[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.