Freedom," the principle of which finally found its way into our national and state Constitutions; Alexander Hamilton and his political interpretation of the constitutional powers of our general government; Webster and his doctrine of the sacredness of the American Union of States—the statesman of nationalism; Monroe, with the doctrine which bears his name, politically segregating the American continents from Europe, and dedicating the western world to free institutions; Lincoln, with his doctrine of the rightfulness of personal freedom for every man, woman and child of Adam's race—the doctrine of the universal application of the self-evident principles of the Declaration of Independence—the right of men to live, to be free, to pursue happiness—principles he invoked in behalf of the African race in the United States. Among inventors will be remembered Fulton, Whitney, Morse and Edison; among the philosophers, practical and speculative, Franklin, Emerson and John Fiske; among the poets, Longfellow, Poe, Whitman, and Lowell; among the preachers and theologians, Jonathan Edwards and his cruel orthodoxy; Wm. E. Channing and his Unitarian liberalism; Henry Ward Beecher and his successor, Lyman Abbott, with their efforts at reconciliation of Christianity and evolution.

This enumeration does not exhaust the list of historical Americans who have powerfully influenced their countrymen, but it will not be doubted that they represent the very chief of the respective groups that have so influenced their countrymen.

Thinking of the achievements of these great Americans, and weighing the influence of each upon his countrymen, do you not really think, even with Josiah Quincy on our side, it looks presumptuous in us to hold that Joseph Smith may yet exert a greater influence over his countrymen than any one of these, his compatriots? That is the question I propose to put on trial here this afternoon.

III.

WHAT IS A PROPHET?

First of all, a word of definition: This term "prophet"—what do you make of it? Generally, when you speak of a "prophet," you have in mind a predictor of future events, one who foretells things that are to come to pass, and indeed that is, in part, the office of a prophet—in part what is expected of him. But really this is the very least of his duties. A prophet should be a "forth-teller" rather than a fore-teller. Primarily he must be a teacher of men, an expounder of the things of God. The inspiration of the Almighty must give him understanding, and when given he must expound it to his people, to his age. He must be a Seer that can make others see. A Teacher sent of God to instruct a people—to enlighten an age. This is the primary office of a prophet. And now I want to show you how well and faithfully our Prophet performed such duties.

To do this it is necessary that I say something about the ideas prevailing in the world at the Prophet's advent among men—I mean as to their religions and philosophies, the doctrines by which they were influenced. And this not only as to truth, but also as to error—and chiefly as to error, for, among other things, a prophet must correct the errors of men. It is a capital method of teaching truth—this correcting of errors.

IV.

RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS OF ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

REVELATION: At the commencement of the nineteenth century the general idea prevailed in Christendom that a great while ago a very definite revelation from God had been given; angels had visited the earth and imparted divine knowledge to men; the Spirit of the Almighty had rested upon some and had given them understanding by which they were able to declare the mind of God and the will of God. These were prophets. Some prophets there were who even talked with God "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." So communed Moses with God (Ex. 33:11); so, too, Isaiah (Isa. 6:1-6). But while this belief as to revelation in the past everywhere prevailed, orthodox Christendom was equally certain that no revelation was being given in their day; and not only was no revelation then being given, but neither would there be any revelation given in future time. "The volume of revelation is completed and forever closed," was dogma in all Christendom. There would be no future visitation of angels. No more would the heavens be opened, or man stand face to face with his God, or speak to his Lord as a man speaketh to his friend. All this was ended. The canon of scripture was completed, and forever closed. That canon consisted of the Old and New Testaments; all other books were secular—this alone sacred. There was no other word of God.

IDEAS OF DEITY: In regard to deity, Christian men, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, believed that God was an incorporeal, immaterial being, without body—that is, not material, not matter; without parts; without passions. And yet, with gravest inconsistency, they held that God was of love the essence; that He loved righteousness, that He hated iniquity; that He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life! Notwithstanding this "love" and this "hate" God was without passions! He was, too, according to men's creeds, without form. Notwithstanding Moses, one of the God-inspired teachers of men, said that "God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him;" and Jesus, by a prophet of the New Testament, was declared to be the express image of God's person (Hebrews i: 2, 3). Notwithstanding this, I say, men, in the early decades of the nineteenth century, were possessed of a "morbid terror" of anthropomorphism—the ascription of human form, feeling or qualities to God—as if they could escape it and still hold belief in the Bible revelation of God! Or, for matter of that, hold to any doctrine of God taught either by religion or philosophy. At the very least, if the God-idea survive at all, God must be held to possess consciousness, both consciousness of self, and of other than self—self-consciousness, and other-consciousness; also He must be thought of as possessed of volition; and what are these but human qualities, which present God to our thought as anthropomorphic? Strip God of these attributes and He is reduced to the atheists' "force;" to blind, purposeless force, that can sustain no possible personal relationship whatsoever to men or other things in the universe. As one writer in a great magazine recently said: "If we are to know the Supreme Reality at all, it can only be through the attribution to Him of qualities analogous to, though infinitely transcending, the qualities which we recognize as highest in man, and consequently [highest] in the world as we know it."

But I must pass by these inconsistencies of the creeds of men. I shall have no time to discuss them. Indeed, I must ask you to think with me in headlines, and to think fast. We have no time for argument. We shall barely have time to pass over the ground proposed, and must depend upon the truth of our statements being self-evident, or conceded to be accurate statements of fact.

OF THE UNIVERSE: Respecting the universe, Christendom, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, believed that it was created of God from nothing, and that no great while ago. "Calling forth from nothing" was held to be indeed the meaning of "create." God transcended the universe; was, in fact, outside of it; was what an American philosopher (Fiske) some years afterwards called an "Absentee God." Absent, "except for a little jog or poke here and there in the shape of a special providence."

"Down to a period almost within living memory," says Andrew Dixon White, in his great work, "Warfare of Science with