The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year / The Doctrine of Deity

LESSON XXXV.

7. Further Evidence for a Plurality of Divine Intelligences: I find a word on the subject fitly spoken by the late Orson Pratt, in a discourse delivered in 1855, in Salt Lake City. He said: There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman, the greatest of all the parts of God, excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo—man." The revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman, and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man.[1] What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? It is that these intelligent beings are all parts of God. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 342.)

This, it will be said, is a bold doctrine; and indeed it is bold. I love it for its boldness, but not so much for that, as for the reason that it is true. It is in harmony with another revelation given through Joseph Smith, wherein it is said:

"Man was also [as well as Jesus] in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. * * * For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man in the tabernacle of God, even temples" (Doc. and Cov., sec. 93: 29-35).

Nor is the doctrine less in harmony with the Jewish scriptures:

"For it became him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."

In this same chapter of Hebrews, Jesus, as well as man, is spoken of as being made "a little while inferior to the angels" (verses 7 and 9 marginal reading); and he is spoken of by the same apostle in another place as being but "the first born among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29). Also in his great discourse in Mars Hill, Paul not only declares that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men"—but he also quoted with approval the Greek poet Aratus,^[2] where the latter says: "For we are also his [God's] offspring;" and to this the apostle adds: "For as much, then, as we are the offspring of God [hence of the same race and nature], we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art after man's device" (Acts 17: 26-30). The nature of our own being, one might add, in continuation of the apostle's reasoning, should teach those who recognize men as the offspring of God, better than to think of the Godhead as of gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art after man's device, since the nature of the offspring partakes of the nature of the parent; and our own nature teaches us that men are not as stocks and stones, though the latter be graven by art after the devices of men.

Paul might also have quoted the great Hebrew poet: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods. * * * I have said ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High" (Ps. 82: 1, 6, 7); and though he adds, "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes," it does not detract from the assertion, "and all of you are children of the Most High;" for Jesus died, even as men die; but he was the Son of God, nevertheless, and he himself a Deity.

The matter is clear, then, men and Gods are of the same race; Jesus is the Son of God, and so, too, are all men the offspring of God, and Jesus but the first born of many brethren. Eternal Intelligences are begotten of God, spirits, and hence are sons of God—a dignity that never leaves them. "Beloved," said one of old, "now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he [Christ] shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (I John 3:2). For additional matter on this point see "Avatars of God" in March and April Nos. of Improvement Era, 1910.

8. Of God the Spirit of the Gods: From the presence of the Gods goes out the influence and power men sometimes call God, or the Spirit of God; from whose presence David could not flee:

"If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. Yea the darkness hideth not from thee; but the light shineth as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to thee" (Ps. 139: 7-12).

This Spirit is that "Something sacred and sublime," which men recognize as moving "wool-shod" behind the worlds; "weighing the stars; weighing the deeds of men." (Edward Markham.) This that Spirit that permeates all space; that makes all presence bright; all motion guides; the Power "unchanged through time's all-devastating flight;" that upholds and sustains all worlds. Hence it is said, in one of the most beautiful of the revelations God has given in this last dispensation:

"As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also the light of the stars and the power thereof by which they were made. And the earth also and the power thereof; even the earth upon which you stand. And the light which now shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space. The light which is in all things; which giveth light to all things; which is the law by which all things are governed: even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things; * * * The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God. * * * Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these, hath seen God moving in his majesty and power" (Doc. and Cov., sec. 88 8-13 and 45, 47).

This, then, is God, who is not far removed from every one of us; in whom we live, and move, and have our being. This is God immanent in nature.

And as we dwell in him, so, too, dwells he in us; and, as man more expands towards divinity, more and more of the divine enters into his being, until he attains unto a fullness of light and truth; of power and glory; until he becomes perfectly one in God, and God in him. This the meaning of the Messiah's prayer, made for all those who become his disciples—"That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee: that they also may be one in us" (John 17: 21).

To the same effect Paul also prayed:

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3: 14-19).

Then again he said: Let this mind be in you which was also in Jesus Christ: who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God (Philippians 2: 5, 6).

It is possible for the mind of God to be in man, to will and to do, as seemeth [God] good. The nature of the Whole clings to the Parts, and they may carry with them the light and truth and glory of the Whole. Moreover, by appointment, any One or Three of the unit Intelligences may become the embodiment and representative of all the power and glory and authority of the sum total of the Divine Intelligences; in which capacity either the One or the Three would no longer stand only in their individual characters as Gods, but they would stand also as the sign and symbol of all that is divine—and would act as and be to all intents and purposes The One God. And so in every inhabited world, and in every system of worlds, a God presides. Deity in his own right and person, and by virtue of the essence of him; and also by virtue of his being the sign and symbol of the Collectivity of the Divine Intelligences of the universe. Having access to all the councils of the Gods, each individual Deity becomes a partaker of the collective knowledge, wisdom, honor, power, majesty, and glory of the Body Divine—in a word, the embodiment of the Spirit of the Gods whose influence permeates the universe.

This doctrine of Deity teaches a divine government for the world that is in harmony with our modern knowledge of the universe; for, as I have remarked elsewhere in effect: (New Witness for God, pp. 473-5.) An infinitude of worlds and systems of worlds rising one above another in ever-increasing splendor, in limitless space and eternal duration, have, as a concomitant, an endless line of exalted, divine men to preside over and within them, as Priests, Kings, Patriarchs, Gods! Nor is there confusion, disorder, or strife in their vast dominions; for they all govern upon the same righteous principles that characterize the government of God everywhere. These Divine Intelligences have attained unto the excellence that Jesus prayed for in behalf of his apostles, and those who might believe on their word, when he said: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." I say Divine Intelligences have attained unto the excellence of oneness that Jesus prayed his disciples might possess, and since they have attained unto it, and all govern their worlds and systems of worlds by the same spirit, and by the same principles, there is a unity in their government that makes it one even as they are one. Let worlds and systems of worlds galaxies of systems and universes, extend as they may throughout limitless space, Joseph Smith has revealed the existence of a divine government which, while characterized by unity, is co-extensive with all these worlds and world-systems.

Footnotes

1. It may be thought, at the first reading of this statement, "the angels are a little lower than man," is in conflict with the scripture, "Thou madest him [man] a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2: 7). But I call attention to the marginal rendering of the passage in King James' translation, "Thou madest him a little while inferior to the angels." Without stopping here to consider which is the better translation of the passage, it may be said of the latter that it is in better harmony with the context of the passage as it stands here in Hebrews, and also in Psalms, than the preferred rendering of it in the regular text; for in both places it says of man, "Thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all things in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him." Moreover, we see the same thing is said of Jesus that is said of man: "We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor" (Heb. 2: 9). Surely "made a little lower than the angels," when said of Jesus could be but for "a little while inferior to," etc.; and that only in the matter of "the suffering of death." So, too, with man; he is made "a little while inferior to the angels," after which period he would rise to the dignity of his place, when it would be seen, as said in the text with which this note deals, "the angels are a little lower than man," that is, of course, when man shall have attained unto his exaltation and glory.

2. He was a poet of Cilicia, of which province Tarsus, Paul's native city, was the capital. He wrote about four hundred years before Paul's time.

LESSON XXXVI.

1. The First Objection—God is a Spirit—Hence Immaterial: "God is a Spirit" (John iv., 24). "Another strong and explicit statement is: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father who is in heaven.' (Matt. xvi). "As the Christ has asked, what[1] do men say the Son of Man is (Matt. xvi, 16, 17), there is an evident antithesis and contrast between the opinions of men and the profession of Peter, which is based upon revelation. The striking opposition between men, flesh and blood, and the Father, evidently conveys the sense that God hath not flesh and blood like man, but is a Spirit (Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion—Mormon Doctrine of Deity—p. 45).

2. God is Invisible, Hence Immaterial: It is also held that God is described as being "invisible," in the Bible. Then it is added: "All material beings are visible. Absolute invisible beings are immaterial or bodiless: God is absolutely invisible, therefore God is immaterial or bodiless. * * * * * * Tertullian, (A. D. 160-245), Ambrose (330-397), Augustine (354-430) and other Fathers, whose deep scholarship is acknowledged by Protestants and Catholics alike, informs us that God the Father is called invisible because He never appeared to bodily eyes; whereas the Son manifested Himself as an angel, or through an angel, and as man, after His incarnation. He is the eternal revelation of the Father. It is necessary to remark that whenever the eternal Son of God, or angels at God's behest, showed themselves to man, they became visible only through a body or a material garb assumed for the occasion (see Cardinal Newman's "Development of Christian Doctrine," 9th edition, pp. 136 and 138)." (Ibid.)

3. The Purpose of Anthropomorphic Appearances and Descriptions of God: "Again, Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of this wickedness"—Eph. vi: 12—Could plainer words be found to teach that angels both good and bad, are spirits devoid of bodies. Now, the Creator is certainly more perfect than His creatures, and pure minds are more perfect than minds united to bodies (men). ["The corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind" (Wis 9:15.) "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" (St. Paul).] Therefore, the Creator is a pure spirit.

"It is a well known fact that all men, after the example of the inspired Writings, make frequent use of the figure called anthropomorphism, attributing to the Deity a human body, human members, human passions, etc.; and that is done, not to imply that God is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man, who, while he tarries in this world, can perceive things and even ideas only through his senses or through bodily organs." (Ibid).

4. The Answers: The whole fabric of this objection and argument, is built upon the assumption that "spirit" is immaterial. I say "assumption," because it is nowhere declared in revelation that "spirit" is immaterial. On the other hand, whenever spirits have been seen, or God has been revealed, they have appeared to the eyes of the beholder in human form. They were tangible to human sight; they had configuration; they occupied space; and as form and extension are qualities of matter, spirits must be material, albeit of finer substance than the bodies tangible to the senses in normal states of consciousness. The argument quoted in the preceding notes of the lesson, were treated in part in the following manner:

5. Of God Being a Spirit: "Mr. Van Der Donckt's first premise is that "God is a Spirit," quoting the words of the Savior (John 4: 24); and Paul's words, "The Lord is a spirit," (II Cor. 3: 17.) He then argues that a spirit is different from a man, and quotes the remark of Jesus to His disciples, when He appeared to them after His resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have" (Luke 24: 37-39). Also the words of Jesus to Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it [that is, that Jesus is the Christ] unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven." (Matt. 16: 17.) The gentleman, in all this, sees a striking contrast between men, flesh and blood, and the Father; which "conveys the sense that God hath not flesh and blood like man, but is a spirit." * * * * With reference to the passage—"Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven," and the Reverend gentleman's remarks thereon, I wish to say, in passing, that the antithesis between man and God in the passage, extends merely to the fact that the source of Peter's revelation was God, not man; and is no attempt at defining a difference between the nature of God and the nature of man. Here, also, I may say, that the Latter-day Saints do not hold that God is a personage of flesh and blood, but a personage of flesh and bone, inhabited by a spirit, just as Jesus was after His resurrection. Joseph Smith taught, concerning the resurrection, that "all [men] will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." Again, in speaking of the general assembly and church of the first-born in heaven (Heb. 12:23), he said: "Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened by the Spirit of God, can." So it must be remembered, throughout this discussion, that the Latter-day Saints do not believe that God is a personage of flesh and blood; but a personage of flesh and bone and spirit, united. * * * * * * * * But now for the "Mormon" exposition of the text. Is Jesus Christ God? Was He God as He stood there among His disciples in His glorious and, to use Mr. V's own word, "sacred," resurrected body? There is but one answer that the Reverend Catholic gentleman or any orthodox Protestant can give, and that is in the affirmative—"yes, Jesus is God." But "God is a spirit!" True, He is; but Jesus is a spirit inside a body—inside an immortal, indestructible body of flesh and bone; therefore, if Jesus is God, and God is a spirit, He is an embodied spirit, just as the Latter-day Saints teach.

Mr. Van Der Donckt endeavors to anticipate the "Mormon" answer to this argument by saying: "I am well aware that the Latter-day Saints interpret those texts as meaning a spirit clothed with a body, but what nearly the whole of mankind, Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans, have believed for ages, cannot be upset by the gratuitous assertions of a religious innovator of this last century."

At this point, I will not appeal to or quote the "gratuitous assertions of a religious innovator of this last century"—meaning Joseph Smith. There is no need of that. If I were an unbeliever in the true Deity of Christ, I might take up the gentleman's argument in this way: You say God is a spirit, and hence bodiless, immaterial? His answer must be, "Yes." But Jesus says, "a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me have."—Hence Jesus is not God, because He is a personage of flesh and bone, in the form of man—not bodiless or immaterial. (This refers to the Christ after his resurrection when he was a resurrected man and immortal in that state). This, of course, is not my point. I merely refer to it in the beaten way of good fellowship, and by way of caution to my Catholic friend, who, I am sure, in his way, is as anxious to maintain the true Deity of the Nazarene as I am; but his method of handling the text, "God is a spirit," might lead him into serious difficulty in upholding the truth that Jesus was and is true Deity, if in argument with an infidel.

6. Of God Being Invisible: Mr. Van Der Donckt thinks he sees further proof of God's being a "Spirit," and therefore immaterial or bodiless, in the fact that He is spoken of in the Bible as being "invisible." Moses "was strong as seeing Him that is invisible," (Heb. 11:27); "No man hath seen God at any time" (I John 4: 12). "The King of kings—whom no man hath seen nor can see," (I Tim. 6: 16); are the passages he relies upon for the proof of his contention.

Of course, Mr. V. is aware of the fact—for he mentions it—that these passages are confronted with the explicit statement of scripture that God has been seen by men. Moses saw Him. At one stage of his experience, the great Hebrew prophet was told that he could not see God's face; "for," said the Lord, "there shall no man see Me and live." But even at that time, Moses was placed in a cleft of the rock, "and thou shalt see My back parts," said the Lord to him; "but My face shall not be seen" (Exodus 23: 18-23). On another occasion, Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, saw God. "And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet as it were, a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink." (Ex. 24: 9-11).

Isaiah saw Him: 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple.' At the same time the seraphims proclaimed His holiness, saying, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory." Then said Isaiah: "Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." (Isaiah 6: 1-5).

To harmonize these apparitions of God to men with his theory of the invisibility of God, Mr. V. appeals to the writings of some of the Christian fathers, and Cardinal Newman, from whose teachings he concludes that God the Father is called "invisible" because "he never appeared to bodily eyes; whereas the Son manifested Himself as an angel, and as a man after His incarnation. * * * Whenever the Eternal Son of God, or angels at God's behest, showed themselves to man, they became visible only through a body, or a material garb assumed for the occasion!" "Surely Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, the great English Cardinal of the Roman church, and Mr. V. are in sore straits when they must needs take refuge in the belief of such jugglery with matter as this, in order to reconcile apparently conflicting scriptures. And what a shuffling off and on of material garbs there must have been, as from time to time hosts of angels and spirits appeared unto men! It is but the materialization of the spiritualist mediums on a little larger scale. But there is a better way of harmonizing the seeming contradictions; and better authority for the conclusion to be reached than the Christian fathers and Cardinal Newman. I mean the scriptures themselves." (The argument in illustration of the last statement is too extended to quote here. See Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion, pp. 80-84.)

7. Of Anthropomorphism and Understanding the Bible Literally: I must say a word upon Mr. V's remarks respecting the plain anthropomorphism of the Bible, and the matter of understanding that sacred book literally. With reference to the first he says: "All men, after the example of the inspired writings, make frequent use of the figure called anthropomorphism, attributing to the Deity a human body, human members, human passions, etc., and that is done, not to imply that God is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man."

I would like to know upon what authority Mr. V. adjudges the "inspired writings" not to imply that God is really possessed of form, limbs, passions, etc., after attributing them to Him in the clearest manner. The "inspired writings" plainly and most forcibly attribute to Deity a form like man's, with limbs, organs, etc., but the Bible does not teach that this ascription of form, limbs, organs and passions to God, is unreal, and "simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man." On the contrary, the Bible emphasizes the doctrine of anthropomorphism by declaring in its very first chapter that man was created in the image of God: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him." The explanation is offered that it was necessary to attribute human form, members and passions, to God, in order to make spiritual things intelligible to man; but what is the reason for ascribing the divine form to man, as in the passage just quoted? Was that done to make human beings or certain truths more intelligible to God? Or was it placed in the word of God because it is simply true?

The truth that God in form is like man, is further emphasized by the fact that Jesus is declared to have been in "the express image" of the Father's person (Heb. 1: 3); and until Mr. V. or some other person of his school of thought, can prove very clearly that the word of God supports his theory of the unreality of the Bible's ascription of form, organs, proportions, passions and feelings, to God and other heavenly beings, the truth that God in form is like man, will stand secure on the foundation of the revelations it has pleased God to give of His own being and nature.

8. "The Morbid Terror of Anthropomorphism": Dean Mansel, in his "Limits of Religious Thought," administers a scathing reproof to the German philosophers Kant and Fichte (and also to Professor Jowett, in his note xxii in Lecture 1) for what he calls "that morbid terror of what they are pleased to call anthropomorphism, which poisons the speculation of so many modern philosophers, when they attempt to be wise above what is written, and seek for a metaphysical exposition of God's nature and attributes." These philosophers, while holding in abhorrence the idea that God has a form such as man's—or any form whatsoever—parts, organs, affections, sympathies, passions or any attributes seen in man's spirit, are, nevertheless, under the necessity of representing God as conscious, as knowing, as determining; all of which, as pointed out by Dean Mansel in the passage which follows, are, after all, qualities of the human mind as well as attributes of Deity; and hence the philosophers, after all their labor, have not escaped from anthropomorphism, but have merely represented Deity to our consciousness, shorn of some of the higher qualities of the human mind, which God is represented in the scriptures as possessing in their perfection—such as love, mercy, justice. (The very extended passage from Mansel's work will be found as foot note in "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," pp. 85-88.)

9. Angels Bodiless Beings: According to Mr. Van Der Donckt's doctrine, "Angels as well as God are bodiless beings." Angels, both good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies. The Creator is more perfect than His creatures, and pure minds [minds separated from bodies] are more perfect than minds united to bodies. * * * Therefore the Creator is a pure spirit." But where does this leave Jesus? Was and is Jesus God—true Deity? Yes. But Jesus is a spirit and body united into one glorious personage. His mind was and is now united to and dwelling in a body. Our Catholic friend says, "pure minds [i. e., minds not united to bodies] are more perfect than minds united to bodies." He also says, "Angels, both good and bad, are spirits (i. e., minds) devoid of bodies." Therefore, it must follow from his premises and argument, that angels are superior to Jesus, since His spirit is united to a body, while they are minds not united to bodies! I will not press the point, that the same conclusions could be drawn from his premises and argument with reference even to bad spirits, whom he says are bodiless, and hence, upon his theory, superior to minds or spirits united to bodies, for that would be ungenerous upon my part, and would lay upon his faulty argument the imputation of awful blasphemy, which I am sure was not intended, and would be as revolting to him as it would be to myself. Mr. V., I am sure, would contend as earnestly as I would that Jesus is superior to the angels, though it is perfectly clear that He is a spirit united to a body.

Footnotes

1. The Catholic priest, Van Der Donckt, who is stating this objection, uses the word "what," although that word is not used in either the common English version, nor in the Douay (Catholic) Bible. "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" Then to the apostles "But whom say ye that I am? (Matt. xvi, 13-14). This is from the common English version. The Douay Bible gives the same passages, "Who do men say that the son of man is?" and "Who do you say that I am?" So really the question is not what the son of man is, but who; hence there is no significance added to the matter from the questions asked.

LESSON XXXVII.

1. Unity of God: Mr. Van Der Donckt says: The first chapter of the Bible reveals the supreme fact that there is One Only and Living God, the Creator and moral Governor of the universe. As Moses opened the sacred Writings by proclaiming Him, so the Jew, in all subsequent generations, has continued to witness for Him, till from the household of Abraham, faith in the one only living and true God has spread through Jerusalem, Christianity and Mahometanism well-nigh over the earth.[1] Primeval revelations of God had everywhere become corrupted in the days of Moses, save among the chosen people. Therefore, the first leaf of the Mosaic record, as Jean Paul says, has more weight than all the folies of men of science and philosophers.

While all nations over the earth have developed a religious tendency which acknowledged a higher than human power in the universe, Israel is the only one which has risen to the grandeur of conceiving this power as the One Only Living God. If we are asked how it was that Abraham possessed not only the primitive conception of the Divinity, as He had revealed Himself to all mankind, but passed through the denial of all other gods, to the knowledge of the One God, we are content to answer, that it was by a special divine revelation.^[2]

The record of this divine revelation is to be found in the Bible: "Hear, Israel: Our God is one Lord." "I alone am, and there is no other God besides me" (Deut. 6:4 and 32:39). "I am the first and I am the last, and after me there shall be none" (Isaiah 44:6; 43:10.) "I will not give my glory to another" (Isaiah 42: 8; 45: 5, etc., etc.)

And as Mr. Roberts admits that our conception of God must be in harmony with the New Testament, it as well as the Old witnesses continually to One True God. Suffice it to quote: "One is good, God" (Matthew 19: 17;) "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" (Luke 10: 27); "My Father of whom you say that he is your God" (John 8: 54). Here Christ testified that the Jews believed in only one God.

"The Lord is a God of all Knowledge" (I Kings 2). ("Mormon" Catechism v. Q. 10 and 11). "Of that day and hour no one knoweth, no not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone" (Matthew 24: 36). No one knoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke 10: 22). Therefore, no one is God but one, the Heavenly Father.

In another form: The All-knowing alone is God. The Father alone is all-knowing. Therefore the Father alone is God^[3]

From these clear statements of the Divine Book it is evident that all the texts quoted by Mr. Roberts do not bear the inference he draws from them; on the contrary, they directly make against him, plainly proving the unity of God.

First, then, if God so emphatically declares, both in the Old and in the New Testament, that there is but one God, has anyone the right to contradict Him and to say that there are several or many Gods? But Mr. Roberts insists that the Bible contradicts the Bible; in other words, that God, the author of the Bible, contradicts Himself. To say such a thing is downright blasphemy.

The liability of self-contradiction is characteristic of human frailty. It is incompatible with God's infinite perfections. Therefore, I most emphatically protest that there is no real contradiction in the Bible, though here and there may exist an apparent one."

2. "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost Are One and the Same Identical Divine Essence or Being: 'I and the Father are one.' (John 10-30.) Christ asserts His physical, not merely moral, unity with the Father.

"My sheep hear My voice * * * and I give them everlasting life; and they shall not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of My hand."

The following argument, by which Christ proves that no man shall pluck His sheep from His hand, proves His consubstantiality, or the unity of His nature or essence with His Father's:

"My Father who gave Me the sheep is greater than all men or creatures (v. 29), and therefore no one can snatch the sheep or aught else from His hand. (Supreme or almighty power is here predicated of the Father.)

"Now, I and the Father are one (thing, one being), (v. 30). (Therefore, no one can snatch the sheep or aught else from My hand.)

To perceive the full meaning and strength of Jesus' argument, one must read and understand the original text of St. John's Gospel, that is, the Greek; or the Latin translation: Ego et Pater unum sumus.

If Christ had meant one in mind, or one morally, and not substantially, He would have used the masculine gender, Greek eis, (unus)—and not the neuter en, (unum)—as He did. No better interpreters of our Lord's meaning can be found than His own hearers. Had He simply declared His moral union with the Father, the Jews would not have taken up stones in protest against His making Himself God, and asserting His identity with the Father. Far from retracting His statement or correcting the Jews' impression, Jesus insists that as He is the Son of God, He has far more right to declare Himself God than the scripture had to call mere human judges gods, and He corroborates His affirmation of His physical unity with His Father by saying: 'The Father is in Me, and I am in the Father,' which evidently signifies the same as verse 30: 'I and the Father are one and the same individual being, the One God.'

The preceding argument is reinforced by John xiv:8-11: 'Philip saith to him: Lord, show us the Father. * * * Jesus saith: So long a time have I been with you and thou hast not known Me. Philip, he that seeth Me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou: Show us the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak, I speak not of Myself. But the Father Who abideth in Me, He doth the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. What things soever the Father doth, these the Son also doth likewise. (John v:19.)

These words are a clear assertion of the physical unity of the Son and the Father. It is plain from the context that Christ means more than a physical resemblance, no matter how complete, between Him and His Father. Of mere resemblance and moral union could never be said that one is the other, and that the words uttered by one are actually spoken by the other. To see the Son and the Father at the same time in the Son, the Son and the Father must be numerically one Being. Now, Christ says: 'He that seeth the Father.' Therefore, He and the Father are numerically one Being."

3. The Holy Ghost: There remains to prove that the Holy Ghost is inseparably one with the Father and the Son. There are three who give testimony in heaven, and these three are one. (1 John v:8.) As Christ proved His identity and unity with the Father by texts quoted: 'The words that I speak, I speak not of Myself. But the Father Who abideth in Me, He doth the works,' so He now shows His unity with the Holy Ghost by almost the selfsame sentences: 'When the Spirit of Truth will have come, He will teach you all truth; for He will not speak of Himself, but He will speak whatever He will hear, and will announce to you the things to come. He will glorify Me, because He will receive of mine and announce to you: whatever the Father hath are Mine. Therefore, I said: because He will receive of Mine and announce it to you.' (John xvi:13-15.)

That the Holy Ghost is one with the Son, or Jesus, is proved also by the fact that the Christian baptism is indiscriminately called the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Baptism in or with the Holy Ghost and the Baptism of or in Jesus: 'He [Christ] shall baptize in the Holy Ghost and fire' (that is, the Holy Ghost acting as purifying fire) (Matthew iii:11); 'have you received the Holy Ghost? We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost.' He said: 'In what, then [in whose name, then] were you baptized?' Who said: 'In John's baptism * * * Having the instrument of the Father? heard these things they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 2:9). All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 6:3).

4. The Answers: Of the Unity of God: The Latter-day Saints believe in the unity of the creative and governing force or power of the universe as absolutely as any orthodox Christian sect in the world. One cannot help being profoundly impressed with the great truth that creation, throughout its whole extent, bears evidence of being one system, presents at every point unity of design, and harmony in its government. Nor am I unmindful of the force there is in the deduction usually drawn from these premises, viz.: that the Creator and Governor of the universe must necessarily be one. But I am also profoundly impressed by another fact that comes within the experience of man, at least to a limited extent, viz.: the possibility of intelligences arriving at perfect agreement, so as to act in absolute unity. We see manifestations of this principle in human governments, and other human associations of various kinds. And this, too, is observable, viz.: that the greater and more perfect the intelligence, the more perfect can the unity of purpose and of effort become: so that one needs only the existence of perfect intelligences to operate together in order to secure perfect oneness, whence shall come the one system evident in the universe, exhibiting at every point unity of design, and perfect harmony in its government. In other words, "oneness" can be the result of perfect agreement among Many Intelligences, as surely as it can be the result of the existence of One Only Intelligence. Also, the decrees and purposes of the perfectly united Many can be as absolute as the decrees and purposes of the One Only Intelligence. One is also confronted with the undeniable fact that inclines him to the latter view as the reasonable explanation of the "Oneness" that is evidently in control of the universe—the fact that there are in existence many Intelligences, and, endowed as they are with free will, it cannot be denied that they influence, to some extent, the course of events and the conditions that obtain. Moreover, it will be found, on careful inquiry, that the explanation of the "Oneness" controlling in the universe, on the theory that it results from the perfect agreement or unity of Many Intelligences,^[4] is more in harmony with the revelations of God on the subject than the theory that there is but One Only Personal Intelligence that enters into its government. This theory Mr. Van Der Donckt, of course, denies, and this is the issue between us that remains to be tested.

5. The Meaning of Elohim: The Reverend gentleman affirms that the first chapter of the Bible "reveals the supreme fact that there is but One Only and Living God." This I deny; and affirm the fact that the first chapter of the Bible reveals the existence of a plurality of Gods.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the word translated "God" in the first chapter of our English version of the Bible, in the Hebrew, is Elohim—plural of Eloah—and should be rendered "Gods"—so as to read, "In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth," etc. * * * The Gods said, "Let there be light." * * * The Gods said, "Let us make man," etc., etc. So notorious is the fact that the Hebrew plural, Elohim, is used by Moses, that a variety of devices have been employed to make the first chapter of Genesis conform to the "One Only God" idea. Some Jews, in explanation of it, and in defense of their belief in One Only God, hold that there are several Hebrew words which have a plural form but singular meaning—of which Elohim is one—and they quote as proof of this the word maim, meaning water, shamaim, meaning heaven, and panim, meaning the face or surface of a person or thing. "But," says a Christian Jewish scholar,^[5] "if we examine these words, we shall find that though apparently they may have a singular meaning, yet, in reality, they have a plural or collective one; thus, for instance, 'maim,' water, means a collection of waters, forming one collective whole; and thus again 'shamaim,' heaven, is also, in reality as well as form, of the plural number, meaning what we call in a similar way in English 'the heavens'; comprehending all the various regions which are included under that title."

Other Jewish scholars content themselves in accounting for this inconvenient plural in the opening chapter of Genesis, by saying that in the Hebrew, Elohim better represents the idea of "Strong," "Mighty," than the singular form would, and for this reason it was used—a view accepted by not a few Christians. (The argument on the plural Elohim continues through eight more pages in "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," from p. 139 to p. 147. It is too elaborate to be reproduced here.)

6. Of the Father Alone Being God: Referring to the admission in my discourse that conceptions of God, to be true, must be in harmony with the New Testament, Mr. Van Der Donckt proceeds to quote passages from the New Testament, in support of the idea that there is but one God:

"One is good, God (Matt. xix:17). Thou shalt love the Lord thy God (Luke x:27). My Father, of whom you say that He is your God (John viii:54). Here Christ testified that the Jews believed in only one God. The Lord is a God of all knowledge (1 Kings ii). ("Mormon" Catechism V. Q. 10 and 2, 11). Of that day and hour no one knoweth, no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matthew xxiv:36). No one knoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke x:22). Therefore, no one is God but one, the Heavenly Father. In another form: the All-knowing alone is God. The Father alone is all-knowing. Therefore, the Father alone is God."

In the conclusion of the syllogism, "Therefore, the Father alone is God," Mr. V. himself seems to have become suddenly conscious of having stumbled upon a difficulty which he ineffectually seeks to remove in a foot note. If it be true, as Mr. V. asserts it is, that the Father alone is God, then it must follow that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is not God; that the Holy Ghost is not God! Yet the New Testament, in representing the Father as addressing Jesus, says—"Thy throne, O God, is forever and forever" (Heb. i:8). Here is the positive word of the Father that Jesus, the Son, is God; for He addresses Him as such. To say, then, that the Father alone is God, is to contradict the Father. Slightly paraphrasing the rather stern language of Mr. V., I might ask: If God the Father so emphatically declares that Jesus is God, has any one the right to contradict him by affirming that the Father alone is God? But Mr. V. insists that the Bible contradicts the Bible; in other words, that God, the author of the Bible, contradicts himself: "To say such a thing, is downright blasphemy!" But Mr. V. will say he has explained all that in his foot note. Has he? Let us see. "Therefore, the Father alone is God," is the conclusion of his syllogism; and the foot note—"To the exclusion of another or separate divine being, but not to the denial of the distinct divine personalities of the Son and the Holy Ghost in the One Divine Being." But that is the mere assumption of my Catholic friend. When he says that the Father alone is God, it must be to the exclusion of every other being, or part of being, or person, and everything else, or language means nothing. Mr. V.'s foot note helps him out of his difficulty not at all.

7. "The All-Knowing Alone is God": (See note 1 this Lesson). The creed to which Mr. Van Der Donckt subscribes—the Athanasian—says: "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God." Now, if the quality of "all-knowing" is essential to the attributes of true Deity, then Jesus and the Holy Ghost must be all-knowing, or else not true deity.

But what of the difficulty presented by Mr. V's contention: "The All-knowing alone is God, the Father alone is All-knowing, therefore, the Father alone is God?" Mr. V. constructs this mighty syllogism upon a very precarious basis. It reminds one of a pyramid standing on its apex. He starts with the premise that "The Lord is a God of all knowledge:" then he discovers that there is one thing that Jesus, the Son of God does not know—the day and hour when Jesus will come to earth in his glory—"Of that day and hour no one knoweth; no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matt. 24: 36)—therefore, the Father alone is God!" In consideration of facts such as are included in Mr. V's middle term, one is bound, in the nature of things, to take into account time, place and circumstances. In the case in question, the Twelve disciples had come to Jesus, and among other questions asked him what should be the sign of his own glorious coming to earth again. The Master told them the signs, but said of the day and hour of that coming no one knew, but his Father only. Hence, Jesus did not know, hence Jesus did not possess all knowledge, hence, according to Mr. V., Jesus was not God! But Jesus was referring to the state of matters at the particular time when he was speaking; and it does not follow that the Father would exclude his Son Jesus forever, or for any considerable time, from the knowledge of the time of the glorious advent of the Son of God to the earth. As Jesus rose to the possession of all power "in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28: 18), so also, doubtless, he rose to the possession of all knowledge in heaven and in earth; "For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that he himself doeth" (John 5: 20), and, in sharing with the Son his power, and his purposes, would doubtless make known to him the day and hour of the glorious advent of Christ to the earth.

8. Of the Oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Is it Physical Identity: I next consider Mr. Van Der Donckt's argument concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost being "the same identical Divine Essence." Mr. V. bases this part of his argument on the words of Messiah—"I and my Father are one (John 10:30); and claims that here "Christ asserts his physical, not merely moral, union with the Father." * * * * * * I shall test Mr. V's exegesis of the passage in question, by the examination of another passage involving the same ideas, the same expressions; and this in the Latin as well as in the English. Jesus prayed for His disciples as follows:

"Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are. * * * * Neither pray I for these [the disciples] alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; that they all may be one: * * * that they may be one, even as we are one." (St. John 17:11, 20, 21, 22.)

In Latin, the clauses written in the above, stand: Ut sint unum, sicut et nos (verse 11), "that they may be one, just as We." So in verse 22: Ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus; "that they may be one in Us, even as We one are." Here unum, "one," is used in the same manner as it is in St. John, 10:30—"Ego et Pater unum sumus." "I and Father one are." Mr. V. says that unum in the last sentence means, "one thing," one essence; hence, Christ's physical union, or identity of substance, with the Father; not agreement of mind, or concord of purpose, or moral union. Very well, for the moment let us adopt his exposition, and see where it will lead us. If unum in the sentence, Ego et Pater unum sumus, means "one thing," "one substance, or essence," and denotes the physical union of the Father and Son in one substance, then it means the same in the sentence—ut sint unum, sicut et nos; that is, "that they [the disciples] may be one [unum] just as We are." So in the other passage before quoted where the same words occur.

Again, to Messiah's statement: "Ego et Pater unum sumus"—"I and my Father are one."—Mr. V. thinks his view of this passage—that it asserts the identity or physical union of the Father and the Son—is strengthened by the fact that it is followed with these remarks of Jesus: "The Father is in Me, and I am in the Father." "Which evidently signifies," says Mr. V., "the same as verse 30 (John 10); I and the Father are one and the same individual being, the one God."

But the passage from the prayer of Jesus concerning the oneness of the disciples with the Father and the Son, is emphasized by well-nigh the same words in the context, as those which occur in John 10:30 and upon which Mr. V. lays so much stress as sustaining his exposition of the physical union, viz: "The Father is in Me, and I in Him" (verse 38). "Which evidently signifies," Mr. V. remarks, "the same as verse 30: I and my Father are one." Good; then listen: "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one as We are: * * as thou Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they may be one in Us." There can be no doubt now but what the union between the disciples and the Father and Son, is to be of the same nature as that subsisting between the Father and Son. If the Father and Son are physically one substance or essence, so, too, if the prayer of Jesus is to be realized—as surely it will be—then the disciples are to be physically united with God, in one essence or substance—not just the Twelve disciples, either, for whom Jesus immediately prayed, but those, also, in all generations who shall believe on Christ through the words of His first disciples; that is, all the faithful believers, through all generations, are to become physically united with God, become the same substance or essence as God Himself! Is Mr. Van Der Donckt prepared to accept the inevitable conclusion of his own exposition of John 10:30? If so, then what advantage has the Christian over the Hindoo, whom he has called a heathen, for so many generations? The sincerest desire of the Hindoo is to be "physically united with God," even if that involve "a blowing out," or the attainment of Nirvana—annihilation—to encompass it.^[6] Of course, we had all hoped for better things from the Christian religion. We had hoped for the immortality of the individual man; for his persistence through the ages as an individual entity, associated with God in loving converse and dearest relations of moral union; but not absorbed, or lost, in absolute physical union with Him. But if Mr. V's exposition of John 10:30 be correct, and a physical union is meant by the words—"I and my Father are one," then all Christians are to be made physically one with God under the prayer of Christ—"That they may be one, as we are"—i. e., as the Father and Son are one. * * * * * *

My point is, that the text, "I and my Father are one," refers to a moral union—to a perfect union of purpose and will—not to a unity or identity of substance, or essence: and any other view than this is shown from the argument to be absurd.

But Mr. Van Der Donckt would cry out against the physical union of man with God. Both his interpretation of scripture and his philosophy—especially the latter—would require it. Man and God, in his philosophy, are not of the same nature. God is not physical, while man is. God is not material, but spiritual, that is, according to Mr. V., immaterial, while man is material. Man is finite, God infinite; nothing can be added to the infinite, therefore, man cannot be added to the infinite in physical union. "The nature of the parts would cling to the whole," and the infinity of God would be marred by the physical union of finite parts to Him; hence, the oneness of Christians with Christ and God the Father, is not a physical oneness. But if the union of the Christians with Christ and God is not to be physical, then neither is the union of Christ and God the Father physical, for the oneness in the one case, is to be the same as the oneness in the other—"that they all may be one; as thou Father, are in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us * * * * that they may be one even as We are one." (John 17:21, 22).

The doctrine of physical union between the Father and the Son, contended for by Mr. V., must be abandoned. There is no help for it, unless he is prepared to admit also the physical union of all the disciples with God—a thing most repugnant to Mr. V's principles. With the doctrine of physical identity gone, the "oneness" of the Father and the Son, that Mr. V. contends for, goes also, and two separate and distinct personalities, or Gods, are seen, in the Father and the Son, whose oneness consists not of physical identity, but of agreement of mind, concord of will, and unity of purpose [the same holds also as to the Holy Ghost]; a oneness born of perfect knowledge, equality of power and dominion. But if a perfect oneness, as above set forth, may subsist between two persons, [or three] it may subsist with equal consistency among any number of persons capable of attaining to the same degree of intelligence and power, and thus there would appear some reason for the prayer of the Christ, that all His disciples might be one, even as He and the Father are one. And thus one may account for the saying of David: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: He judgeth among the Gods" (Psalm 82: 1); for such congregations existed in heaven before the foundations of the earth were laid; and such a congregation may yet be made up of the redeemed from our own earth, when they attain to perfect union with God and Christ.