[Footnote A: Especially compare Plato's methods of arising from

the conception of the finite and variable, to the infinite and

unchangeable; from the relatively beautiful and good, to the absolutely

beautiful and good, in the sixth and seventh books of the "Republic,"

with St. Augustine's manner of arriving at the conception of "_That

which is_"--God.--_Confessions St. Augustine_, book seven.]

[Footnote B: History of Christian Doctrine, by William G. T. Shedd;

Vol. I, p. 52.]

It is hoped that enough is said here to establish the fact that the

conception of God as "pure being," "immaterial," "without form," "or

parts or passions," as held by orthodox Christianity, has its origin in

Pagan philosophy, not in Jewish nor Christian revelation.

Of Jesus Christ Being Both Premise and Argument against Mr. Van Der

Donckt's "Philosophical Argument."

And now as to the whole question of God being "existence," "pure

being," "most simple," "not compound;" also his "immutability," as set

forth in Mr. Van Der Donckt's "philosophical argument." What of it?

This of it: Whatever "simplicity," "immutability," or other quality

that is ascribed to God, _must be in harmony with what Jesus Christ

is_: I meet Mr. V.'s "philosophical argument" as I meet his scriptural

argument. I appeal to the being and nature of Jesus Christ, as a

refutation of his philosophical conclusions. Is Jesus Christ God?

"Yes," must be my friend's answer. Very well, this is my premise. Jesus

is God in his own right and person, and he is a revelation of what God

the Father is. He is not only a revelation of the _being_ of God, but

of the _kind_ of being God is. And now I test Mr. V.'s argument by the

revelation of what God is, as revealed in the person and nature of the

Son of God. While I am doing so, let it be remembered that Jesus is

now and will ever be what he was at the time of his glorious ascension

from the midst of his disciples on Mount Olivet--God, possessed of

all power in heaven and in earth, a glorious personage of flesh and

bone and spirit. And now, is Jesus Christ without form? No; he is in

form like man. Is Jesus Christ illimitable? Not as to his glorious

body; that has limitations, dimensions, proportions. Is Jesus Christ

without parts? Not as to his person; his body is made up of limbs,

trunk, head; and parenthetically I may remark, a whole without parts

is inconceivable. Then it follows that God's "infinity," so far as it

is spoken of in scripture, does not refer to his person, but evidently

to the attributes of his mind--to his intelligence, wisdom, power,

patience, mercy, and whatsoever other qualities of mind or spirit he

may possess. If it is argued that it is illogical and unphilosophical

to regard God in his person as finite, but infinite in faculties, that

is finite in one respect and infinite in another, my answer is that it

is a conception of God made necessary by what the divine wisdom has

revealed concerning himself, and it is becoming in man to accept with

humility what God has been pleased to reveal concerning his own nature,

being assured that in God's infinite knowledge he knows himself, and

that which he reveals concerning himself is to be trusted far beyond

man's philosophical conception of him.

But to resume our inquiry: Is Jesus Christ immutable, unchangeable? Is

he Plato's "that which always is and has no becoming?" or Mr. Van Der

Donckt's "necessary Being * * * that cannot change with regard to his

existence, nor can he change with regard to his _mode_ of existence,"

and therefore could never be anything other than he was from eternity?

It is inconceivable how any being can be a son and not have a beginning

as such. Whatever of eternity may be ascribed to the existence of the

Lord Jesus, he must have had a beginning as a son; that term implies a

relation, let it be brought about how it may, and that relation must

have had a beginning. While there may never have been a time when Jesus

was not in respect of his existence as an Intelligence, there must

have been a time when he was not as "Son." So that he doubtless became

"Son," hence changed his relation from not Son to Son; hence changed

in his relations, in his mode of existence. We know there was a time

when he was not man, that is, not man of flesh and bone made of the

materials of this world; and he became man; another change. There was

a time when he was mortal man, by which I mean, man subject to death;

and he became, and is now, immortal man; another change. There was a

time when all power in heaven and in earth was "_given_" to him; (Matt.

28:18) hence, there must have been a time when he did not possess it;

hence another change, a change from the condition of holding _some_

power to that of possessing _all_ power. These facts attested by

Holy Writ are against Mr. V.'s doctrine of God's "immutability," so

far at least as relates to the impossibility of changing his mode of

existence. And if Mr. V.'s doctrine of the "immutability" of God means

that God cannot change in his relations, then I put these facts in the

career of the Lord Jesus against his argument, and say that not only

did Jesus pass through these changes of conditions and relations, but

that God the Father could, and very likely did, pass through similar

relations and changes. Else of what significance are the following

passages?

The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do;

for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise

(St. John 5:19).

The Prophet Joseph Smith quoting the substance of St. John 5:26, also

says:

"As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son

power"--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is

obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again.

"Jesus, what are you going to do?" "To lay down my body as my

Father did, and take it up again." Do you believe it? If you do not

believe it, you do not believe the Bible.[A]

[Footnote A: _Millennial Star_, Vol. 23: p. 247.]

It is the accepted doctrine of the orthodox Christian creeds that Jesus

Christ, the Son of God, is as the Father is--(Creed of St. Athanasius)

that is, of the _same_ nature and essence. Very well, then; as God, the

Father, begot Jesus, the Son, may not the Son in time also beget a son

or sons? Or, after ascribing to the Son the _same_ nature and the _same

power_ as is ascribed to the Father, will our orthodox friends insist

upon limiting the Son by denying him productive virtue, and contend

that Jesus must endure without the exercise of it? If the existence

of the Son was essential to the perfection of God, the Father--and

it cannot be thought of in any other light--may it not be, since the

Son is of the same nature as the Father, that the fact of fatherhood

is necessary to the perfection of the Son? To deny him the power of

attaining it would be to limit his power, which may not be done even

according to orthodox Christian doctrine. Is it not likely, nay, would

it not be so? that the same cause or impulse, or necessity, or what

influence or consideration soever it was that led God, the Father, to

beget a Son, create a world, and provide for its redemption, would

impel the Son, since he is of the same nature as the Father, to do

these same things? And where was the beginning of such proceedings? and

where will be the end of them?

But now, to resume again our measuring of Mr. V.'s philosophy by Jesus

Christ as God.

Is Jesus Christ without passions? No; his deathless love for his

friends, so beautifully manifested by word and deed throughout his

mortal life, together with his love for mankind, which led him to

give his life for the world, as also his explicitly declared hatred

of that which is sin and evil, forbid us thinking of him as without

passions.[A] As in him dwelt "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,"

so in him necessarily are gathered all these qualities, attributes

and perfections that go to the making of God. Does possession of

these qualities, together with Messiah's mode of existence in the

form and person of Jesus Christ, come in conflict with the notion of

God's "simplicity," "immutability," and "eternity," as conceived by

philosophers? So much the worse, then, for the faulty and merely human

conceptions of those qualities, as relating to God. Better mistrust

the accuracy of metaphysical reasoning; better throw aside Plato and

his philosophy as untrustworthy, than to be moved ever so slightly

from the great truth of revelation that Jesus, the Messiah, is God;

and that such as he is, God is, as to essence, attributes, existence,

and the mode of existence. Jesus Christ, then, once accepted as God,

and the manifestation of God to men, is a complete answer to Mr. Van

Der Donckt's philosophical argument for the absolute "simplicity" or

"spirituality" or "immutability" of God.

[Footnote A: God is angry with the wicked every day (Ps 7:11.)]

More of Mr. Van Der Donckt's "Philosophy."

I must not neglect Mr. Van Der Donckt's "philosophy" that forbids us

believing that "several finite things" can "produce an infinite, or

an illimitable, as there would always be a first and last." Also his

"finite parts could not belong to the infinite essence, else they

would communicate their limitations to God." Also, his "many infinite

beings are inconceivable; for, if there were several, they would have

to differ from each other by some perfection." And his "from the moment

one would have a perfection, the other one lacks, the latter would not

be infinite. Therefore, God cannot be a compound of infinite parts."

Can any one, can Mr. Van Der Donckt himself, be quite sure of all

this? Who knows how the infinite is constituted? When men speak of

the infinite, are they not treating of that which is beyond the

comprehension of the mind of man, at least in his present state of

limited intellectual powers; for whatever may be the heights to which

the mind of man may rise, when freed from his present earth-bound

conditions, here and now he must recognize his intellectual

limitations: for, as in Christ's humiliation (i. e. in his earth-life)

his judgement was taken away (Acts 8:33), that is, his divine, supreme,

intellectual and spiritual powers were veiled--so with man, in this

same world of trial and limitations. Whatever his power as an eternal

Intelligence may have been, or what it may be hereafter, he is now

compelled to admit that he sees but as through a glass darkly, and

therefore imperfectly. Men, I hold, though they be philosophers, cannot

comprehend the infinite, much less say how it is constituted. But let

us reflect a little upon the several propositions Mr. V. submits to us:

1--"_Several finite beings cannot produce the infinite_."

So far as it is possible for the human intellect to conceive the

infinite, the material universe is infinite, eternal, without beginning

and without end. It is inconceivable that the universe could have had

a beginning, could have been produced from nothing. "All the apparent

proofs," remarks Herbert Spencer, "that something can come out of

nothing, a wider knowledge has one by one cancelled. The comet that is

suddenly discovered in the heavens and nightly waxes larger, is proved

not to be a newly created body, but a body that was until lately beyond

the range of vision. The cloud which in course of a few minutes forms

in the sky, consists not of substance that has just begun to be, but of

substance that previously existed in a more diffused and transparent

form. And similarly with a crystal or precipitate in relation to the

fluid depositing it" (First Prin., p. 177.) Mr. Spencer holds it

"impossible to think of _nothing_ becoming _something_," for the reason

that "nothing" cannot become an object of consciousness (_Ibid_ pp.

161-2.) In like manner, he holds that matter is indestructible, and

hence, that the universe cannot be annihilated. "The doctrine that

matter is indestructible has become a common-place," he remarks. "The

seeming annihilations of matter turn out, on close observation, to be

only changes of state. It is found that the evaporated water, though it

has become invisible, may be brought by condensations to its original

shape." The indestructibility of matter, Mr. Spencer holds to be a

datum of consciousness, which he thus illustrates:

Conceive the space before you to be cleared of all bodies save

one. Now imagine the remaining one not to be removed from its

place, but to lapse into nothing while standing in that place. You

fail. The place that was solid you cannot conceive becoming empty,

save by the transfer of that which made it solid * * * However

small the bulk to which we conceive a piece of matter reduced,

it is impossible to conceive it reduced into nothing. While we

can represent to ourselves the parts the matter as approximated,

we cannot represent to ourselves the quantity of matter as made

less. To do this would be to imagine some of the constituent

parts compressed into nothing; which is no more possible than to

imagine compression of the whole into nothing. Our inability to

conceive matter becoming non-existent, is immediately consequent

on the nature of thought. Thought consists in the establishment

of relations. There can be no relation established, and therefore

no thought framed, when one of the related terms is absent from

consciousness. Hence, it is impossible to think of something

becoming nothing, for the same reason that it is impossible to

think of nothing becoming something. (First Prin., p. 181.)

The material universe, then, is eternal, it always existed, and how

many changes soever it may pass through, it will never be annihilated.

Not one atom can be added to the sum total of its substance, nor one

blotted out of existence--it is everywhere existing, and, so far as

the mind of man can conceive "infinity," it is infinite. Yet we know

that this whole is made up of a great variety of substances and objects

which are finite; and our philosophers, for the most part, hold that

matter is divisible into ultimate atoms. Not that such a fact has been

demonstrated or is demonstrable; but granted the existence of matter,

its existence as an aggregation of such ultimate things as atoms seems

to be a necessary truth. I say necessary truth, because the mind of

man cannot conceive to the contrary, and hence, science assumes matter

to be composed of atoms. But atoms are things--material things; and

in the mind must necessarily be thought of as having dimensions--an

upper and lower part, also a hither and thither side; or if spherical

then a circumference and diameter; in other words, atoms are finite,

material things, and in the aggregate constitute the material

universe, which, so far as the wit of man can conceive, is infinite;

and hence, we may say the infinite universe is composed of finite

atoms; or, several finite things--Mr. V.'s philosophy to the contrary

notwithstanding--produce the infinite.

2--"_Many infinite beings are inconceivable; for if there were several,

they would have to differ from each other by some perfection. Now, the

moment one would have a perfection the other one lacks, the latter

would not be infinite_."

That may be true in relation to absolute "infinity." But we have

already seen that God cannot be considered as absolutely infinite,

because we are taught by the facts of revelation that absolute infinity

cannot hold as to God; as a person, God has limitations, and that which

has limitations is not absolutely infinite. If God is conceived of as

absolutely infinite, in his substance as in his attributes, then all

idea of personality respecting him must be given up; for personality

implies limitations. If the idea of personality in respect of God be

retained, then the idea of absolute infinity regarding him must be

abandoned. That "infinite" which does not include all things and all

qualities is not absolutely infinite. The only persons who consistently

hold to the absolute infinity of God are those who identify God with

the universe--regarding God and the universe as one and the same. So

long as orthodox Christians regard God as distinct from what they call

the "material universe," that long they teach but a modified infinity

respecting God. They really mean that God is only infinite "_after

his kind_." One of Spinoza's definitions may help us here. He says a

thing is _finite_ after its kind "_when it can be limited by another

thing or the same nature_," as one body is limited by another (Ethics

Def. ii.) is not a thing _infinite_ after its kind, then, when it is

_not_ limited by anything of the same nature? Is not this the necessary

corollary of Spinoza's definition of the "finite after its kind?" and

do not those who regard God as distinct from the universe, and at

the same time ascribe infinity to him, mean only that he is infinite

"after his kind?" There may be, then, many infinites after their kind;

and this view is sustained by the fact that such infinites do exist.

Duration or time is infinite after its kind, because not limited by

anything of the same nature. Space is infinite after its kind, for the

same reason; so, too, are force and matter. If there may be two or

four things infinite after their kind, because not limited by anything

of the same nature, are many infinites inconceivable? Moreover, when

_infinity_ is thus understood--and it can be understood when relating

to God in no other way--the difficulty raised by the latter part of

Mr. V.'s proposition, __viz__., that, if there were several infinite

beings, they would differ from each other by some perfection, and when

one would have a perfection that the other lacked, the latter would

not be infinite, etc.--disappears; for when beings are infinite after

their kind, they are only limited by things of a different nature, and

therefore the perfections possessed by those beings of a different

nature will constitute no limitation to their infinity.

3--"_If one is infinite nothing can be added to it_."

This maybe true of the absolutely infinite; for that which is

absolutely infinite must be the sum total of all existence. To say,

therefore, that something existed in addition to this sum total,

and could be added to it, would be illogical. But infinity in this

conception cannot be ascribed to God; for we have seen that God is only

infinite in faculties and power, not in person, hence not absolutely

infinite; therefore, this statement in the gentleman's philosophy can

have no bearing on the controversy in which we are engaged.

4--"_Finite parts could not belong to the infinite essence, else they

would communicate their limitations to God_."

When the Son of God, Jesus, took on a human body of flesh and bone,

was not that which is finite, his body, added to the infinite

in Jesus Christ? Did the finite body, taken on by the spirit of

Jesus, communicate its limitations to God? And is Jesus, now in his

resurrected, immortal body of flesh and bones, less "infinite" than

before his spirit was united to his body? If one accepts Mr. V.'s

doctrine of the absolute infinity of God, then one must believe that

Jesus "the Word," who "was in the beginning with God," who "was

God"--was not "made flesh;" that is, did not take on a body of flesh

and bone; for the body of Jesus was finite; it had, in fact, all the

limitations of a man's body, and Mr. V.'s doctrine tells us that "_if

one is infinite, nothing can be added to it_"--therefore the "Word,"

who "was God," could not have been made flesh. If, on the other hand,

one accepts the fact, so well attested by holy scriptures, _viz_., that

Jesus, "the Word," "who was God," _was_ made flesh, _did_ take on a

body that was flesh and bones, even though that body was finite, then

one must reject the philosophy of Mr. V., which says the infinite may

not take on finite parts, for the reason that they would communicate

their limitations to the infinite, and thus destroy its infinity.

It is not difficult to see that something is wrong with the philosophy

of Mr. Van Der Donckt, which thus constantly brings us in conflict

with the revelations of God in the scriptures, and especially in the

revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

In what state do these considerations leave the argument? Mr. Van Der

Donckt reaches the conclusion, from the premise that _several finite

things cannot produce the infinite_, that God cannot be a compound

of finite parts. Yet we have seen that what is called the material

universe, so far as it is possible for the mind of man to apprehend

infinity, answers to his conception of the infinite; and we know that

the universe is made up of finite parts; and that in its last analysis,

it is but the aggregation of finite atoms.

From the premise that _many infinite beings are inconceivable_, Mr.

V. reaches the conclusion that God cannot be a compound of infinite

parts. But upon principles of sound reason, we have seen that things

are infinite after their kind when not limited by anything of the same

nature; and his premise of a number of infinites being inconceivable is

destroyed by the actual existence of a number of infinites after their

kind, such as duration, space, matter, spirit, and hence the absolute

infinite, if existing at all, must be composed of an aggregation of

infinities after their kind.

From the premise that _if one is infinite nothing can be added to

it_, the gentleman implies the conclusion that God is infinite and

therefore nothing can be added to him. Still, since Jesus was the

Word, and the Word was and is God, we have seen that something was

added to whatever of infinity there was in God, the Word, _viz_., what

orthodox Christians call his "humanity"--that is, the pre-existent,

divine spirit of Jesus took on a tabernacle of flesh--something finite

was added to the infinite of God, the Word, and that, too, let me say,

without communicating any limitations to the infinity possessed of God.

On these several premises, Mr. Van Der Donckt bases his general

conclusion:--

Therefore, the infinite Being is not composite, but simple or

spiritual. Therefore, he is not, nor ever was, a man, who is a

composite being.

But since the premises themselves have been shown to be utterly

untenable, as relating to God, as revealed in the scriptures, and in

the person and nature of Jesus Christ, the conclusions are wrong; and

the facts established are that while God in mind, faculties and in

power is doubtless infinite, in person he is finite; and as his spirit

is united to a body, he is composite, not simple; and as Jesus Christ

was God manifested in the flesh, the express image of God the Father's

person, the counterpart of his nature, and yet at the same time was a

man--it is neither unscriptural, nor unphilosophical to hold that God,

even the Father, is also a perfected, exalted man.

III.

MR. VAN DER DONCKT'S CONTRASTS BETWEEN MAN AND GOD.

Of the Intellectual Powers of Man.

Mr. Van Der Donckt insists that man can never become a God, because

he "is finite or limited in everything; ever changeable and changing,

ever susceptible of improvement." Granting that man is ever susceptible

of improvement, ought not the gentleman to proceed with some caution

before dogmatically asserting that there are to be limitations to

man's enlargement, to his progress, and to his attainments? Given

the susceptibility to improve, never ending duration through which

the processes of improvement shall continue, and God to direct such

processes, who can dogmatize upon the limitations of the Intelligences

now known as men? It is not enough to say in reply to this that the

"finite can never become infinite;" nor to argue that if God were an

exalted man he would possess contradictory attributes, such as being

both finite and infinite, compound and simple. We have already seen

that when one undertakes to treat of the infinite, he is dealing with

the unknown, dealing with terms that stand for the names of things of

which the mind can form no adequate or satisfactory conception. But

so far as the Father and the Son are concerned--personages held out

to us in the scriptures as Gods--we have seen that absolute infinity

may not be predicted of them. In person, form and the general nature

of their physical being, they have limitations; and whatever of

infinity or simplicity is ascribed to them must be ascribed to mind

and attributes, not to personality. Seeing then, that the revelation

of God in the scriptures, and especially in the revelation of God in

the person and character of Jesus Christ, forces upon us a conception

of God that represents him as concrete rather than abstract, finite

in some respects, and infinite in others; and as compound rather

than simple--it follows that urging the apparent absurdity of such

characteristics in Deity as these is of no avail against the facts in

the revelations God has given of himself. And now, as the limitations

found in man, as to his physical person, nature, etc.,--and which are

supposed by Mr. V. to forever bar man from attaining divinity--are

found also in God the Father and in God the Son, it is quite clear that

these physical limitations may not be urged as insuperable obstacles

to man attaining divinity. As for the spirit of man--the mind--who

can say what its metes and bounds are, much less what they shall be?

Who comprehends its powers? Who dare say that it is not potentially

infinite? and shall be hereafter actually infinite after its kind? I

have already called attention to the fact that it is said of Messiah

that in his humiliation, his judgment was taken away, which doubtless

means that in his earth-life his intellectual and spiritual powers

were somewhat veiled; and with man doubtless it is the same; in his

earth-life that intellectual excellence which he enjoyed as a spirit

in the mansions of the Father is veiled; but veiled as it is, there

is of its manifestations sufficient to inspire one with awe, and make

him hesitate ere pronouncing dogmatically upon its nature or its

limitations. To illustrate my thought: I am this moment sitting at my

desk, and am enclosed by the four walls of my room--limited as to my

personal presence to this spot. But by the mere act of my will, I find

I have the power to project myself in thought to any part of the world.

Instantly I can be in the crowded streets of the world's metropolis.

I walk through its well remembered thoroughfares, I hear the rush and

roar of its busy multitudes, the rumble of vehicles, the huckster's

cries, the cab-man's calls, sharp exclamations and quick retorts in the

jostling throngs, the beggar's piping cry, the sailor's song, fragments

of conversation, broken strains of music, the blare of trumpets, the

neighing of horses, ear-piercing whistles, ringing of bells, shouts,

responses, rushing trains and all that mingled din and soul-stirring

roar that rises in clamor above the great town's traffic.

At will, I leave all this and stand alone on mountain tops in Syria,

India, or overlooking old Nile's valley, wrapped in the awful grandeur

of solemn silence. Here I may bid fallen empires rise and pass in

grand procession before my mental vision and live again their little

lives: fight once more their battles; begin again each petty struggle

for place, for power, for control of the world's affairs; revive their

customs: live again their loves and hates, and preach once more their

religions and their philosophies--all this the mind may do, and that

as easily and as quickly as in thought it may leave this room, cross

the street to a neighbor's home, and there take note of the familiar

objects within his habitation. Nor does this begin to indicate all

the power of the mind in these respects. Though the sun is ninety-two

millions of miles away, on the instant, in thought, one may stand

upon it within its resplendent atmosphere. In the same manner and

with equal ease, one may project himself to the Pole Star, though it

is so distant that it requires forty years for a ray of light to pass

through the intervening space between that star and our earth, and

still light travels at the rate of one hundred and eighty-six thousand

miles per second! Nor is the end yet. In like manner and with equal

ease one may instantly project himself in thought from within the four

walls of his room to those more distant constellations of stars known

to exist out in the depths of space, whence it would require a ray

of light a million years to reach our earth; yet standing there in a

world so distant from ours, one would find himself still centered in

the universe, and out beyond him, in a straight line from the earth

whence he has traveled, would extend other realms in splendor no less

magnificent. From the vasty deep of these realms, he could call up

other worlds, and people them with creatures of his thought, as one may

call up empires to pass in mighty procession before him in the Nile or

in the Ganges valley.

Distance, then, to the mind of man, is as nothing. The infinity of

extension, and of duration also, is matched by the infiniteness of

man's mind, though that mind has a local habitation and a name within

a tabernacle of flesh and bone. This is but a glimpse at the infinite

powers of the mind of man in one direction, and under circumstances

that somewhat veil the splendor of his intellectual and spiritual

glory; what those powers may be in all particulars when man shall

be made free from the restricting and depressing environment of the

present earth-life, no one may say; but enough may be seen from

what is here pointed out to establish the firm belief that, as the

intellectual powers in man rise to match the infinitudes of extension

and duration, as indicated, so, too, in all other respects shall the

mind of man, when free, rise to the harmony of all the infinities that

make up the universe. And it is not inconceivable (in view of the great

spiritual and intellectual powers even now discernible in him) that

the time will come when man will not only be able to project himself

in thought to any part of the universe, no matter how distant, but

in his future immeasurably exalted state he may project both thought

and consciousness equally to all points of the universe at once,

steadfastly maintain them there, and thus be all-knowing, everywhere

present in thought, in consciousness--in spirit in fact--as God now

is; and if, as it is reasonable to believe will be the case, his power

equals his knowledge; and his freedom of volition equals his knowledge

and his power--then, indeed, will man be a spiritual and intellectual

force immanent in the universe, both to will and to do, even as God.

Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one with each other even _as_

he and the Father are one (St. John 17:11); that they all might be

one; and as the Father was in Christ, and as Christ was in the Father,

so also would Messiah have the disciples to be one in him and in the

Father, that they might all be one with the Father and the Son, and

with each other, even as the Father and the Son are one (St. John

17; 21,22.) But for the disciples to be "one" with the Father and

the Son, in the complete sense in which the Messiah here prayed for

that "oneness," necessarily means to be "like" the Father, and that

"likeness" can rise to the full height of its perfection only when it

reaches equality with those with whom the disciples are to be "one" or

"like." If man may not rise to the height of divinity, how shall this

prayer of the Christ be realized? Or must we believe that the divine

wisdom in the Son of God exercised itself in praying for that which

is unattainable, that which is not only absurd but impossible? It is

unthinkable that the divine nature shall be brought down to be "one"

with men; so that if the "oneness" which also involves "likeness," be

realized, in fulfilment of Messiah's prayer, it must be by men rising

to divinity, Mr. Van Der Donckt's "impossibilities" to the contrary

notwithstanding.

"Behold the Man Has Become as One of Us."

To illustrate his contention that man can never rise to the quality

of divinity, Mr. Van Der Donckt indulges in comparisons between man

and God; and, to emphasize that contrast, challenges well-known men

of science to the exercise of creative powers, contrasts the frequent

collisions upon our railroads with the order, regularity, and safety

of the movements among the planetary systems where never a collision

occurs; and then indulges in such folly as this:

They (astronomers) can indeed predict transits and eclipses; but

suppose astronomers from New Zealand, on their way to America

to observe this fall's moon eclipse, meet with an accident in

mid-ocean, would they at once send this wireless telegram to the

United States' stargazers assembled say at Lick Observatory:

"Belated by leak. Please retard eclipse two hours that we may

not miss it." As well might all the telescope men in the world

combined, attempt to fetch down the rings of Saturn for the

construction of a royal race track, as pretend to control movements

of the heavenly bodies.

The gentleman also points out how precarious are the powers of man:

The helpless babe of yesterday may indeed rival Mozart, Haydn, and

Paderewski, but tomorrow he may rise with lame hands and pierced

ear-drums; and millions of worshipers of the shattered idol are

powerless to restore it to the musical world.

This part of the gentleman's argument sinks far below the general

high level of his Reply, and is unworthy of his intelligence. I have

already pointed out, that Latter-day Saints do not teach that man

in his present state and condition is a God. On the contrary, they

admit man's narrowness, weakness, imperfections and limitations; and

also recognize the great gulf stretching between man in his present

state and that dignity of divinity to which somewhere and sometime

in the eternities it is within his province and power to attain. Mr.

Van Der Donckt's comparisons, therefore, between God and man, in the

latter's present condition, are not in point, for the reason that the

Latter-day Saints do not claim that man is now a Deity, only as he may

be thought potentially one. Taking the highest type of man to start

with, consider him as raised from the dead and hence immortal; give

him Gods for guides, teachers, and companions, with the universe for

the field of his operations, then let Mr. V. or anyone else, say what

man's attainments will be one thousand millions of years hence; and

that period, let it be remembered, long as it may seem to man's petty

methods of computing duration, is but as a moment in the existence of

an immortal being. Let Mr. Van Der Donckt institute his comparisons

from that point of man's career, instead of from the present point of

man's weakness and mortality, and then say if ultimately divinity seems

so unattainable as now. If he shall say he is unable to institute his

comparisons at the point proposed, because what man will then be is

unknown, I shall agree with him; but let him acknowledge, as perforce

he must, that man will be immeasurably advanced beyond what he is now;

also let him admit the injustice he does our doctrine by insisting upon

making his comparisons between God and man as the latter now stands,

under the effects of the fall, and in his humiliation and weakness.

After indulging in the aforesaid comparisons, Mr.V. further remarks:

I fear Mr. B. H. Roberts will be inclined to think God jealous

because he gives man no show for comparison with him. This would

certainly be a less blunder of the Utah man, ("I will not give my

glory to another"--Isaiah 42:8) than his contention, which is a

mere echo of Satan's promise in Paradise: "You shall be as Gods."

(Genesis 3:5.)

To which I answer, not so; the contention of the "Utah man" is not the

echo of Satan's promise, "ye shall be as Gods." On the contrary, the

"Utah man's" contention is bottomed on the august and sure word of God,

uttered in Eden, when he said of the man Adam--"_Behold the man is

become as one of us, to know good and evil_" (Genesis 3:22)--a passage

which the Reverend gentleman seems to have overlooked.

OF THE UNITY OF GOD.

There remains to be considered 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,[A]

is more in harmony with the revelations of God on the subject than the

theory that there is but One Only 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.

[Footnote A: John Stuart Mill, in his Essay on _Theism_, in speaking of

the evident unity in nature, which suggests that nature is governed by

_One Being_, comes very near stating the exact truth in an alternative

statement to his first remark, viz.: "At least, if a plurality be

supposed, it is necessary to assume so complete a concert of action

and unity of will among them, that the difference is for most purposes

immaterial between such a theory and that of the absolute unity of the

Godhead" (_Essays on Religion--Theism_, p. 133).]

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,[A] "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."

[Footnote A: This is Rev. R. Highton, M. A., and Fellow of Queen's

College, Oxford. I quote from his lecture on "God a Unity and

Plurality," published in a Christian Jewish periodical called _The

Voice of Israel_, February number, 1844.]

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. Thus, Dr. Elliott,

Professor of Hebrew in Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania,

says: "The name _Elohim_ (singular Eloah) is the generic name of

God, and, being _plural_ in form, is probably a plural of excellence

and majesty."[A] Dr. Havernick derives the word _Elohim_ from a

Hebrew root now lost, _Coluit_, and thinks that the plural is used

merely to indicate the abundance and super-richness contained in the

divine Being.[B] Rabbi Jehuda Hallevi (twelfth century) found in the

usage of the plural _Elohim_ a protest against idolators, who call

each personified power _Eloah_ and all collectively _Elohim_. "He

interpreted it as the most general name of the Deity, distinguishing

him as manifested in the exhibition of his power without reference to

his personality or moral qualities, or any special relations which he

bears to man."[C] A number of Christian scholars attempt to account

for the use of the plural _Elohim_ by saying that it foreshadows the

doctrine of the Christian Trinity, that is, it recognizes the existence

of the three persons in one God. "It is expressive of omnipotent

power; and by its use here (first chap. Genesis) in the plural form

is obscurely taught at the opening of the Bible, a doctrine clearly

revealed in other parts of it, viz., that though God is one, there is

a plurality of persons in the Godhead--Father, Son and Spirit, who

were engaged in the creative work."[D] This view was maintained at

length by Rev. H. Highton, in the Christian Jewish periodical, _The

Voice of Israel_, before quoted. "But Calvin, Mercer, Dresius and

Ballarmine," says Dr. Hackett,[E] of the Theological Institution of

Newton, Massachusetts--editor of Smith's Bible Dictionary--"have given

the weight of their authority against an explanation so fanciful and

arbitrary."

[Footnote A: "Vindication of Mosaic Authorship of Pentateuch," p. 65.]

[Footnote B: See "Kitto's Biblical Literature," Art. "God," Vol. 1, p.

777.]

[Footnote C: Smith's Bible Dict. (Hackett edition), Art. Jehovah, p.

1242.]

[Footnote D: "Critical and Explanatory Commentary" (Jamieson, Faussett

and Brown) Gen. 1:1, 2.]

[Footnote E: Smith's Bible Dictionary (Hackett edition), Art. Jehovah,

Vol. 2, p. 1242.]

Others explain the use of the plural "we" or "us," by saying that

in the first chapter of Genesis Moses represents God as speaking of

himself in that manner, in imitation of the custom of kings, who speak

of themselves as "we," instead of in the singular, "I." In other words,

it is the royal "we," or "us." This theory, however, is answered, as

pointed out by Rev. H. Highton, by the fact that the use of what is

called the "royal plural" is a modern, not an ancient, custom; and

reference to the usage of the kings of the Bible discloses the fact

that they always speak of themselves as "I" or "me," not as "we" or

"us."[A]

[Footnote A: _Voice of Israel_, p. 95.]

Modern Bible criticism, usually denominated "The Higher Criticism,"

is to a great extent--so far as criticism of the five books of Moses

is concerned--based upon the exclusive use of the plural _Elohim_ in

one section, and the use of _Jehovah_, singular, in another. "The

Pentateuch, therefore, it is asserted, is composed of two different

documents, the one Elohistic, and the other Jehovistic, consequently it

cannot be the work of a single author."[A]

[Footnote A: "Vindication of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch"

(Elliott) p. 64.)]

With the various devices for accounting for the use of the plural form

_Elohim_ in the first chapter of the Bible, I have nothing to do here.

They are simply pointed out as showing the wide recognition that is

given to the fact of the use of the plural form _Elohim_ that should

be rendered in English "Gods;" and also the perplexity the use of

this plural occasions among those whose principles call upon them to

harmonize its use with the belief in "One Only God." Mr. Van Der Donckt

admits the use of the plural _Elohim_, but undertakes to explain away

the force of its use as follows:

Whenever _Elohim_ occurs in the Bible, in sense 1, (meaning

the True God) it is employed with singular verbs and singular

adjectives.

Relative to this, a friend[A] directs my attention to Genesis

1:26: "Let _us_ make man in _our_ image," etc., which in Hebrew is

_Maach_--"we will make," first person plural future of the verb _Asah_:

_betsalmaun_--_be_ "in;" _tselem_, "image;" _Nu_, "our," possessive

adjective, first person plural. So that in Genesis 1:26, we have a

case where _Elohim_ is used in connection with a plural verb and also

a plural possessive adjective, and Mr. Van Der Donckt will not say

that _Elohim_ does not, in Genesis 1:26, refer to true Gods. Again in

Genesis 3:22--"Man is become as one of _us_," Mr. Ramseyer suggests

that here, again, the pronoun used is in the first person plural. I

find this view of both these passages sustained by Rev. H. Highton in

the lecture before quoted. First he says:

[Footnote A: Prof. A. Ramseyer, of the Latter-day Saints' University.]

The Hebrew word meaning God, is itself a plural word, implying

thereby, as we contend, a plurality of persons in the Godhead * *

We find the plural word _Elohim_, or God, most usually, _though

not always_, coupled with a singular verb or adjective. * * * but

lest from the constant use of the word _Elohim_ with the singular

number, we should be led to suppose that God is in no sense a

plurality, it has pleased him by the inspiration of his Holy

Spirit, to cause that it should be sometimes used with a plural

verb or adjective. I will mention some of the clearest passages

in which it is so used, that you may be enabled to refer to them

in the Hebrew. You will find it used in a plural verb in Genesis

20:13. "And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my

father's house," etc.; and again in Genesis 35:7, "And he built

there an altar, and called the place _El-Bethel_: because their God

appeared unto him." And with a plural adjective in Joshua 34:19,

and again in Deut. 5:26 (in the original Hebrew, 5:23).

But we have not merely the plural use of the word _Elohim_ to

mention in this part of the argument; we have some very distinct

passages, still more directly implying the plurality of persons.

There is a very remarkable place of the kind in Eccle. 12:1, where

it says: "Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth." In

the original Hebrew the word is in the plural, and if translated

literally, would be "Remember now thy Creators," etc. * * * In

connection with this expression of Solomon about man's Creators,

it is a very remarkable circumstance, that in the account of the

creation of man, given by Moses in the book of Genesis, the plural

is also directly used, for it is there recorded, Genesis 1, 26,

"_And God said let us make_" etc., or "_we will make_," etc., so

that Moses as well as Solomon very emphatically declares that the

great Creator of man consists of more than one person; for whom

could God have been addressing when he said, "_Let us make_,"

etc.? I know that in order to escape the obvious conclusion to be

drawn from the passage, it has been asserted that God was here

addressing and taking counsel with the angels but this explanation

cannot in any degree bear the test of an accurate examination of

the passage; for is there the slightest ground for supposing that

the angels took any part in the creation of man, when God said,

"_Let us make_"? or shall we say that man was made in the image and

likeness of the angels, when God said, "_Let us make_" etc., "_in

our image_?" Surely not, for Moses expressly adds, (v. 27) "_So

God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he

him, male and female created he them_." But there are some other

passages which we ought to examine, where God in the same way

speaks of himself in the plural number. Thus in Genesis 3:22, "And

the Lord God said, "Behold the _man is become as one of us_, to

know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take

also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever," etc. There

are no words which I know which could more distinctly assert the

plurality of persons in God than these, where he says "one of us."

M. Leeser, of Philadelphia, the editor of the _Occident_, which

is the American Jewish magazine, in his sermon on the Messiah,

explains this passage as spoken to the angels--"one of us," meaning

himself and the angels;--but never can I believe that the Great

Everlasting Creator could thus put himself on a level with the

created angels, and say "one of us," * * * he would either have

said to the angels, "Behold, man has become as one of you," or else

have said, "Behold, the man has become like me, to know good and

evil."

This view of Genesis 1:26 is also maintained by Prof. W. H. Chamberlin,

of Brigham Young College, Logan, Utah, in the _Era_ for November, 1902.

He says: That _Elohim_ was used in the plural sense is shown in the

twenty-sixth verse, where the _Elohim_, in referring to themselves

use the plural suffix _Nu_ "our," twice, and they also use the plural

form of the verb _Naaseh_, "let us make." The Professor also adds the

illustration of Genesis 11:7: where _Nerdhah_, "let us descend," and

_Nabhlah_, "let us confuse," two verbs in the plural, proceed from the

mouth of God.[A]

[Footnote A: I commend Professor Chamberlin's whole article to the

reader as most worthy of his attention at this point; and personally, I

wish to thank the Professor for it as a most timely contribution to the

controversy. The whole article is published in Chapter v.]

In the light of these facts, the statement of Mr. V. that whenever

_Elohim_ occurs in the Bible, as meaning the true God, it is employed

with singular verbs and singular adjectives, seems to have been

made without that careful consideration which the importance of the

declaration required. The facts adduced in the foregoing stand also

against Mr. V.'s contention that whenever the plural "gods" occurs

in Holy Writ, it applies only "to false gods and idols;" or "to

representatives of God, such as angels, judges, kings." They were not

false gods nor representatives of God merely, who said: "Let _us_

make man in _our_ image" (Genesis i:26); nor false gods, or mere

representatives of God merely, who said: "The man has become as one of

_us_" (Genesis 2:7); and so also with other passages in the quotation

from Rev. Highton's lecture.

Here it may be as well to note the remarks of Mr. Van Der Donckt with

reference to the "Mormon" Church leaders' knowledge of Hebrew. The Rev.

gentleman is of the opinion that,

Had the "Mormon" Church leaders known Hebrew, the original language

of the book of Moses and nearly the whole of the Old Testament,

they would not have been guilty of the outrageous blunders of the

Pearl of Great Price and of the Catechism.

Mr. V. then quotes from our Catechism the account of the creation

taken from the Pearl of Great Price, in which the plural "Gods" is

used instead of the singular form "God." It is probable that the

"Mormon" Church leaders were better acquainted with Hebrew than Mr.

V. gives them credit for. A number of years ago (1870) a certain

chaplain of the United States Senate presumed not a little on the

ignorance of a "Mormon" Church leader--Elder Orson Pratt--respecting

Hebrew, and ventured, in the notable debate held by them in the

"Mormon" Tabernacle, at Salt Lake City, to parade the few Hebrew

stem-words, and their derivatives, which he had conned with care

before leaving Washington, with a view of making them effective in

support of the marginal reading of _Leviticus_ 18 and 18 in our common

English version. To the chaplain's surprise, the "Mormon" apostle was

able to follow him in the discussion of the original Hebrew text,

and demonstrated that he had a knowledge of Hebrew which made his

opponent's special preparation of a few Hebrew words and passages

look very much like a cheap bid for a reputation for learning, which

the chaplain's knowledge of Hebrew, at least, did not warrant. Nor is

that all the story. Elder Pratt--having observed the stress which the

chaplain had laid upon the marginal rendering of _Leviticus_ 18:18, in

a discourse delivered in Washington, D. C., before President Grant,

members of his cabinet, and members of Congress--to call Dr. Newman

out, to give him confidence to introduce his defense of the marginal

rendering of the passage in the debate at Salt Lake City--Elder Pratt

quoted the marginal reading of an unimportant passage, and thus invited

the discussion of the text in the Hebrew. The Elder's bait took, the

discussion largely turned, after that, upon the text in question, much

to the chagrin of the Senate's chaplain; and _Leviticus_ 18:18 has been

somewhat historical hereabouts, and in Washington, ever since.

But how came Orson Pratt acquainted with Hebrew? The fact is, that

in the winter of 1835-6 a school of languages was established by the

Church, at Kirtland, which many of the leading Elders of the Church

attended, Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt being among the number; and

Professor Joshua Seixas, of Hudson, Ohio, was employed as teacher. The

Elders were enthusiastic in their study of Hebrew, and after Prof.

Seixas' term as teacher had expired, the class was continued with

Joseph Smith as instructor, Orson Pratt continuing in attendance on the

school. The "Mormon" Church leaders, I repeat, were better acquainted

with Hebrew than Mr Van Der Donckt gives them credit for; besides, the

blunders which Mr. Van Der Donckt has made in his assertions concerning

the use of the plural _Elohim_, in the Old Testament, makes it rather

clear that he is scarcely competent to be a judge of anybody's Hebrew.

Moreover, the passage he quotes from our Catechism, where, in the

account of creation, the plural "Gods" is used, is not a quotation from

the Bible at all; but a translation from a record called the "Book of

Abraham," which came into the hands of the Prophet Joseph Smith from

the catacombs of Egypt. So that Mr. V.'s attempted criticism of what he

evidently takes to be extracts of translations from parts of the Bible,

is not in point at all, since they are translated extracts from a book

that forms no part of the Bible. And is it not evident throughout

that Mr. Van Der Donckt has rushed into the discussion without being

sufficiently informed concerning the doctrines upon which he undertakes

to animadvert?

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. 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 2.11).

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.

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. 1:8). 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.

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.

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." He holds also

that in the Latin translation of the words of Jesus is better exhibited

the construction he contends for: hence, I give the Latin and his

remarks upon it, that we may have his contention before us at its very

best. _Ego et Pater unum sumus_--I and my Father are one.

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 him

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 had 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.

It is amusing sometimes to observe how the learned disagree about the

meaning of words--especially in the languages called dead. It must

be admitted in favor of Mr. V.'s contention that the Fathers of the

Council of Sardica, A. D. 347, expressly scouted the opinion that the

union of the Father and Son consisted in consent and concord only, and

apprehended the oneness of the Father and the Son to be a strict unity

of substance;[A] still, before that time, a number of the so-called

Christian Fathers, some among the most influential, too, held to a

contrary opinion, as the following from Dr. Priestley's _History of the

Corruptions of Christianity_, with the accompanying references to the

works of the Christian Fathers themselves, will show:

[Footnote: Theodoret, Book II, Chap. 8.]

Notwithstanding the supposed derivation of the Son from the Father,

and therefore their being of the same substance, most of the early

Christian writers thought the text, "I and my Father are one,"

was to be understood of an unity or harmony of disposition only.

Thus Tertullian[A] observes, that the expression is _unum_, one

thing, not one person; and he explains it to mean unity, likeness,

conjunction, and of the love that the Father bore to the Son.

Origen says, let him consider the text, "_All that believe were of

one_ [unum] _heart and of one_ [unum] _soul_," and then he will

understand this, "_I and my Father are one_,"[B] [unum]. Novatian

says: "One thing (_unum_) being in the neuter gender, signifies an

agreement of society, _not an unity of person_," and he explains it

by this passage in Paul: "He that planteth and he that watereth are

both one" [unum][C].

[Footnote A: Against Prexas, Chap. 22, p. 513.]

[Footnote B: Against Celsum, Lib. 8, p. 386.]

[Footnote C: _Ibid_, Chap. 27, p. 99.]

Relative to Messiah's hearers being the best interpreters of our Lord's

meaning in this case, I suggest that Mr. V. has limited himself too

exclusively to this one passage for their interpretation of Messiah's

meaning. Mr. V.'s argument is that if Jesus had only declared his

moral not his physical union with God, the Jews would not have taken

up stones in protest against his making himself God, and asserting his

identity with the Father. Let us see. The passage quoted by Mr. V. is

not the only one in which Jesus asserts his divinity. Jesus healed a

man on the Sabbath. The Jews sought to slay him because he had done

this thing on the Sabbath day. "But Jesus answered them, My Father

worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to

kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath day, but said

also that God was his Father, _making himself equal with God_" (John

5:15-18). Observe that this is the same witness that Mr. V. quotes--St.

John; and the offense for which they seek to kill Jesus is not because

he asserts his _identity_ with the Father, but because he makes himself

"_equal_ with God." Hence, the argument of Mr. V., based on the

assumption that Jesus asserted not his moral but his physical union or

identity with God; and his claim that the Jews would not have sought

Messiah's life but for the reason that he claimed physical identity

with the Father, falls to the ground, for the reason that we find that

the Jews were eager to kill him for asserting not his _physical union_

with God, but his _equality_ with God.

But 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_.[A]

[Footnote A: St. John 17:11, 20, 21, 22.]

In Latin, the clauses written in _Italics_ 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. 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.

If, however, this doctrine of physical union should be defended up

to the point of asserting the physical union of all Christians with

each other and with God--and my comparison of this position with

that of the heathen Hindoo resented, because that in the case of the

Christian after his physical union with, or absorption into God, God

would still remain, whereas, with the Hindoo nothing would remain,

for his _Nirvana_ is but annihilation--I could still ask, what is the

difference? for the terms that describe the _Nirvana_ of the Hindoo

describe also the God of the Christian. "_Nirvana_ is represented as

something which has no antecedent cause, no qualities, no locality. It

is something of which the utmost we may assert is, '_that it is_.'"[A]

In all of which one may see Mr. V.'s "_That which is_;" "I Am who Am;"

"Infinite Being;" God, "most _simple, or not compound_"--whose "essence

is actual being or existence."

[Footnote A: Max Muller, "Chips from a German Workshop," vol. I, p.

285.]

_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, art 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; 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, 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 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 attaining to perfect union with God and Christ.

Of The Lord Our God Being One God.

But I shall be asked how all this is to be reconciled with the

scriptures quoted by Mr. V., and relied upon as the basis of his

argument in this part of the discussion--"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our

God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4); and "I alone am, and there is no other

God beside me" (Deut. 32:39); and, also coming to the New Testament,

"There is none good but one, that is God" (Matt. 19:17).

The whole apparent difficulty is explained by Paul, who, I think,

will be accepted as a remarkably good theologian. He says: "For

though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth

(as there _be_ Gods many and Lords many), _but to us there is but one

God, the Father_" (I Cor. 8:5, 6). That is, "_pertaining to us_," as

Joseph Smith explains, "_there is but one God_." Ah, but Mr. V. has

explained all that, and destroyed all the force of "Mormon" argument,

based upon this Corinthian letter passage, by saying that "a man

must not be a lawyer to know that the fact that not a few quacks and

clowns are _called_ doctors does not make them such;" and then follows

this--"Neither Christ nor Paul say that they _are_ or _were_ Gods, but

simply that they were _called_ Gods!"

One wonders at this, when he takes into account the evident carefulness

of Mr. V. as a writer. Jesus, whom he quotes as saying, the beings

referred to as Gods are but _called_ Gods, not that they _are_ so,

really fails to give due weight to the Psalm which Jesus quotes: "_I

have said ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the Most High_"

(Psalm 82:6). Of this scripture, Jesus says: "Is it not written in

your law, I said, _ye are Gods_," and he quotes with evident approval

these inspired words of David, for he adds--"_the scripture cannot be

broken_" (John 10:33); that is, the scripture of David saying, "ye

are Gods," is true, it cannot be gainsaid. Nor is this indorsement of

David's utterance weakened by the subsequent remark of Jesus, "If he

_called_ them Gods unto unto whom the word of God came," etc.; for,

when considered in the light of all the Psalmist said, and all that

Jesus said, the "_called them Gods_" by no manner of means signifies

that they were _not_ Gods. David said, "ye _are_ Gods, and all of you

are _children of the Most High_" (Psalm 82:6). The Jews accused Jesus

of blasphemy, because he had said he was the son of God (John 10:36);

in defense, Jesus quoted the passage from the Psalms where it is said

of men, "ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High"--as

showing that he was but claiming for himself the relationship that in

the law of the Jews was accorded to men--sons of God, children of the

Most High, and hence, he was not a blasphemer. In other words, if the

Psalmist could say to those he addressed, "all of you are children of

the Most High," why should he, the Christ, be considered a blasphemer

because he called himself the Son of God?

Surely, also, the gentleman has overlooked Paul's very emphatic

declaration in the parenthetical part of the sentence he quotes:

_viz_., "There BE Gods many and Lords many; yet to us there is but one

God."

Now, consider with this explanation of Paul's the following:

"Hear, O, Israel: the Lord _our_ God is one Lord."--_Moses_.

"The head of the Gods appointed _one_ God for us."--Joseph Smith.[A]

[Footnote A: From discourse delivered 10th June, 1844. _Mill. Star_,

vol. 24, p. 108 _et seq_.]

"He [Aaron] shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to

him instead of God."--_The Lord to Moses_ (Exodus 4:16).

"See, I have made thee a God unto Pharaoh."--The Lord unto Moses

(Exodus 7:1).

"I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods, to be sons of God, and

all can cry 'Abba, Father.'"--Joseph Smith.[A]

[Footnote A: Sixteenth of June sermon, 1844. _Mill. Star_, vol. 24, p.

140.]

It is evident from the above passages (Exodus 4:16, and Exodus 7:1)

that God does appoint men to be Gods, even in this world. Why then

should it be considered error to believe that from "the congregation

of the Mighty," where "God judgeth among the Gods" (Psalm 82:1), there

should be appointed _One_ who should be _our_ God? And is it strange

that from henceforth, the true servants of God should stand up for the

dignity and honor and exclusiveness of the power and authority of that

One God over this earth against the claims, and to the exclusion of

all gods and powers, that men in their vain imaginings set up against

this God of heaven and earth, as did Moses, Paul and Joseph Smith? No

wonder that Moses sent ringing down through the centuries that clarion

sentence: "Hear, O Israel, _Our_ God is one Lord;" that the Hebrew race

stood as the witness of that one God, and fashioned their nomenclature

accordingly; or that Paul said, "Though there be that are called Gods,

whether in heaven or in earth--as _there_ BE _Gods many, and Lords

many_--but _to us_ there is but one God;" or that Joseph Smith, in the

Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, should take up the same refrain

as these ancient servants of God, and say, "Pertaining to us, there is

but one God;" "Those Gods whom God reveals as Gods, are sons of God,

and all can cry _Abba_, Father!"

Of Our Revelations From God Being Local.

I suggest, as a further evidence, that the view here presented

concerning our God, and the assertion of his oneness, that the

revelations in the Bible are revelations, in the main, concerning _our_

earth and the heavens pertaining to it; that these revelations do not

attempt to deal with or furnish an explanation of conditions that

obtain throughout the universe; that they do not attempt to give us

any explicit information concerning conditions in the constellations

of the Pleiades, Orion, Cassiopeia, or Ursa Major, to say nothing of

those galaxies of worlds which lie beyond the vision of men, even when

aided by the mightiest telescope. In other words, the revelations

of the Bible are, in the main, local;[A] it is only here and there

that a glimpse of things is given outside of _our_ heaven and _our_

earth. That being the case, the revelation of God to the Hebrew race

was made in a nomenclature accordant with the facts to be expressed,

hence--"Hear, O, Israel: _our_ God is one Lord." This idea is

emphasized in the Book of Moses, found in the Pearl of Great Price. The

Lord revealed to Joseph Smith some of the writings of Moses in which

the Hebrew prophet makes known the source of his knowledge concerning

the creations of God, but it was concerning _our_ earth and its heavens

of which Moses was commanded to write:

[Footnote A: In support of this view I may here quote the Prophet

Joseph Smith. "Everlasting covenant was made between three personages

before the organization of this earth, and relates to their

dispensation of things to men on the earth: these personages, according

to Abraham's record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the

second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator" (See

Richards' and Little's Compendium, Gems, 289).]

Worlds without number have I created, * * * but only an account

of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For

behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of

my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are

they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are

mine, and I know them. And it came to pass that Moses spake unto

the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell

me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also

the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. And the Lord

spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and cannot

be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they

are mine. * * * And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee

concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt

write the things which I shall speak.

And again the Lord said to Moses:

And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold,

I will reveal unto you concerning _this_ heaven, and _this_ earth;

write the words which I speak.

So far as the Hebrews were concerned, however, they permitted the

truth of the one God idea committed to them to degenerate into mere

superstition. Through race pride, and vain glory in their guardianship

of the name of the one God, they hedged it about with such secrecy

and superstition that, under the pretext of not using the name of

God in vain, they prohibited its pronounciation except by the High

Priest (and he was to pronounce it but once a year, and that on the

day of Atonement, when he entered the Holy of Holies); finally they

lost the true pronunciation of the name entirely. The historian of the

Jews, Josephus, when writing the antiquities of his people for the

information of the Gentiles, stated that it was not lawful for him,

though a priest, to utter it.[A] It is a singular fact, but abundantly

demonstrated in the history alike of individuals and nations, that when

the adversary of men's souls fails in keeping the truth from mankind,

he seeks to destroy the effect of that truth by converting it into a

mere human superstition. The late Erastus Snow, an Elder in the Church

of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, used to present this truth by a

very effective figure. Addressing himself to a congregation that had

been carried into some excesses of superstitious observances, he said:

"We will suppose that drawn immediately in front of you is the line of

your exact duty. Satan will make every effort to hold you back from

that line. When he discovers that it is impossible to hold you back,

his next effort will be to push you as far beyond it as possible; and,

being forced beyond the line of duty into superstitious observances,

is liable to get you into as much difficulty as being held back from

toeing it squarely."

[Footnote A: Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible" (Hackett Edition), vol.

2, art Jehovah. Also Antiquities of the Jews (Josephus), book 2, chap.

12.]

Such was the case with the Jews, with reference to their being made

witnesses of the one God idea for our earth. When Lucifer could no

longer blind their eyes by the false polytheism of the pagan world,

he rushed them over the line of the truth to the other extreme--into

the superstitions that have gathered about monotheism, until

finally, through such teachers as Aristobulus (150 B. C.) and Philo

(contemporary with Messiah), they were brought to accept many of the

vagaries of the Grecian pagan philosophy, which, afterwards, as we have

seen, were engrafted into the Christian theology.

Of God being One in the Generic Sense.

There is also another sense in which the "Oneness" of God may be

apprehended; and yet be in harmony with the doctrines contended for in

this "Rejoinder," and the discourse it defends. I have already stated

the doctrines of the Church of Christ respecting the immortality of

the _ego_, the intelligence of man; saying that it is self-existent,

uncreated, and as eternal as God is; indeed, it is the divine in man,

it is part of the Eternal; and now the time has come to say something

further in reference to this matter. 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.[A] What is the conclusion to be drawn

from this? It is that these intelligent beings are all parts of

God.[B]

[Footnote A: 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.]

[Footnote B: 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 is 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[A], 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.

[Footnote A: 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.]

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).

Here, in the way of anticipating an objection, I shall pause to remark,

parenthetically, that I am not unmindful of the array of evidence that

may be massed to prove that it is chiefly through adoption, through

obedience to the Gospel of Christ, that man in the scripture is spoken

of as being a son of God. But this does not weaken the evidence for the

fact for which I am contending, _viz_., that man is by nature the son

of God. He becomes alienated from his Father and the Father's kingdom

through sin, through the transgression of the law of God; hence the

need of adoption into the heavenly kingdom, and into sonship with

God. But though alienated from God through sin, man is nevertheless

by nature the Son of God, and needs but the adoption that awaits him

through the gospel of Jesus Christ to cry again in renewed and perfect

fellowship, _Abba, Father!_

Return we now from this brief digression. Man being by the very nature

of him a son of God, and a participant in the Divine Nature--he

is properly a part of God; that is, when God is conceived of in

the generic sense, as made up of the whole assemblage of divine

Intelligences that exist in all heavens and all earths.

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."[A] 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:

[Footnote A: Edward Markham.]

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 him [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:[A] 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 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. The Gods 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

the Gods have attained unto the excellence of oneness that Jesus prayed

his disciples might possess, and since the Gods 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.

[Footnote A: New Witness for God, pp. 473-5.]

Concluding Reflections.

The subject enlarges as one enters into it; but I feel that here I may

let the matter rest. I do not fear the effect of Mr. Van Der Donckt's

criticism of our doctrine of Deity. Placed side by side with the few

positive truths which God has so clearly revealed through the great

prophet, seer and revelator, in these last days--Joseph Smith--yet

to be recognized by the world as one of God's choicest and greatest

of prophets--the vagaries of an apostate Christendom will have no

attraction for the youth of Israel. It was generous in the Editors of

the _Era_, to give place to the really able article of Mr. Van Der

Donckt. I am glad they did so, for several reasons: _First_, because

it was a courteous and generous act in itself; _second_, it stands out

in marked contrast to the treatment accorded us in sectarian religious

periodicals; _third_, because it must demonstrate to our youth, that we

have no fear of placing our principles where they may be tested by the

religious doctrines and philosophies of men; and although the elders

of the Church of Christ may not be equal in learning and polemical

skill with the champions of other systems, yet we have the truth, and

our confidence is that it will hold its own in the conflicts that may

beat upon it. We have the truth, I repeat, on this subject; that is, we

have the truth so far as God has been pleased to reveal it. All truth

respecting God is not yet revealed, even to the Church of Christ; but

so much as he has revealed is true. Our feet in the matter have been

set in the right path; we have lines of truth placed in our hands,

which, if we and our children but follow patiently and with becoming

humility, I am sure will lead us into that fullness of truth wherein

is no incompleteness, but all is truth--God's truth, and all the truth

about God.