ating, vivifying, and controlling the former: the union or fusion of the two constitutes the "living soul" alluded to by Moses (Gen., ii., 7) in the Adamical creation. Death followed the fall of the great patriarch, who, we are told, is called in Scripture Michael, the Ancient of Days, with hair like wool, etc. But in technical Mormon phrase, "Adam fell that man might be," and ate the forbidden fruit with a full foreknowledge of the consequences—a Shiah belief. The "fall," therefore, was a matter of previous arrangement, in order that spirits choosing to undertake their probations might be fitted with "tabernacles," and be born of women. Death separates the flesh and the spirit for a useful purpose, but the latter keeps guard over every particle of the former, until, at the fiat of resurrection, the body is again "clothed upon," and perfect man is the result—a doctrine familiar to the mediums. Such is also the orthodox Sunnite faith. The heretical peculiarity of the Mormon resurrection is this: the body will be the same as before, "except the blood," which is the natural life, and, consequently, the principle of mortality. A man restored to flesh and blood would be subject to death; "flesh and bones," therefore, will be the constitution of the "resurrected" body. This idea clearly derives from the Genesitic physiology, which teaches that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Levit., xvii., 14); life being, according to the moderns, not an absolute existence nor objective entity, but a property or condition of the corporeal mechanism—the working, as it were, of the engine until arrested by material lesion. It is confirmed in the Mormon mind by the Savior bidding his disciples to handle his limbs, and to know that he had flesh and bones, not blood.
XII. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience unmolested, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how or where they may."—This article embodies the tenets of Roger Williams, who, in establishing his simple democracy, provided that the will of the majority should rule, but "only in civil things." The charter of Rhode Island (1644) contains the memorable words: "No person within the said colony shall be molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question for any differences of opinion in matters of religion who does not actually disturb the public peace." But how often has this been mouthed—how little it has affected mankind! Would London—boasting in the nineteenth century to be the most tolerant of cities—allow the Cardinal of Westminster to walk in procession through her streets?
XIII. "We believe in being subject to kings, queens, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."—When treating of the hierarchy, it
