the subject is best stated by himself:

"The one controversy which, according to my deep conviction, overshadows and, in the last resort, absorbs all others, is the controversy between Faith and Unbelief. . . . . . This historical transmission of the truth by a visible church with an ordained constitution is a matter of profound importance, according to the belief and practice of fully three-fourths of Christendom. In these three-fourths I include the Anglican churches, which are probably required in order to make them up. It is surely better for the Roman and also the Oriental [Greek] church to find the churches of the Anglican succession standing side by side with them in the assertion of what they deem an important Christian principle than to be obliged to regard them as mere pretenders in this belief and pro tanto reduce the cloud of witnesses willing and desirous to testify on behalf of the principle. . . . I may add that my political life has brought me much into contact with those independent religious communities which supply an important religious factor in the religious life of Great Britain, and which, speaking generally, while they decline to own the authority, either of the Roman or the National Church, yet still allow to what they know as the established religion no inconsiderable hold upon their sympathies. In conclusion, it is not for me to say what will be the upshot of the proceedings now in progress at Rome. But be their issue what it may, there is, in my view, no room for doubt as to the attitude which has been taken by the actual head of the Roman Catholic church in regard to them. It seems to me an attitude in the largest sense paternal, and while it will probably stand among the latest recollections of my lifetime, it will ever be cherished with cordial sentiments of reverence, of gratitude, and of high appreciation." (Story of Gladstone's Life, (McCarthy) pp. 414-416.)

This attitude of the great English Statesman brought upon his head a storm of indignation, not to say anathema from nonconforming churches, and in reply to one of those ministers, he said:

"The Church of Rome recognizes as valid (when regularly performed) baptism conferred in your communion and ours. By this acknowledgment I think that Christianity is strengthened in face of non-Christians. For baptism read orders (for the purpose of the argument), and the same proposition applies, though unhappily in this case only to us, not to you. No harm that I can see is done to any one else. The settlement of this matter is a thing of the likelihood of which I cannot even form an opinion. But I honor the Pope in the matter, as it is my duty to honor every man who acts as best he can with the spirit of courage, truth and love." (The Life of Gladstone, page 419).

The first response from Rome to Mr. Gladstone's letter contained nothing decisive and final upon the subject of the Anglican orders, though his holiness made it clear that on the part of Rome there could be no compromise of religion or principles, and later in the year he issued the decision which is the subject of the following paper, in which his holiness held that Anglican orders were "absolutely invalid." The consequences of which decision are discussed in the paper following.

Pope Leo's Decision on Anglican Orders.

The decision of Pope Leo XIII in respect to the invalidity of Anglican Orders, appears to be creating not only a very great amount of discussion through the columns of the religious press but also considerable ill-feeling. The "Religious Telescope" for example, published at Dayton, Ohio, in its issue of the 14th of October, 1896, under the caption "Absolutely Invalid," says:

"This is the decision of Pope Leo XIII respecting all ordinations under the Anglican rule. After a long study of the subject he has confirmed the decision of his predecessors in regard to this matter. His decision sets aside all ordinations outside of the Roman Catholic Church as absolutely invalid.

"So there we have it: all ministers of the Lutheran, the Episcopal, the Baptist, the Presbyterian, the Methodist, in short, all Protestant churches—are posing under false ordination vows! So his holiness declares! And is he not infallible? Is it not impossible for him to make a mistake? Is he not the successor of St. Peter—Christ's vicegerent on earth? Does he not hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Does not that aged, decrepit old man, Leo XIII, now in his dotage, have the power to bind and to loose—to admit into or shut out from heaven whomsoever he will? Does any Protestant minister or layman doubt this? Perish the thought! How will this august decision handed down from the Vatican affect the ministry of the Protestant churches? In our judgment only about as sensibly as a puff of the Pope's breath would have affected the St. Louis cyclone when in the height of its fury.

"They will go right on preaching the unsearchable riches of the gospel of Christ in demonstration of the spirit and power of the Lord Jesus, as heretofore, leaving the pope and his liberty-destroying church polity and superstitions to work out their own destruction by demonstrating their disastrous effects on human progress as they have done and are still doing in Mexico, Spain, Central and South America, and in every Roman Catholic dominated country in the world."

This is scarcely the spirit in which one would expect to see a subject of so grave importance treated. Sarcasm and ridicule doubtless have their place even in polemics, but it is only as they may be incidentally used that they can be of force. One could no more think of succeeding in an argument on a serious question by using them exclusively, than he would think of making a hearty meal on condiments alone.

That the subject of the Apostolic letter of Leo XIII is a serious one, no one will deny. That it calls for earnest thought and not sarcasm and ridicule, admits of no doubt. It involves the question of divine authority in the Protestant ministry and churches; and, for that matter, the divine authority of the church of Rome itself. For, if the alleged successor of St. Peter, by a method of reasoning satisfactory to himself and his council, arrives at what the Protestants of this generation will regard as a startling conclusion, viz., that their ministry and churches are without divine authority, the Protestants will reply in kind. They will revive the charges brought against the church of Rome during the revolt from the pope's authority in that wonderful sixteenth century revolution miscalled the "Reformation." They will proclaim him the Anti-Christ of New Testament scripture; charge upon the church of Rome complete apostasy from primitive Christianity; and accuse all those continuing in communion with her as being idolaters and pagans. Such a rejoinder on the part of the Protestants is inevitable, since it is only on the ground that the church of Rome was become a corrupt church, in complete apostasy and dispossessed of divine authority, that the so-called "Reformation" of the sixteenth century, or the existence of Protestant churches today can be justified.

Why is the unity of the Christian churches broken? Why does there exist a Roman Catholic church and numerous Protestant churches? Because the Protestants of the sixteenth century believed that the church of Rome was in a state of apostasy from true Christianity, and hence they came out from her dominion; revolted against and rejected her authority, while the church of Rome, on her part, regarded the Protestants of the same century as heretics, as renegade children, apostates. That there has been no change in the attitude of the respective parties to this great controversy since one first denounced the other as "an heretic," and the other replied with the charge of "anti-Christ," is emphasized by this latest utterance of the bishop of Rome, in which he declares that "ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void."

This question of possessing divine authority goes right down to the foundations of Christianity. No one will attempt to say that a man has a right to act in the name of Jesus Christ without authority from him to do so. If it required direct authority from God to handle the sacred utensils of God's sanctuary in the wilderness, and to care for the Ark of the Covenant, and for touching these things without authority, one was smitten with death (see Numbers chapter iv, and Samuel vi: 3); if it required divine authority to burn incense before the altar in the temple of God at Jerusalem, and for usurping the priest's office and attempting without divine authority to burn incense one was cursed of God with leprosy, even though a king (II Chronicles xxvi); if it required divine authority to cast out devils, and certain ones in attempting to cast them out without having authority to so command them, were leaped upon by the evil spirits and prevailed against (Acts xix); if, I say, it required divine authority to do these several things, how reasonable it is to conclude that it will more abundantly require divine appointment, or delegated power from God to make proclamation of the gospel and administer its ordinances. As the sacraments of the Christian religion are of infinitely more importance than the handling of sacred utensils, touching the Ark of the Covenant, burning incense or casting out devils, so, too, it is to be expected that God will be all the more careful to entrust their administration only to those having a divine commission.

To say, as the bishop of Rome does say, that the "ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void," is, of course, to deny to the English clergy divine authority. To deny them divine authority by saying that their orders are and have been null and void, is to say that their administration of the Christian sacraments through all the years that have elapsed since the church in England revolted against the authority of the pope, have been useless. And if Rome denies the validity of the church of England orders, it may be taken for granted that she will deny the validity of the orders of all other churches separated from her; for of all the churches separated from the Roman See the church of England has most nearly conformed to, or what would be more accurate to say, departed the least from the ritual of the old church. In plain terms the church of Rome holds all churches that have separated from her, and all churches that have sprung into existence from the churches so separated, as being without authority from God, and regards their ministry as a disorderly crowd.

I know there are a class of Protestant churchmen, who seek to satisfy themselves on this question of divine authority by claiming that it has come down to them on lines independent of the church of Rome. But, unfortunately for this contention the church of England herself and the other Protestants cut off not only the source of divine authority that might be claimed as coming from the church of Rome, but also every other source from which that authority could spring. In her great homily on the "Perils of Idolatry" the church of England says: "Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages and sects and degrees have been drowned in abominable idolatry most detested by God and damnable to man, for eight hundred years and more" (Perils of Idolatry, page 3). By making this charge against all Christendom one is unable to see how the Church of England can make any claim whatsoever of divine authority; for, if all Christendom was plunged into this awful abyss of apostasy for eight hundred years and more, no divine authority survived that period.

Nor is the Church of England the only Protestant authority which makes this charge of universal apostasy from primitive Christianity. John Wesley, in making an explanation of the cessation of scriptural gifts among Christians, says:

"It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit [speaking of I Corinthians xii] were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches and power and honor upon Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they (the spiritual gifts) almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been supposed) because there was no more occasion for them, because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake, not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christians. The real cause of it was that the love of many, almost all, Christians so-called was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of man when he came to examine his church, could hardly find faith upon earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian church—because the Christians were turned heathens again and only had a dead form left" (Wesley's Works, Vol. vii, sermon 89, pp. 26, 27).

If the Christians were turned heathen again, and only had a dead, form of religion left, like the other heathens, it will be extremely difficult for the followers of Mr. Wesley, and those who have received whatsoever of authority they possess from him, to point out just where their divine authority came from since their great leader proclaims this entire corruption of the Christian church. If on the one hand the Catholic church denies to Protestant Christendom the possession of divine authority, and if, on the other hand, Protestants declare the universal corruption and apostasy of mediaeval Christianity in order to justify the religious revolution of the sixteenth century, and their own existence as so-called reformed churches, then there is no possible channel through which they can claim that divine authority to administer the ordinances of the gospel has come down to them; unless they shall claim that the heavens have again been opened and a new dispensation of the gospel, including as it would, divine authority, has been committed to them. Not one of all the Protestant sects claims that such a new revelation has been given, and as every other source from which divine authority could come is cut off by them, there is left but one conclusion to come to and that is that they are without divine authority, and hence their administrations of the Christian sacraments are vain.

The position of the Catholic church is more logically consistent than that of Protestants; for she insists that there has been an unbroken line of authority and divine mission through the succession of her bishops, and more especially through the succession of the bishops of Rome from St. Peter to Leo XIII. But the church of Rome is asking us to believe too much when she demands that we shall believe that God's authority has come down to modern times through the corrupted line of the Catholic priesthood. One has only to become acquainted with the melancholy history of the Roman popes to be convinced of the impossibility of God acknowledging them as the line down which he has transmitted the power to speak and act in his name. One need only contrast the spirit of humility which characterized the Apostles and Elders of the Church of Christ with the worldly pride, ambition and wickedness of the popes of Rome, to see how far the latter have departed from the standard of character established by the lives of the former, and one need only contrast the beautiful simplicity of the principles and ordinances of the early Christian church, as described in the New Testament, with the canon-law and the elaborate ceremonial of the Catholic church to see how wide a departure has been made from the religion given to the world by the great peasant teacher of Judea.

The fact is, this controversy precipitated on the religious world by the decision of Pope Leo XIII, in respect to Anglican Orders, brings us face to face with the great truth prophesied of in holy scripture, to-wit: The universal apostasy from the Christian religion. Men have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances and broken the covenant of the gospel of Christ (Isaiah xiv: 4-6). Of themselves men have arisen speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them (Acts xx: 28-30). The time came when men would no longer endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts heaped teachers to themselves having itching ears, and those teachers have turned their ears away from the truth unto fables (II Timothy iv). False teachers arose among the people who privily brought in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and many have followed their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth has been evil spoken of (II Peter ii). The great falling away predicted by the Apostle of the Gentiles which was to precede the glorious coming of the Son of God in the clouds of heaven with power and glory, has come to pass. That man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, (II Thess. ii) has had and is having his rule and reign in the earth, and men have been made to bow down to him and may continue to be compelled to bow down to him until, as predicted in holy writ, the Lord shall destroy him with the brightness of his coming. The New Testament scriptures are replete with predictions of this great apostasy from the Christian religion, and one may see in the facts of ecclesiastical history, that the whole Christian world, "laity and clergy," to use again the language of the Church of England, "learned and unlearned, all ages and sects and degrees have been drowned in abominable idolatry, most detested by God and damnable to man." The actual changes, also, wrought in the Christian religion by the additions to and corruption of its ordinances make it clear that men have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant of the religion of Jesus Christ.

Under these circumstances the only way that divine authority can be restored to the earth is by God re-opening the heavens and giving a new dispensation of the gospel to the children of men, including as it would divine authority to preach its doctrines and administer its ordinances. Great and urgent as the necessity for such a new dispensation of the gospel is, men need not look to either the Catholic church or the Protestant sects for such a proclamation. The former, in addition to claiming that there has been an unbroken line of divine authority through its priesthood, rejects the idea of revelation subsequent to the alleged closing of the New Testament canon of scripture. The latter, though declaring the apostate condition of mediaeval Christendom, not only make no claim that the gospel of Jesus Christ, including divine authority, was restored by revelation to the leaders of the sixteenth century "Reformation," but also spurn the idea that there has been or can be any revelation subsequent to what they term the closing of the New Testament canon of scripture.

Out of all the religious teachers of modern times there is but one who has had the boldness to claim the restoration of divine authority and a dispensation of the gospel by means of a new revelation from God; and that is the first Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith. He claimed to have received revelation from God; the visitation of angels, who conferred upon him a holy Priesthood, a divine commission, by virtue of which he was appointed to preach the Gospel and re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ on earth. If this man's pretensions to such divine appointment are scoffed at, it is no more than was accorded the pretensions of Apostles and Prophets of God in former dispensations. If he is derided for his humble origin, and the lowly station from which he was called to the work of God, so, too, were the ancient Apostles and Prophets, and even the Son of God himself. If this message has been very generally rejected and he himself was despised of men, persecuted, hated, and at last slain for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus, what is all this but the same treatment that has been accorded to the accredited servants of God in nearly all ages of the world? If his followers have suffered ridicule, oppression and persecution, what is this but the same fate that has overtaken the Saints of God in nearly all ages of the world? All this will not affect the truth or untruth of his statements any more than like treatment affected the truth or untruth of the claims of other inspired servants of God. The truth is that the claims of Joseph Smith, in view of the great Christian controversy that has been going on for centuries, and just now emphasized by the recent decision of Pope Leo XIII, respecting Anglican Orders, and the discussion it has provoked, are more consistent than the claims of any of the Protestant reformers. For the great apostate condition of Christendom in mediaeval times being a reality, the only way there could be a restoration of that which was lost by that apostasy would be by a new dispensation of the gospel being committed to men by means of a new revelation; and herein is the strength of the position of Joseph Smith, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which, under God's direction he organized.

III.
Reformation or Revolution? [A]

[Footnote A: A discourse delivered at Payson, Utah, July 8, 1894]

A study of the great sixteenth century movement led by Martin Luther and others.

The theme announced deals with a period of-history and with events great in their importance to modern civilization. The reason why I am called to discuss this great movement of the sixteenth century, called the "Reformation," grows out of what I have published upon the subject in the "Outlines of Ecclesiastical History." That great movement which many historians call the "Reformation," and which is generally accepted, at least by Protestant Christendom, as such, I have called in the work named a "revolution," and I am asked to state the reasons I have for considering that movement a revolution, rather than a reformation. I wish to say, however, that my affirmation that it was a "revolution" was carefully qualified. This is my statement:

"It is absurd to say that the revolution of the sixteenth century was a reformation, if by that it is meant that it re-established the primitive doctrines of Christianity, purified the morals of the people, or gave birth to a better ecclesiastical government, it did no such thing."

That is my statement, but it is sufficiently direct, notwithstanding the qualification, to make it come in direct antagonism with what the friends of, the sixteenth century movement claim for it.

Milner, the great writer of church history, says:

"The Reformation is a work which well deserves its name, because it builded up as well as pulled down, and presented the church with a new fabric as well as demolished the old."

As a matter of fact, it did not do what Dr. Milner here claims for it. It is quite evident that it did not destroy "the old fabric," by which he means the Roman Catholic church, for that church is still in existence today. It stands foursquare to all the winds that blow upon it, and today has a wider influence than it possessed when the "Reformers" first assailed it; for what it lost in northern Europe it certainly has regained in the New World.

Dr. D'Aubigne says:

"The Reformation was quite the opposite of a revolt, it was the establishment of the principles of primitive Christianity; it is a regenerative movement with respect to all that was destined to revive a conservative movement as regards all that will exist forever."

It was this claim made for the "Reformation" that led me into that investigation of the subject which resulted in the conclusion that the "Reformation," so-called, did not re-establish primitive Christianity.

M. Guizot, in his History of Civilization, says:

"The friends and partisans of the Reformation have endeavored to account for it by the desire of effectually reforming the abuses of the church. They have represented it as a redress of religious grievances, as an enterprise conceived and executed with the sole design of re-constituting the church in its primitive purity."

M. Guizot does not allow that claim.

It seems to me a problem easy of solution as to whether this revolution of the sixteenth century restored primitive Christianity or not; and the method by which that solution can be attained would be by comparing the doctrines of Protestant Christendom with the doctrines of primitive Christianity. Protestants, you must understand, claim that in consequence of gross abuses which entered the church in the early centuries of its existence, the spirit of the gospel was departed from, the church government was corrupted, and by engrafting upon Christianity pagan rites, pagan ceremonies and pagan philosophy, the fair face of Christianity was defaced by these innovations. It is claimed by Protestants that the movement led by Martin Luther, Melancthon and Zwingle, and after them by Calvin, Knox and others, got rid of the pagan rites and ceremonies fastened upon Christianity and restored it to its primitive forms and to its primitive simplicity and purity. The way to prove whether that be true or false is to compare the teachings of Protestantism with primitive Christianity.

I shall not take occasion to enter into a consideration of primitive Christianity in any great detail for, I take it, that this audience is well informed upon that subject, and only a general and brief review of the leading features of primitive Christianity will be necessary for the comparison I propose.

Primitive Christianity taught first, faith in God, as all wise, all powerful, all merciful; who by the power of his intelligence created the earth and the heavens. It taught faith in Jesus Christ, as the son of God who became the Savior of mankind; in whom was embodied all the attributes of his father, who possessed the same power with his Father, in whom the fulness of the godhead dwelt bodily, and who was the express image and likeness of his Father—in other words was "God manifested in the flesh," that men might approach him and become acquainted with Deity by becoming acquainted with him. Primitive Christianity taught also the existence of the Holy Ghost, and that these three constituted one grand presidency or God-head, to whom all shall submit in humble reverence, as the great governing, controlling power of our world. Primitive Christianity taught that man by disobedience to the commandments of God, became fallen, lost; and that to vindicate the transgressed law of almighty God, an infinite sacrifice must be made; by which the law of God would be vindicated and mercy have claim upon those who live under the transgression of the law. Primitive Christianity taught that Jesus Christ made this infinite atonement, and that by him and through him life and immortality was brought to light, and that men were released from the consequences of Adam's transgression through the atonement of Jesus Christ; that, "as in Adam, all die, so in Christ should all be made alive," the atonement being as broad as the transgression which brought death into the world.

Primitive Christianity taught also that in consequence of this redemption wrought out by Jesus Christ, he became the "law-giver" to the children of men; and that in order to have applied to them the atonement of Jesus Christ, so that it results, not only in a redemption from the transgression of Adam, but also in a pardon for their individual sins. It makes perfect and absolute obedience to Jesus Christ the condition of this salvation. That this obedience is demanded by the gospel is evident from the whole tenor of the New Testament. When Jesus Christ was closing that beautiful discourse to his disciples on the mount, he said:

"Whosoever heareth these saying of mine and doeth them not, is like unto a man that builds his house upon the sands, and when the floods come and the winds beat upon that house, it fails, and great is the fall thereof. But whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, is like unto the man who builds his house upon a rock; then when the rains descend and the winds beat upon that house, it falls not, because it is founded on the rock."

Paul, in speaking of this subject, says that "Jesus being made perfect, became the author of eternal salvation to those who obey him." When Jesus himself commissioned his Apostles to go and preach the gospel, he commanded them to go into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them.

From all these Scriptures, then, I gather this one great truth, that "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all those who believe and obey it."

It is equally clear that the conditions of salvation, as outlined in the gospel, are that men must have faith in God, faith in Jesus Christ, faith in the Holy Ghost, faith in the gospel. Not because God has arbitrarily fixed faith as one of the conditions of salvation, but because from the very nature of things, faith is the first principle of the gospel, because it is the incentive to all action and the foundation of all righteousness. If men possess no faith in the gospel, it follows as the night follows the day, that they will not obey it. Why is it that the atheists or the infidels do not obey the gospel? Simply for the reason that they do not believe in God; they do not believe in Christ; they do not believe the gospel, hence they refuse to repent or do any other act that is required in the gospel. It is, therefore, because of the nature of things that faith is one of the conditions of salvation. And hence the Apostle said: "He that cometh to God must believe that he is," that is, that he exists.

Repentance also is one of the conditions of salvation. This principle of primitive Christianity has been more or less misunderstood by being interpreted to mean "do penance," imitating, to some extent at least, the barbarians who imagined that by inflicting wounds upon themselves, by cutting and slashing themselves with knives or by submitting to other tortures, they might propitiate the anger of Deity, as if God could have delight in the physical suffering or the mental anguish of his children! The beautiful gospel of Jesus Christ required not this; but it did require heartfelt sorrow for sin accompanied by a fixed determination and an actual amendment of conduct—turning away from transgression. The spirit of repentance was embodied in this remark: "Let him that stole steal no more."

Primitive Christianity taught also that men, by baptism, could receive a remission of their sins, their past transgressions could be blotted out, the record made clean. It taught baptism for the remission of sins, but recognizing that man, by his own strength, is unequal to the task of subduing himself and bringing his will into subjection to the righteous will of God, it brought to him the strength of the Almighty in the gift of the Holy Ghost; that man, through the strength of God, being added to his own strength, might, "overcome the flesh, the world and the devil." This power he received through the ordinance of laying on of hands. The Christian was thus equipped for the battle for righteousness. The warfare was not over with obedience to these ordinances, it was just begun. By obedience to the ordinances I have named men did not become full grown men in Christ Jesus. They were then only "born" into the church, they were but babes, and now must grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, learning "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," going on "from faith to faith, until the perfect day;" "adding to their faith, virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge temperance, to temperance patience, to patience godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity." And thus by these steps Christianity in its primitive forms led men towards God.

In order to promulgate this gospel, the church was organized. It was organized with Apostles, with Prophets, with Seventies and Bishops, with Pastors, Teachers and Deacons. This organization was given to edify the Saints, to bring about a unity of faith and a knowledge of the Son of God. It was designed to continue until the Saints were perfected in their faith, and had arrived "unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

I should also say that primitive Christianity brought to those who received it many precious and outward manifestations of the Holy Ghost. When occasion required, they were able to speak in tongues, exercise the gift of prophecy, receive revelation, have inspired dreams, interpret tongues, heal the sick. Through it they enjoyed the gift of the discernment of spirits, wisdom, knowledge, faith. These are the gifts, these the powers, these the graces which attended upon primitive Christianity.

And now the question before us is, Did the revolution of the sixteenth century which brought into existence Protestant Christianity restore to the children of men this primitive Christianity, as it is described in the New Testament? It would be a task requiring too much time to consider the whole twenty-eight articles of the Augsburgh Confession—the formal expression of what Protestant Christianity was in the days of its first founders. Nor indeed is it necessary in order to arrive at a just conclusion upon the question proposed. The consideration of a few leading items will be sufficient to establish the fact beyond the power of successful contradiction, that the sixteenth century revolution did not restore primitive Christianity.

In regard to the teachings of Protestant Christendom in respect of God, it is sufficient to say it accepts the Nicene creed, instead of the doctrine of the New Testament. It is written in the scripture that man was created in God's likeness; and if man was created in God's likeness then God must be in the form of man. Instead of coming to the world with that primitive Christian truth, emphasized as it was in primitive Christianity by the fact that Jesus Christ was pointed to as being the express image of his Father's person, Protestant Christendom clings to the old error of the Catholic church, that God is an incorporeal, that is an immaterial substance; a being without body—i. e., without materiality—without parts, without passions—accepting rather the theory of pagan philosophers than the plain statements of primitive Christianity.[A] Instead of teaching that the Father was a personage, the Son another personage, and the Holy Ghost another, each as distinct as any three personages on earth, and one only in moral and spiritual attributes, in power—constituting one Presidency or Godhead—they came with the doctrine that these three personages are merged into but one personage, and yet they remain three distinct personages!

[Footnote A: See the writer's "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," Chapter iv.]

Instead of teaching that man must be absolutely obedient to the gospel in order to obtain salvation, Protestants taught that faith alone without works, is sufficient for salvation. And this was the chief corner stone of Protestant theology; the point at which the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant church was most widely separated. The Catholic church, recognizing the operation of God's grace upon man, and also the power of will in man, came to the reasonable conclusion that man had it within their power to be obedient to the commandments of God, and that obedience united with the grace of God was the means of obtaining salvation; that man worked out his salvation both by faith and works. Protestants, however, regarding only those spiritual influences which operate upon man, came to the conclusion that the grace of God alone saved man, and that without any act on his part.

That I may convince you that I am not mistaken in what I say I will read to you some of the sayings of Luther upon this subject. "The excellent, invaluable and sole preparation for grace is the eternal election and predestination of God." This doctrine stands in marked contrast with the teaching of primitive Christianity. I hold that the New Testament scriptures teach in great plainness that God would have all the children of men to be saved, and is willing that none should be lost. But according to the teachings of Martin Luther, and the great body of Protestant Christendom, they would have us believe that there is a part of the great family of God predestined to eternal damnation; and, do what they will, they cannot be saved. Their die is cast, their doom is sealed. They are reprobate, cast out from the affections and love of God. They stand not within the pale of salvation. But the gospel of primitive Christianity was a voice of glad tidings to all men, saying that they could be saved through faith and obedience. I read again from the words of Luther: "On the side of man there is nothing that goes before grace, unless it be impotency, and even rebellion. We do not become righteous by doing what is righteous; but having become righteous, we do what is righteous." "Since the fall of man free will is but an idle word, and every man does walk, and still sins mortally." "A man who imagines to arrive at grace by doing all that he is able to do, adds sin to sin, and is doubly guilty." "That man is not justified who performs many works, but he who without works has much faith in Christ." "What gives peace to our conscience is this—By faith our sins are no longer ours but Christ's, on whom God has laid them all; and on the other hand, all Christ's righteousness belongs to us, to whom God has given it." D'Aubigne says: "The point which the reformer has most at heart (referring to Luther) in all his labors, contests and dangers was the doctrine of justification by faith alone." This is the great Protestant doctrine, that by the act of faith all the righteousness of Jesus Christ is set down to our credit, and all our transgressions, all our sins, are placed upon the shoulders of Jesus Christ, who carries them triumphantly away; and when we shall stand before the bar of God, we shall be judged, not according to the works we have done in this life, not according to the "deeds done in the body," as primitive Christianity taught, but we shall be judged by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, all of which will be credited to us by our act of faith. I could almost wish it were true, this doctrine! Salvation would seem so much more sure. But it is repulsive to reason, absurd to the understanding, and contrary to the teachings of primitive Christianity.

In these doctrinal respects, then, the Protestant movement did not bring back Christianity. Did it bring it back in any other respect? Did it restore the spiritual gifts so characteristic of primitive Christianity? Did it bring back the gift of prophecy, and of revelation; of speaking in tongues, and interpreting them? Did it bring back the power to heal the sick by the laying on of hands and the anointing with oil? Did it bring back the gift of faith, of knowledge, of wisdom, of discernment of spirits? No, it made no claim to these powers, but sought out excuses for the absence of them, and pleaded that they were no longer needed; that they were given in the beginning merely for the purpose of giving Christianity a start in the world and attesting its divine origin by the manifestation of miraculous gifts among its followers. No, the revolution of the sixteenth century did not bring back these gifts and graces of primitive Christianity.

Did it restore the primitive organization of the church? Did it give to the church Prophets, Seventies, Bishops, Priests, Teachers and Deacons, with the divine gifts and graces attendant upon these offices in the church in primitive times, including divine inspiration? Did they make of the church a means, a channel of divine communication between the church and her Lord? No. On the contrary, Protestant Christianity has taught from the days of Luther till now, that Prophets and Apostles were no longer needed in the Church of Christ. It did not restore the primitive Christian church organization; nor did it even restore the plain, simple first principles of the gospel, faith in the true God, repentance from sin, and the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost. It did not restore the principle of revelation—Christianity's vital breath—the working force of the primitive Christian church—the link that united her with God and made it possible for her to exist in actual spiritual life. On all these matters the utmost confusion exists among Protestants, but in no sect can these simple principles of primitive Christianity be found in their fulness and in the order in which they are taught in the New Testament. Even from this imperfect and rather hasty consideration of the question I think you will find no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the sixteenth century movement did not restore primitive Christianity, and hence was not a reformation in that sense.

What the movement in the sixteenth century really was may be best learned by considering what it did. And now you must indulge me while I take a brief retrospect of history.

When that stupendous fabric, the western division of the Roman empire, crumbled to pieces, in the later part of the fifth century, a reign of darkness followed its downfall. The barbarian hosts from the north, like the successive waves of the ocean, beating upon some decaying cliff, repeatedly rushed upon the old Roman civilization, until by sheer force of persistence in attack, they destroyed the great fabric of government which fills so large a space in the world's history. And when it fell, the enlightenment and civilization it had sustained in western Europe went with it. In the centuries that followed there arose that great spiritual hierarchy, known as the Roman Catholic Church, the head of which was recognized in the pope of Rome. The barbarian tribes which overthrew western Rome, in the days of their paganism, had given unwonted veneration to their Druid priests and to the chief Druid they had accorded the power of a god. Hence it was easy for them to accept the idea that the chief bishop of the Christian church was God's vicegerent on earth, and to honor him as they would honor God was equally free from difficulty. The Roman pontiffs were not the men to refuse to take advantage of that superstition. They fostered it, and drew to themselves all the honor which before time the pagans had accorded to the chief priests in paganism. Hence it happens that the popes of Rome were able to draw to themselves all the power that was needed to rule the nations with a rod of iron, and with impunity they planted their feet upon the necks of temporal monarchs.

When the eastern division of the great empire fell before the repeated attacks of the Turks; and that part of the old Roman political fabric went to pieces, instead of darkness following its fall, it was an event which brought light at least to western Europe; for when the eastern Romans fled before their successful enemies, and came to western Europe, they brought in their hands the literature of ancient Greece, and the works of the ancient masters were translated into the European languages. About that time, too, the art of printing had been invented, so that this rich treasury of knowledge, locked up hitherto in the Greek language, was translated into the European languages, and through this marvelous invention of printing was brought within the reach of the people. The influence of that literature upon western minds was marvelous. They not only admired the beauty and the grace of the diction, and enjoyed the legends and stories that were translated for them, but they, too, began to feel aspirations to reach the same high intellectual development that the Greeks themselves had enjoyed; and wherever there is a love for intellectual development, the key is turned to the progress of a people. It proved to be so in this case.

Not only did the influence of ancient Greek literature operate to bring about the enlightenment of Europe, but other things co-operated to stir the stagnant life of western nations. Vasco de Gama had discovered a new route to India by way of the Cape of Good Hope. Christopher Columbus had plowed his way through the western sea, and had discovered America. These two great events had a marvelous effect upon the life of Europe. Commerce was immediately enlarged. The comforts of life were multiplied and became more common. They were placed within the reach of the common people. A general restlessness took possession of the people. These two great events that I have named were preceded by other influences that were calculated to enlarge the liberties of the people of Europe. In the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, occurred those remarkable movements in Europe called the Crusades—religious war, waged for the purpose of recovering the holy land from the hands of the infidels as the Turks were called. It was a movement which originated in the fact that Christian pilgrims going to visit the birthplace of Messiah, and the sepulchre where he was supposed to have lain, were insulted and abused by the Turks, and this so incensed some of the Christians that an agitation started against the "barbarians" in the holy land. A religious fanatic, Peter the Hermit, a Catholic monk, went through Europe preaching the crusade, and aroused the people against Turkish abuse of the Christians. The agitation attracted the attention and at last enlisted the sympathy of the pope and a number of the crowned heads of Europe, and everywhere the cry was heard "God wills it," and the people of Europe sprang to arms to invade the east, and rescue the holy sepulchre from the infidels. It was a marvelous undertaking. Wave after wave of an invading host from Europe surged upon the east without avail, especially so long as the invaders were but mobs of men, women and children, illy prepared to undertake a campaign against so brave and hardy a people as the Saracens. Finally, however, these movements became great military undertakings, and the east and the west met in sharp and deadly conflict.

One of the many results of the crusades was to enlarge the liberty of the common people of Europe. You must understand that a very peculiar state of society existed in those times a state of society growing out of a preceding era of conquests. When barbarian kings invaded a country and conquered it, they held to the opinion that the title to all the land that was subdued inhered in the sovereign who had made the conquest. He became the proprietor of the land won by the valor of his armies, and claimed the right to parcel it out as he saw proper to his followers. The larger divisions were called baronies, and they were subdivided by the barons to their subordinates and so on down to the common people. But those to whom the lands were thus parceled out held them upon the condition that they would contribute a certain number of men for military service, for a given time each year, and also a certain amount of means annually. Thus grew up the feudal tenure of land, as it was called. It finally degenerated almost into a system of slavery, at least for the common people who cultivated the lands. The barons held in complete subjugation their vassals; and in turn the barons themselves were oppressed by the kings. But when the kings and barons undertook the fitting out of expeditions for the holy land, they had to dispose of some of their lands for that purpose. In some instances lands were sold outright to their vassals. The king also began to accord to cities and towns certain political privileges, on the condition that they would furnish means for carrying on the crusades; and by these political privileges the liberties of the inhabitants of cities became enlarged. Thus, all Europe was in a state of fermentation; a restless activity had taken possession of all classes of society; and where activity abounds liberty is either enjoyed or is not far off. Rolling water cannot long remain impure, nor can an active people long remain in a state of slavery.

In the meantime kings as well as scholars had become weary of the domination of the old spiritual authority of the church. Scholars longed to settle matters of history and the facts of science by means of investigation and reason rather than by the voice of ecclesiastical authority as ignorant as it was deceptive; and kings became tired of holding barren scepters in their hands—and such their scepters were so long as the spiritual authority of the priests was looked upon as superior to that of the king, and the popes, under a variety of pretenses, could invade their realms and tax their people. There was, therefore, at least in the northern nations of Europe, a very general desire for a change of some kind, and consequently when Martin Luther began preaching against the indulgences issued by Pope Leo X, and hawked about the country by John Tetzel,—when there was a spirit bold enough to say to the pope, "Thou doest wrong," there were found multitudes to applaud the act. Martin Luther, in the commencement of his work, did not by any means contemplate the overthrow of the Roman Catholic church. He thought to eliminate some few of its abuses. He himself remarked that he was astonished when he found that the pope was not with him in his contention against Tetzel. But the agitation once set on foot, other differences arose on points of doctrine, especially upon the question of grace already considered. The breach grew wider and wider until at last it was too broad to be bridged over.

When the theological discussion had reached the acute stage, there were princes that were only too glad to take advantage of the agitation to wrest from their own necks the yoke of bondage that had been placed there by the Roman pontiffs. In that agitation they saw their opportunity to be kings indeed, as well as kings in name; and hence Luther and his associates found themselves assisted by the princes and kings of northern Europe.

In order to show you that I am not mistaken in these views, I will read to you one or two extracts from works on that subject. My first is from Schiller's "Thirty Years' War in Germany." On page 7 he says:

"The Reformation is undoubtedly owing in a great measure to the invincible power of truth, or of opinions which were held as such. The abuses in the old church, the absurdity of many of its doctrines, the extravagance of its inquisition, necessarily revolted the tempers of men already half-won with the promise of a better light, and favorably disposed them towards the new doctrines. The charm of independence, the rich plunder of monastic institutions, made the Reformation attractive to the eyes of princes, and tended not a little to strengthen their inward convictions. Nothing but political considerations would have driven them to espouse it. Had not Charles V, in the intoxication of success, made an attempt on the independence of the German states, a Protestant league would scarcely have rushed to arms in defense of freedom of belief. * * * Princes fought in self-defense or for aggrandizement, while religious enthusiasm recruited their armies and opened to them the treasures of their subjects. Of the multitude who flocked to their standards, such as were not lured by the hope of plunder, imagined they were fighting for the truth, while in fact they were shedding their blood for the personal objects of their princes."

The Protestant historian, Moshiem, with whom David Hume agrees, admits that several of the principal agents in this revolution were actuated more by the impulse of passion and views of interest than by a zeal for true religion (Maclaine's Moshiem, vol. iv, page 135). He had before that acknowledged that King Gustavus introduced Lutheranism into Sweden in opposition to the clergy and bishops, not only as agreeable to the genius and spirit of the gospel, but also as favorable to the temporal state and political constitution of the Swedish dominions. He adds that Christian, who introduced the reformation into Denmark, was animated by no other motives than those of ambition and avarice. Grotius, another Protestant, testifies that it was sedition and violence which gave birth to the "Reformation" in his own country—Holland. The same was the case in France, Geneva and Scotland.

M. Guizot says:

"In my opinion the reformation neither was an accident, the result of some casual circumstances, or some personal interests, nor arose from unmingled views of religious improvement, the fruit of Utopian humanity and truth. It had a more powerful cause than all these; a general cause to which all the others were subordinate. It was a vast effort made by the human mind to achieve its freedom; it was a new-born desire which it felt to think and judge, freely and independently, of facts and opinions which, till then, Europe received, or was considered bound to receive from the hands of authority. It was a great endeavor to emancipate human reason, and to call things by their right names; it was an insurrection of the human mind against the absolute power of spiritual order. Such, in my opinion, was the true character and leading principle of the reformation. * * * Not only was this the result of the reformation, but it was content with this result. Whenever this was obtained no other was sought for; so entirely was it the very foundation of the event, its primitive and fundamental character! * * * I repeat it; whenever the reformation attained this object, it accommodated itself to every form of government and to every situation." (Hist. Civilization, pp. 224-8.)

Webster defines a revolution to be the act of renouncing the authority of a government; a revolt successfully or completely accomplished, a fundamental change in political organization, or, I will add, in religious organization; and in the light of the facts I have brought to your attention I think this most nearly describes that great movement of the sixteenth century led by Luther and the German princes. But while I do not concede to it the dignity of a reformation, I would not have you think therefore that I look upon the revolution as unimportant. Indeed, I regard it as one of the greatest events that has happened since the founding of Christianity itself; and the results accomplished by it are far reaching and of vast importance to us.

The struggle began at first in an effort to obtain intellectual freedom. It next included within the objects it designed to accomplish religious freedom, and finally added to these two, civil liberty. A struggle for intellectual, religious and civil liberty must ever be a grand thing, and this was what the revolution of the sixteenth century contended for. Not all at once. It came to it by degrees. Not obtaining all it demanded at the first, but working gradually towards it; and finally it was successful. Not always because of its efforts, but sometimes in spite of its efforts. For there is no sadder truth in all history than this, that those who nobly struggled against the oppression of the Catholic church, and demanded religious liberty for themselves, fell into the error of being intolerant, and were not willing to accord to others the very liberty that they demanded. Hence you have a few sad pages of history filled with accounts of persecution for opinion's sake on the part of the reformers themselves. This is sad, but the principle of liberty was afoot, and neither the mistakes of its friends nor the opposition of its foes could long successfully oppose it. It went on from victory to victory, until it grew and blossomed into the present religious, intellectual and civil freedom that the nations of Europe and America enjoy. This great movement led by brave men was the dawn before the coming of a greater day. You have seen the dawn break over our eastern mountains. You know how the blackness gradually turns to grey, and how the grey brightens before the approaching sun, until the whole heavens become golden; and you know how still richer becomes that light when the sun in its fulness is seen above the mountain tops. So it was with this struggle in the sixteenth century. God then began a great work. The first grey streaks were appearing above the hill-tops. The Lord was about to inaugurate a great work, "a marvelous work and a wonder." He was about to bring full and complete religious liberty to the children of men, and not only full and complete religious liberty, but a fulness of religious truth, even the fulness of the everlasting gospel. He began that work, the great dispensation of the last days in that struggle of the sixteenth century, and the light has been constantly growing brighter, until now the sun has fully risen in the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the new dispensation of it revealed to that great modern Prophet Joseph Smith. We who accept the new dispensation, strike hands with the noble revolutionists of the sixteenth century, and acknowledge them as brethren in the same great cause.

IV.
Revelation and Inspiration.[A]

[Footnote A: A discourse delivered before the Young Men's and Young Ladies' Mutual Improvement Associations, in the Granite Stake Tabernacle, Sunday afternoon, Jan. 15, 1905.]

A correction of some misapprehensions that arose concerning Mormon views on the subject of Revelation and Inspiration during the hearings had in the "Smoot Case" before the United States Committee on Privileges and Elections, 1903-1907.

My brethren and sisters, Plato, in his Timaeus, represents the philosopher Socrates as urging one about to begin a discourse on the nature and origin of the universe to invoke the favor of the gods, to which Critias, who is the one selected to deliver the discourse, replies that all men who are right minded always seek the favor of the gods upon their enterprises, and then he proceeds to pray that his efforts may be agreeable to the gods and intelligible to those who are to listen.

On this present occasion it is not my purpose to undertake the discussion of a subject either so lofty or so difficult as that which the Greek had proposed to himself, and yet as I stand before you for the purpose of addressing you, involuntarily, I am happy to say, my heart is uplifted to God in prayer that what I have to present on this occasion shall meet with the favor of God, and at the same time be intelligible and faith-promoting.

I presume that all of us are more or less conscious of the fact that the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have been undergoing a very crucial test of late. Many principles fundamental to our faith have been the subject of investigation by one of the leading committees of the senate of the United States—the committee on privileges and elections—a committee than which I doubt if there is another superior to it in point of ability within the whole range of the senate committees. It is composed of men who frequently have to determine questions of law as well as of fact, and in consequence of that its members are chosen from among the most distinguished lawyers of the senate; they are men of learning and wide experience, adroit in questions of logic, and capable of pursuing to ultimate analysis any question that may be presented for their consideration. It is such a body of men before whom many of the doctrines of Christ have been presented, discussed and thoroughly analyzed.[A]

[Footnote A: The committee alluded to consisted of Julius C. Burrows, of Michigan; Edmund W. Pettus of Alabama; James B Frazier, of Tennessee; Fred T. Dubois, of Idaho; Chauncey M. Depew, of New York; Lee S. Overman, of North Carolina. The above senators signed the Committee's Report to the effect that Reed Smoot was not entitled to a seat in the Senate as a senator from the State of Utah.

The following senators, members of the committee, dissented from the conclusion of the above majority members of the committee, and published their views:

Joseph B. Foraker, of Ohio; Albert J. Beveridge, of Indiana; William P. Dillingham, of Vermont; A. J. Hopkins, of Illinois; P. C. Knox of Pennsylvania.

Happily the Senate refused to accept the conclusion of the majority of the committee to the effect that Reed Smoot, Senator from Utah, was not entitled to a seat in the Senate of the United States.]

This the character of the committee conducting the investigation. The Elders of the Church who have been called upon to state some of the principles of our faith and place interpretations upon them before the committee, have been taken somewhat at a disadvantage. They have been called upon to answer on the spur of the moment, without having opportunity to prepare their replies or weigh their words. Their answers have been purely extemporaneous. Many of the questions have been sprung upon them in the way of surprise; and those adroit inquisitors (I do not use that term in its evil sense), the senate committee, have purposely led them through a labyrinth of questions in the hope finally of surprising them into some inconsistency. Yet on the whole I think the Church has reason to congratulate herself upon the presentation of her doctrines even under these circumstances; and it is not difficult to believe that the brethren were sustained in their answers by a spirit beyond their wisdom; that God blessed them in the trial through which they passed.

It would be surprising, however, if in the course of so long an investigation, taken part in by so many, if the opposition did not at times gain some seeming advantage; if by some quip or quirk they did not make inconsistencies appear in the answers of the brethren. I want to illustrate this and call the attention of the young people to some of these circumstances, for I have discovered, incidentally, that some of the catch-phrases that have been coined during this investigation are having more or less influence on the minds of our youth.

For example, during the investigation referred to, the question of our belief in revelation was brought up. It is a matter of common knowledge among you, of course, that we believe in revelation from God to man. We believe that the Lord has revealed himself in the day in which we live; that a dispensation of the gospel has been given unto prophets in this age of the world; that divine communication between the earth and the heavens has been restored; that a channel of communication has been permanently established by and through which the mind and the will of God may be made known to men. This truth, so commonplace with us, seems a matter of seven days' wonder to the senate committee in question. In the course of investigating this subject of revelation the idea was developed that a law revealed from God, before it became binding upon the Church, was submitted to the people in conference and they voted to accept or reject it. Then this question was asked:

"Suppose a revelation is given to the Church, and the Church in conference assembled rejects it by vote, what remains? Does it go for nothing?"

To which answer was made, in substance, that if the people rejected it, it would go for nothing for them—that is, so far as the people were concerned.

Then the questioning continues:

"Senator—Then according to your faith the Lord submits his decrees to the judgment of the people, and does not desire them to be obeyed by anybody unless the people approve?

"Elder—He desires them to be obeyed by everybody, but he lets everybody do just as they please. * * * * *

"Senator—You would, then, as I understand you, please to follow the people, and not the Lord, under those circumstances. Is that true?

"Elder—The Lord has so ordered that when he appoints men, as he did do in the revelations here [the revelations that had been under discussion], and named the Apostles and the other general authorities of the Church, he commanded that they be presented to the Church and sustained or rejected, and whenever the Church has rejected any man he has stepped aside.

"Senator—A sort of veto power over the Lord! (Laughter)."

This last remark is one of the catchy phrases which some of the youth of Israel are permitting themselves to be pleased with. "A veto power on God!" We want to investigate that presently, and I think we will be able to discover that it is smart rather than profound.

Again, when the subject of the Manifesto (meaning that instrument through which plural marriages were discontinued in the Church) was under discussion, one of the brethren chanced to remark that he assisted in framing the document for publication; whereupon this colloquy took place:

"Senator—I understand this Manifesto was inspired.

"Elder—Yes.

"Senator—That is your understanding of it?

"Elder—My answer was that it was inspired.

"Senator—And when it was handed to you it was an inspiration, as you understand, from on high, was it not?

"Elder—Yes.

"Senator—What business had you to change it?

"Elder—We did not change the meaning.

"Senator—You have just stated you changed it.

"Elder—Not the sense, sir. I did not say we changed the sense.

"Senator—But you changed the phraseology?

"Elder—We simply put it in shape for publication, corrected possibly the grammar, and wrote it so that—

"Senator—You mean to say that in an inspired communication from the Almighty the grammar was bad, was it? You corrected the grammar of the Almighty, did you?"

Another "smart" saying which apparently appeals to the humor of some of our youth; and here and there you may hear now and then something said, in an irreverent manner, too, about the absurdity of correcting the Almighty's grammar.

One other item: One of the Elders, pursued in the investigation by one of the most adroit of the senators, finds it necessary to make a correction of one of his statements, whereupon this follows:

"Senator—Have you had any revelation or commandment in regard to the testimony you should give in this case?

"Elder—No, sir.

"Senator—There is no inspiration of that or any part of it?

"Elder—As to the testimony I should give here?

"Senator—As to the testimony you have given or are to give.

"Elder—No; I do not know that I have, particularly—I came here to answer the questions of the committee.

"Senator—But I want to know whether you are answering them under the direction of the Lord, according to your belief, or merely in your human and uninspired capacity?

"Elder—I believe I shall answer the questions that are asked me here as the Spirit of the Lord directs me, and truthfully.

"Senator—Do you mean to say that the Spirit of the Lord directs you in your answers here?

"Elder—I believe so.

"Senator—You believe so?

"Elder—Yes, sir.

"Senator—Then in your belief, did the Spirit of the Lord direct you to make the answer which you just took back and said was a mistake?

"(A pause and silence.) Well, if you cannot answer it I will not press it."

Previously this senator had said to the Elder: "Do you not think that in this hearing it behooves you to be a little careful of your answers so that in so important a matter you do not have to take back in two or three minutes what you have said?"

This is spoken of, according to reports that reach me, as a severe reproof administered by a "worldling" to one who believed himself to be an inspired man, and more or less of comment is made upon this circumstance, as upon the others I have named.

Now, this brings before you, not all that is said, but some few things that are said with reference to the investigation before the senate committee; and I think they touch questions of considerable interest on the subject of revelation. It is this subject I propose to consider, especially the effect these several incidents of the investigation have upon the subject of revelation. Let us now return and consider these questions one by one.

To begin with, let us have an understanding about revelation itself. As I understand it, "revelation is the name of that act by which God makes communication to men. Inspiration in the name of that influence, that divine influence, which operates upon the minds of men under which they may be said to receive divine guidance." The inspiration may be strong or it may be weak. It may be so overpowering in its character that the person for the time being loses largely his own individuality and becomes the mouthpiece of God, the organ through which the Divine speaks to the children of men. There exists all degrees of inspiration, from human intelligence and wisdom slightly influenced up to that fulness of inspiration of which I have spoken. Revelations may be made from God to man in various ways. They may be made by God in his own proper person, speaking for himself. On such occasions I take it that the revelation would be most perfect. I know of no more beautiful or complete illustration of such a perfect revelation than that great revelation with which the dispensation of the fulness of times began, when God the Father and Jesus the Christ, stood revealed in the presence of Joseph Smith, when every veil was removed, and the glory of God extended throughout the forest in which the Prophet had prayed; when he heard the Father speak to him as one friend speaks to another, saying: "Joseph, this is my beloved Son; hear him." Then followed a conversation with this second divine personage, to whom he was thus so perfectly introduced, and from whom he received the light and knowledge that laid the foundations of this great latter-day work. There was no imperfection whatsoever in that revelation; it was complete, overwhelming, and one of the most remarkable revelations that God has deigned to give to the children of men. Revelations may be made, and have been made, by the visitation of angels, such as when Moroni came and revealed the existence of the Nephite record, the American volume of scripture, the Book of Mormon; and who afterwards from time to time, met with the Prophet of the last dispensation and gave him knowledge and information as to the manner in which the Church should be organized, and how its affairs should be conducted. Then again, revelations may come through the operations of the Holy Spirit upon the mind of man as when the Prophet Joseph took Urim and Thummim and with them, and by their aid, under the influence of Holy Spirit, translated the Book of Mormon into the English language. In a similar manner the Lord influences the minds of his servants when preaching the gospel, and thus delivers his word to the Church and to the world.

Through all these various means God speaks, and it is our good fortune to be his witnesses, that he speaks in these various ways as well today as in ancient times.

After giving many manifestations, and communicating much of his mind and will to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Lord said to him, finally, with reference to the organization of the Church, that he must call together in a meeting several persons who had been baptized and submit the question to them as to whether or not they were willing that he and Oliver Cowdery should proceed to organize the Church of Christ, and if they would accept them as their spiritual leaders and teachers in the things of God.

I marvel at the condescension of God in this, and well may the world marvel at his condescension in thus submitting a question of this character to those who were to participate in it. But when I come to analyze it and to comprehend it, I understand that God here recognizes a great truth; recognizes also the dignity of his children, and gives recognition to their rights and liberties in the premises. Mark you, when it comes to bestowing his power upon men, when he was selecting his prophets, he chose whom he would. That was a matter between himself and them. Hence he gave the apostleship to Joseph Smith, to Oliver Cowdery, and to David Whitmer, independently of anyone. But when these men were to effect an organization and exercise that power and authority upon others, then it must be with the consent of the others concerned, and not otherwise. This is the great principle that the Lord respected in the very inception of the great latter-day work, and which he still recognizes in the government of his Church—the principle of common consent.

In this connection allow me for a moment to call your attention to the very beautiful title of our Church, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," it is called. Some might think the first half of the title, "The Church of Jesus Christ," would be sufficient. So, indeed, it is, in a way. It is the Christ's Church—his by the price of his sacrifice. It is his as the depository of his truth. It is the institution he has called into existence, and unto which he has given the mission of proclaiming the truth, and, in addition to that the mission of perfecting the lives of those who accept the truth. But it is not only "The Church of Jesus Christ;" it is "The Church of the Latter-day Saints," also. It is our Church, because we accept it, because we enter it of our own volition; it is therefore the Church of our choice. God has conferred upon his Church and our Church the right of being governed by common consent of the members thereof. It is this that astonishes our friends in Washington. They have been led to believe, by misrepresentation, that this organization called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is an ironclad institution, a powerful tyranny, to whose authority there are no metes or bounds; in which there are no checks or balances of authority; an ecclesiastical hierarchy that dominates the people and destroys individual liberty. Suddenly they are confronted with the fact that, so far from being a tyrannical institution, not only the officers but the very revelations of God are submitted to the people for their acceptance! They then turn upon us and say: Then you presume to have a "Veto power on God!"

Now, let us consider this matter for a few moments. But before doing so I call your attention to an utterance made in our own midst, less excusable than the "smart" utterances of these astute senators, because they doubtless are prompted in their remarks by ignorance of the subject; but what I am about to read to you is not the utterance of an ignorant mind, but rather that of a perverted one, because the writer knows better. Listen to this from a local daily paper:

"According to the testimony given by high ecclesiastics at Washington, a revelation from God is not binding upon humanity until after it is voted upon and accepted by the Mormon people in conference. What an astounding complexity, and what a narrow bigotry are here presented! As taught by Mormon theology, there is but one man on the earth at a time who is authorized to receive and pronounce the will of God. That man is the president of the Mormon Church. He receives a revelation containing commands, to the children of men, obedience to which commands entitles the individuals to celestial glory, and disobedience to which commands consigns the individual to the loss of glory in the hereafter. That revelation, however, is not in force until some ten or twelve thousand people in the big Tabernacle at Salt Lake City have voted affirmatively upon it, and then it becomes a law for the fifteen hundred millions of human being upon the face of the earth. In other words, sacrilegious as it seems, this doctrine assumes that God don't know his own mind; in still other words, his determinations are subject to revision by ten thousand human creatures, who constitute a kind of supreme court, whose conclusions are binding not only upon themselves, but upon hundreds of millions of human beings who never heard of the man through whom the law was promulgated, nor of the supreme court that sustained it, nor of the law itself. If the Mormon conference approves God's words, the one billion five hundred million other human creatures are saved by it or damned by it, as the case may be; and if the Mormon conference rejects it, the one billion five hundred millions of other human creatures are not subject to it in any way, as it is not a valid command from God Almighty. It is not God then who holds the power of condemnation or of salvation; but it is the Mormon conference which saves or damns the world of humanity at the whim of that conference. Could absurdity go farther?"

I think not! Absurdity can scarcely go beyond that representation of the matter. It is scarcely necessary for me to say to you that this presentation of the subject is not true. And yet I have positive knowledge that such a vain utterance as this has its influence among some of the youth of the Church! No; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints arrogates to herself no such powers as are here charged. On the contrary, the following appears in the Book of Mormon, with reference to God's course in making known his mind and will to the children of men:

"I [the Lord] command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in all the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to his works, according to that which is written. For behold, I will speak unto the Jews, and they shall write it; and I will also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I will also speak unto all nations of the earth, and they shall write it."

Then the Lord proceeds to tell how in the dispensation of the fulness of times he will bring together and unite in testimony the words that he has spoken to these various peoples and nations.

Again, it is written in the same book:

"Behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word; yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."

This is the Mormon theory of God's revelation to the children of men. While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and is one of God's instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God's children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them. Hence it is not obnoxious to Mormonism to regard Confucius, the great Chinese philosopher and moralist, as a servant of God, inspired to a certain degree by him to teach those great moral maxims which have governed those millions of God's children for lo! these many centuries. It is willing to regard Gautama, Buddha as an inspired servant of God, teaching a measure of the truth, at least giving to these people that twilight of truth by which they may somewhat see their way. So with the Arabian prophet, that wild spirit that turned the Arabians from worshiping idols to a conception of the Creator of heaven and earth that was more excellent than their previous conception of Deity. And so the sages of Greece and of Rome. So the reformers of early Protestant times. Wherever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom his Spirit can communicate, lo! he makes of him a teacher of men. While the path of sensuality and darkness may be that which most men tread, a few, to paraphrase the words of a moral philosopher of high standing, have been led along the upward path; a few in all countries and generations have been wisdom seekers, or seekers of God. They have been so because the Divine Word of Wisdom has looked upon them, choosing them for the knowledge and service of himself.

In the presence of such a magnificent conception of God's hand dealings with his children in the matter of imparting divine truth to them as this, is it not infamous for a man—one who poses, too, as knowing something of Mormonism—to represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being so narrow and bigoted as to believe that they legislate in their conferences in all spiritual matters for the whole world; that all mankind must wait upon their action for a revelation of God's truth; that God's word is given or withheld from mankind by their vote; that they have constituted themselves a sort of supreme court to determine what is or what is not God's word for the one thousand five hundred millions of souls inhabiting the earth! In concluding his utterance the editorial writer in question closed the passage I quoted with the question, "Could absurdity go further?" I will close mine with the question, Can infamy go farther than his misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in respect to revelation?

While it is held by the Church, nay, taught by the very revelations of God themselves, that there is but one man at a time who is entitled to receive revelations for the government and guidance of the Church—and this in order to prevent confusion and conflict—still it is nowhere held that this man is the only instrumentality through which God may communicate his mind and will to the world. It is merely a law operative within the Church itself and does not at all concern the world outside the Church organization.

When the Church votes upon the acceptance of any revelation, whether it is one respecting doctrine or the appointment of officers, it acts for itself alone. Its vote in no way concerns, either for their praise or their censure, the people outside of the Church. It is merely the exercise of a right conferred upon the Church in the very inception of its organization; for it is part of the law itself, that no rule or law shall be binding on the Church, and no officer shall hold position in the Church, but upon its own free consent. This is no new doctrine. It is in strict harmony with God's moral government of the world. What moral law may not men in their individual capacity reject? From the beginning God's law stood. "Thou shalt not kill." Yet Cain killed Abel and from that day to the present many men have violated this, God's law. And so with every law, whether given directly of God, or through his servants the prophets. Man is by the nature of him a free moral agent; and that agency of his involves the liberty of violating the laws of God as well as the liberty of respecting them. He is free to accept righteousness and attain heaven. He is equally free to follow after wickedness and go to hell if he so elects, though he must not complain if he finds not there the joys and comforts of heaven. Agency or freedom that would mean less than this would mean nothing. It would be neither freedom nor agency. What men may do in their individual capacity the Church may do in its organized capacity with, of course, similar results to the institution; for if the time should come that the Church in the exercise of those rights and that freedom which God in the beginning bestowed upon her should persistently reject his word and his servants until she became corrupted, God would repudiate and disown her as his Church, just as he would reject and condemn a wicked man. Thank God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so far, has received those revelations and those doctrines proposed to her as divine law by the Prophet of God; and also, in the main, those men whom a divine inspiration has suggested as her officers.

An incident in the history of ancient Israel illustrates this doctrine of liberty enjoyed by the people of, God in their corporate capacity. From Moses to Samuel the children of Israel had been governed by a succession of judges, inspired men, appointed of God to be rulers or rather public servants in Israel, which government of inspired men appointed of God constituted a divine order of government, so that it may be said that the people were governed of God. Finally, however, during the administration of government by the judge, the prophet Samuel, the people grew weary of this form of government and clamored for a king. They were ambitious of being like other people by whom they were surrounded. They longed for the worldly pomp and circumstance and glamor of a kingdom. Samuel, the stern old prophet, zealous for his God, withstood their demands, until at last the Lord spoke and said to him: "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them..... Now, therefore, hearken unto their voice; howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them." (Samuel viii.) Samuel followed the directions of the Lord, and pointed out to the people the disasters which would befall them if they adhered to their insistence for a king. All to no purpose, however, a king they would have. God respected their right to have the kind of government they desired, though it involved a rejection of himself—"a veto upon God!" Had not the grave and fair minded senator of Massachusetts—now unhappily departed this life since coining the phrase here criticised—momentarily forgotten this very celebrated incident in the history of ancient Israel, or if he had taken time to think one moment upon the great principles underlying God's moral government of the world, I feel reasonably satisfied that he would never have fashioned that irreverent phrase, "veto power on God," certainly not to win the laughter and applause of those who were present at its birth, or of those who, ape-like, repeat his unhappy phrase.

But I must not overlook another point involved in that part of the testimony here being considered. Suppose a law is promulgated before the Latter-day Saints—a revealed principle of truth is submitted for their acceptance—and then, in the exercise of that liberty, which God has conferred upon his Church, they reject it. The question is then asked, "What remains?"

Why, the truth remains! The action of the Church has not affected that in the least. It is just as true as if the Church had accepted it. Our acceptance or rejection does not make or mar the truth; it simply determines our own relationship to that truth. If we reject the truth, the truth still remains. And, moreover, it is my own faith that a people who would reject the truth revealed of God to them would make no progress until they repented and accepted the rejected truth. The truth remains—that is the answer to the senator's question. Human conduct does not affect the truth. As one of our own poets has said:

"Though the heavens depart, and the earth's fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore!"

Taking up now the other question—that of correcting the Almighty's grammar.

In defining what I understand revelation to be, and the manner in which it may be communicated, I have already stated that when we have a communication made directly from the Lord himself there is no imperfection whatever in that revelation. But when the Almighty uses a man as an instrument through whom to communicate divine wisdom, the manner in which that revelation is imparted to men may receive a certain human coloring from the prophet through whom it comes. We know this to be true, because we have the words of different prophets before us by which we may test the matter. We know, for instance, that the message delivered to Israel through the Prophet Isaiah possesses different characteristics from the message delivered through Jeremiah, or through Ezekiel, or through Amos. It seems that the inspiration of the Lord need not necessarily destroy the personal characteristics of the man making the communication to his fellowmen.

To illustrate what I mean: I remember one of my old teachers calling the attention of our class to the fact, and demonstrating it, that a ray of white light was not so simple a thing as we might think it to be. When you see a white ray of sunlight streaming through some window or other aperture into a dark room, you might think that the bar of white light consists simply of one white ray. But the teacher referred to took a prism and caused such a ray of light to fall upon that prism, and upon a dark screen opposite we discovered that the rays of light composing the white ray were separated into various colors—blue, orange, red, green and the various other colors of the several rays that entered into and made the white ray; and as he went on using one prism after another for this illustration, I discovered that the sharpness and clearness with which the separation of these several rays were made depended somewhat upon the clearness and purity of the prism through which the light passed. And so in after years it occurred to me that this might be used to illustrate how the white ray of God's inspiration falling upon different men would receive different expressions through them, according to the characteristics of those men. So it is that Isaiah preserves his identity, Amos his, Ezekiel his, and so on with the prophets of our own day. I suppose if the Lord had revealed the existence of the Book of Mormon to a man who had a perfect knowledge of the English language, a grammarian, and perfect in literary attainments, then no doubt we would have had a translation of the Book of Mormon without fault or blemish so far as the grammar is concerned; but it pleased God in his wisdom to appoint that mission to one who was not learned in the English language, whose use of the English language was ungrammatical, through failing of opportunity to obtain the necessary instruction in his youthful days, and consequently we find errors in grammar in the translation of the Book of Mormon, such as this: "Whoredoms is an abomination to the Lord." Marvelous, is it not? Ungrammatical—a plural subject and a singular verb! But what of the truth? You are not in doubt about that, are you? Does it make the truth any more real or forcible to use grammatical terms in which to express it? Whoredoms are an abomination to the Lord? Well, what is the essential thing in a revelation? The essential thing is the truth that it conveys; and it matters not whether you say whoredoms is an abomination or whoredoms are an abomination to the Lord. The truth remains that whoredoms are abhorrent to God, and that is the main thing. Again, in the Doctrine and Covenants you find this language: "The Spirit and the body is the soul of man, and the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul." Again a plural subject and a singular verb. But what boots it? The great thing that mankind is concerned to know is the truth conveyed, that the soul of man is composed of spirit and body, and that it is the purpose of the redemption to save and unite spirit and body in one individual, to exist through time and through all eternity. To still further illustrate, and to show you the flimsiness of this "smart" saying to which we are coming in a moment: Old Baron Swedenborg was regarded as a mystic. He was a learned man, but his lips were not attuned to the perfect pronunciation of the English language. Occasionally he spoke in English, but it was always broken. He delighted apparently to contemplate the prophets of old Israel and the prophets of the New Testament. In speaking of them the old man used to say in most solemn earnestness, "De vurld vas not worty of dem," and the audience sometimes laughed; but neither the laughter of the audience, nor the imperfection of pronunciation of the English words detracted from the solemn truth that the old man uttered. And so any imperfection in mere utterance of a truth amounts to little or nothing. "He that hath my word," saith the Lord, "let him speak my word faithfully. For what is the chaff to the wheat?"

Now, would it do any harm to take Swedenborg's broken English and make it smooth by pronouncing it with perfect accent. "They were prophets of whom the world was not worthy?" It does not hurt the truth, to so change the expression of it, does it? Would it hurt the truth, the expression of it, to say "the spirit and the body are the soul of man?" Or "whoredoms are an abomination to the Lord?" Why, no. So in this Manifesto issued by President Woodruff. What if there were imperfect, or ungrammatical sentences in it? What does the world care about that in the last analysis of it? The great thing in the instrument was, and the great truth that the Lord made known to the soul of Wilford Woodruff was that it was necessary for the preservation of the Church, and the uninterrupted progress of her work that plural marriages should be discontinued. Now, any expression containing that truth was all that was necessary. And so there is nothing of weight in the phrase "correcting the grammar of the Almighty." We do not correct his grammar. Perhaps the brethren made slight corrections in the grammar of Wilford Woodruff. The grammar may be the prophet's the idea, the truth, is God's.

Now, the third point; the one about men being constantly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; so constantly under his inspiration that all they say or do is an inspiration of God, that all their answers to questions are in the nature of revelation.

Is there anything in the Mormon doctrine that makes it necessary to believe that of men, even of high officials in the Church? No, there is not. We know that they do not always speak under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit; for some men high in authority, aye Apostles, have preached discourses for which they were finally excommunicated from the Church. They were not inspired in those instances, were they? Evidently not. When you come to think of human weaknesses and imperfections, and how difficult it is for men living under the effects of the Fall, and borne down with inherited tendencies also—when you think how extremely difficult it is for even the best of men to rise above these things and walk in the sunlight of God's inspiration, in the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, I think it is expecting too much to claim that every utterance is a divine inspiration. Men are exercised by a variety of emotions. Passions, selfish interests, prejudices, traditions, bear in upon the souls of men and tend to break up and mar the inspiration of the Spirit of God in them. Blessed is the man who can rise above the human weaknesses and imperfections once in a while and commune with God; and blessed are the people among whom he dwells; because if he can do that he will return to them from such communing so strengthened and helped that he will be an inspiration to all who touch the sphere of his influence. I say happy is the man who once in awhile can ascend to these spiritual heights and commune with God. It is about as much as you can expect of men. But some of you perhaps will be calling to mind a certain revelation in which this passage occurs:

"Behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who are ordained unto this Priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth;

"And this is an ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

True, every word of it; and the word of these men, when spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is indeed the word of God. But oh! how frequently it is the case that men fail to connect with the divine influence and are unable to call it down into their souls to speak forth the words of life! I have already drawn your attention to the fact that the servants of God who minister to us are not always equal to this task; but there are times when you and I have listened to the words of the servants of God, when the white light of God's inspiration rested upon them, and we needed no man to tell us that they spoke by the power and influence of the Holy Ghost, that we were being taught of God. But that is not always the case with respect of the preaching we hear.

The Lord has revealed this truth also:

"Verily I say unto you, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; for the power is in them wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward."

Speaking broadly, we may say there are three classes of intelligences that should be recognized. First of all, the Divine Intelligence, that which comes directly or indirectly from the presence of God through his Spirit. Then there is in every man an intelligent entity, the "Ego," our scientists call it, I think; an entity without beginning and without end, according to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith; a self-existent entity that has intelligence, self-consciousness, will, and other forces, in and of itself. You need not doubt that; it is a self-evident truth. Look inward, investigate your own spirit, and you shall find it true. I need not call your attention in the way of argument to the fact that even wicked men possess this human intelligence. We know they do, and it is sometimes very perverse; also very cunning, and not infrequently very powerful; and yet we know that such wicked persons are so far removed in their walk and conversation from God that the Spirit of the Lord is not with them. Then whence the source of their power and their intelligence? It is native to them; and is self-existent, indestructible. Then again, there is the influence of the adversary of men's souls, he who seeks the destruction of men; he who would pull men down to his level in rebellion against God. He has influence in the world, and men are sometimes dominated by his thoughts, his motives, and are led into darkness and sin through his power. When Lucifer rebelled against the King of kings in heaven, he lost not existence; his intelligence was not destroyed; neither indeed could it or he be annihilated; he remains to this day, and is still pursuing his evil course.

These are the intelligences with whom we come in contact, with whom we have to deal; and I take it to be one of the most important considerations that we make ourselves competent to distinguish between the promptings of our own human intelligence, to know when it is the Spirit of the Lord that prompts, and when it is the adversary of men's souls who approaches us and whispers his counsels in our ears.

Meantime we should recognize the fact that we do many things of our own uninspired intelligence for the issues of which we ourselves are responsible.

Moreover, we ourselves should seek to do good things; for the power is in us to do good, if we will but set about it, even as the Lord has indicated in this revelation I have read on that subject. Many of our actions—shall I say nearly all our ordinary actions?—are prompted by this native intelligence. We take account of this and of that, and from the data before us we make up our judgment and act upon the probabilities involved. That is the ordinary work-a-day guide by which we walk. Then, of course, for the performance of extraordinary duties, for the accomplishment of high purposes, the soul, conscious of its own limitations, reaches out for help; deep calls to deep; the infinite in man seeks union with the infinite in God, and, on occasion, and when necessary for the achievement of God's purposes, we have reason to believe that the Lord deigns to communicate his mind and will unto men. But the Lord evidently proposes that man shall act here largely upon his own intelligence, exercise his own agency, and develop the powers, intelligent and moral, that are within him. That is why men are here in this earth-probation. While I believe the Lord will help men at need, I think it improper to assign every word and every act of theirs to an inspiration from the Lord; for if that were true, we would have to acknowledge ourselves as being wholly taken possession of by the Lord, and not permitted to go to the right or to the left, but as he guided us. Needless to say that in that event there would be no error in judgment, no blunders made. Where would human agency or human intelligence exist in the one case or be developed in the other under such circumstances? They would not exist. Hence I think it a reasonable conclusion to say that constant, never-varying inspiration is not a factor in the administration of the affairs even of the Church; not even good men, no, not though they be prophets or other high officials of the Church, are at all times and in all things inspired of God. It is only occasionally and at need that God comes to their aid.

Upon this subject I want to read what I think was a very wise admission once made by Hyrum Smith, brother of the Prophet, and father of President Joseph F. Smith. After the Prophet Joseph was compelled to flee from his enemies in Kirtland, Ohio, to Far West, Missouri, the word of the Lord was given to the effect that the honest in heart in Kirtland should gather at Far West; whereupon a number of expedients were suggested, or means by which the Saints should make the journey. The High Council and Brother Hyrum Smith conceived the plan of moving the Saints by the water course, by the Ohio, the Missouri and Grand rivers, since those streams were navigable; but the plan proposed by them failed. Then the Seventies took up the matter—the First Council of Seventies—and their proposition was to organize a company that should go overland to Missouri, by team and on foot. They developed their plans, and Hyrum Smith in the course of some remarks made at one of their meetings, is represented as having said that:

"What he had done in reference to chartering a steamboat for the purpose of removing the Church as a body, he had done according to his own judgment, without reference to the testimony of the Spirit of God; that he had recommended that course and had advised the High Council and High Priests to adopt that measure, acting solely upon his own wisdom; for it has seemed to him that the whole body of the Church in Kirtland could be removed with less expense in the way he had proposed than in any other. He said further that the Saints had to act oftentimes upon their own responsibility, without any reference to the testimony of the Spirit of God, in relation to temporal affairs; that he had so acted that the plan of going by water was approved by him, and that the failure of the scheme was evidence in his mind that God did not approve of it." (The foregoing is from the minutes of the said meeting.)

I think this utterance of the Patriarch-Prophet of the Church gives voice to the common sense view of inspiration, its operations upon me, and affairs of the Church. It is vain for men to claim divine inspiration for every move that is made in Church affairs. God makes no mistakes. He never errs in judgment. Whatever he does is done in perfect wisdom, and the final result either of a single act or a series of acts is always his vindication. So that whatsoever of unwisdom appears in the policy of his Church; whatsoever of defect appears in the administration of her affairs, are not assignable to God, nor are they the result of the operation of his inspiration upon the minds of men. Such unwisdom in policy, such defects in administration are referable alone to men, whose knowledge is limited, whose foresight, when unhelped by divine inspiration, is imperfect, whose wisdom when backed by no other intelligence than that native to their own spirits is halting, and whose judgment is burdened with many a defect. Men are responsible for such blundering as may take place in the management of this divine institution we call the Church of Christ.

That there have been unwise things done in the Church by good men, men susceptible at times to the inspiration of the Spirit of God, we may not question. Many instances in the history of the Church through three quarters of a century prove it, and it would be a solecism to say that God was the author of those unwise, not to say positively foolish, things that have been done. For these things men must stand responsible, not God.

It is well nigh as dangerous to claim too much for the inspiration of God in the affairs of men as it is to claim too little. By the first men are led into superstition, and into blasphemously accrediting their own imperfect actions, their blunders, and possibly even their sins to God; and by the second they are apt to altogether eliminate the influence of God from human affairs; I pause in doubt as to which extreme would be the worse.

After these remarks I can hear some in their hearts ask, "How, then, shall we attain to certainty? How are we to know when men speak and act under divine inspiration, and when by their own unaided human intelligence? When God gave the world inspired apostles and prophets and had established a divine institution for the instruction and guidance of men, we had fondly hoped that at last doubt and uncertainty had been driven out of the minds of those who placed themselves under the tutorship of such instructors and such a divine institution as the Church of Christ; and that now we were placed in a position where an unerring finality might be attained on all questions involving human affairs and human conduct." So indeed, good friends, you have, in the Church of Christ, a means of attaining finality in regard to all those questions that concern your salvation. There is and can be no questioning or doubting concerning the essential principles of the gospel of Christ taught by his Church. Here we stand on the solid rock, not on shifting sands. We can and do know the truth with reference to the matters that concern our salvation; and God in the dispensation of the fulness of times, wherein he has decreed the completion of his work with reference to the salvation of men and the redemption of the earth will never permit man's imperfections and unwisdom to thwart the accomplishment of his great purposes. In these things we stand absolutely secure. But with reference to matters involving merely questions of administration and policy in the Church; matters that do not involve the great and central truths of the gospel—these afford a margin wherein all the human imperfections and limitations of man, even of prophets and apostles, may be displayed; that they, in common with the membership of the Church, may exercise their freedom and agency, and, of course, stand responsible, blamable or praiseable, according as they acquit themselves well or ill in discharging those duties which devolve upon them. In this connection let me say that it should not be matter of surprise to any one that unwise things have been both said and done by some of the best men in the Church. On the contrary, it is matter of congratulation to the Church that so little unwisdom has been manifested by our brethren upon whom God has laid the heavy burdens of so great a work.

As to the matter of attaining certainty in human affairs, that is not to be expected. Is it indeed desirable? "Know ye not that we walk by faith and not by sight?" is the language of Paul to the Saints in his day. By which token I infer that we are placed in this earth-probation to pass through just such experiences as those to which we seem born heirs. Is it not in part the meaning of life that we are here under just such conditions as prevail in order that we may learn the value of better things? Is not this very doubt of ours concerning the finality of things—finality which ever seems to elude our grasp—the means of our education? What mere automatons would we become if we found truth machine-made and limited, that is to say, finite, instead of being as we now find it, infinite and elusive, and attainable only as we beat it out on the anvil of our own experiences? Yet so far as men may be furnished with the means of attaining to certainty concerning the class of things of which we are speaking, the Saints of God are supplied with that means. Their obedience to the gospel brings to them the possession of the Holy Ghost, and it is Mormon doctrine that "by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things." (Moroni.) This Spirit takes of the things of God and makes them known to men. By his testimony we may know that the Lord is God, that Jesus is the Christ, that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. By him bearing witness to our spirits we can recognize the truth, and know when men speak of themselves and when they speak as moved upon by the Holy Spirit. But even with the possession of this Spirit to guide us into all truth, I pray you, nevertheless, not to look for finality in things, for you will look in vain. Intelligence, purity, truth, will always remain with us relative terms and also relative qualities. Ascend to what heights you may, ever beyond you will be other heights in respect of these things, and ever as you ascend more heights will appear, and it is doubtful if we shall ever attain the absolute in respect of these qualities.[A] Our joy will be the joy of approximating them, of attaining unto ever increasing excellence, without attaining the absolute. It will be the joy of eternal progress. Something too much of this. Let me hasten to a word in conclusion.

[Footnote A: Since the above discourse was delivered I have read the following in the "Hibbert Journal" for April, 1907; and I feel that the though is too well expressed to omit the quotation of it here:

"A certain orientation is a necessary condition of fruitful research: we must be sure of the direction even if we cannot see the goal. Thus, as Laberthonniere says, there is a sense in which those only can truly seek who have already found. "Let us, then seek as they seek who have to find, and let us find as they find who still have to seek; for it is said: 'The man who has arrived at the goal is but at the beginning.'" [St. Augustine] He then who thus conceives of religion will rid himself of that fallacy of finality, and all that narrowness of vision and pettiness of mind aptly described by the French writer as the tradition of the little books that make God little, which vitiates popular religious belief in the eyes of those who know enough to know how little can be known. * * * Because the subject matter of religion is Infinite we must look for no finality in religious ideas. Sure of the direction, let us not delude ourselves by fancying we can see the goal; our goal is but a beginning, as we find but to seek the more.">[

I would like to come very near to you, if you will permit it, in a heart to heart talk. I would like to stand in the relationship of an elder brother to you young men and young women of Israel for a few moments; as a brother whose opportunities in the matter of investigating Mormonism have been rather exceptional, on account of the lines of work I have followed. The books I have written have led me into a very close investigation of original documents respecting Mormonism. Very much of the private correspondence between President Brigham Young and President John Taylor happened to pass through my hands, while engaged in writing the biography of the latter. I have had the opportunity of consulting the private journals kept by these and other leading brethren of the Church, in which I have read utterances they never expected to see daylight. Documents wherein they recorded the secret things of their hearts, and their convictions concerning the work of God. I gathered much comfort, and have been strengthened in my own faith by finding these men perfectly honest in thought and word respecting the work of God. Their most private utterances were in perfect harmony with the things which they proclaimed publicly. In this respect I have found them pure gold. I speak of this not to boast, but in order that I may remind you of the simple fact that I have had these exceptional opportunities of investigating Mormonism, not from public utterances alone, but from behind the scenes, so to speak, where the skeletons would have appeared if there were skeletons in existence. And now, in the presence of these facts, and this opportunity afforded me, I want to say to you, my young brethren and sisters, that God has spoken in this age in which we live. He has revealed himself to the children of men, and has communicated a message to the world in what is called Mormonism. The book of Mormon is true. The great revelations that underlie this latter day work are true. The revelations concerning the nature of God and man, in the Doctrine and Covenants, the revelations out of which has grown this organization which we call the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints, are verities.

Now, following this testimony, I want to warn you against speaking lightly or slightingly of sacred things, or of the servants of God. In nothing, perhaps, can you more offend God or grieve his Spirit. Have nothing to do, I pray you, with "smart" quips against the truth, however respectable their origin, or however popular or catchy their phraseology. I pray you give them no lodgment in your hearts. Remember we live under the law of God.—Speak no evil of mine anointed; do my prophets no harm. And remember always that whatever the weaknesses and the imperfections of men may be, whatever weaknesses they may have manifested before the Church in the past, or may manifest before it in the future (for the end is not yet), their weaknesses and imperfections affect not the truth that God has revealed. The Lord will vindicate his truth, and at the last it will be found that

"'Tis no avail to bargain, sneer, and nod,
And shrug the shoulder for reply to God."

Remember also that ridicule is not argument; that a sneer, though it may not be susceptible of an answer, is no refutation of the truth; that though profane ribaldry may provoke a passing merriment, the profaner's "laugh is a poor exchange for Deity offended." I therefore admonish you, as a friend and brother, to stand aloof from all these things. Hold as sacred the truths of God; and hold in highest esteem, as indeed you may, those whom God has appointed to be his prophets, apostles and servants.

[THE END.]