CHAPTER IV.

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, thatthe Father alone is God, then it must follow that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, isnotGod; that the Holy Ghost isnotGod! 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, thatthe 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 Ghostinthe One Divine Being." But that is the mere assumption of my Catholic friend. When he says thatthe 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.

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 hisphysical, 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 inmind or one morallyand notsubstantially, he would have used the masculine gender, Greekeis, (unus)—and not the neuteren, (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 hisphysicalunity 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'sHistory 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 isunum, 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 hisidentitywith the Father, but because he makes himself "equalwith 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 hisphysical unionwith God, but hisequalitywith 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 inItalicsin 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." Hereunum, "one," is used in the same manner as it is in St. John, 10:30—"Ego et Paterunumsumus." "I and Father one are." Mr. V. says thatunumin 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. Ifunumin 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 oneas 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 hisNirvanais but annihilation—I could still ask, what is the difference? for the terms that describe theNirvanaof the Hindoo describe also the God of the Christian. "Nirvanais 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, "mostsimple, or not compound"—whose "essence is actual being or existence."

[Footnote A: Max Muller, "Chips from a German Workshop," vol. I, p. 285.]

Mypoint 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;asthou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us * * * * that they may beone 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.

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 therebeGods 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 arecalleddoctors does not make them such;" and then follows this—"Neither Christ nor Paul say that theyareorwereGods, but simply that they werecalledGods!"

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 butcalledGods, not that theyareso, 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 hecalledthem 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 werenotGods. David said, "yeareGods, and all of you arechildren 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 LordourGod is one Lord."—Moses.

"The head of the Gods appointedoneGod for us."—Joseph Smith.[A]

[Footnote A: From discourse delivered 10th June, 1844.Mill. Star, vol. 24, p. 108et 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 appointedOnewho should beourGod? 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,OurGod 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—asthereBEGods many, and Lords many—butto usthere 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 cryAbba, Father!"

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, concerningourearth 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 ofourheaven andourearth. 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:ourGod 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 concerningourearth 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 concerningthisheaven, andthisearth; 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.

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 theego, 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 hima little while inferior tothe 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 Jesuswho 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.

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,asthou, 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 purposesThe 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.]

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 theEra, 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.

[Footnote A: A discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden, Utah, Tuesday evening, April 22, 1902, under the auspices of the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association of the Weber Stake of Zion.]

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent (St. John's Gospel 17:3).

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that it true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life (I John 5:20).

It will be taken for granted, I have no doubt, that the primary object in the earth-mission of the Lord Jesus Christ was to redeem mankind, to be the Savior of the world. We have the warrant of scripture for that. It is shadowed forth in the words that God spoke in Eden to the "Serpent," and having in mind the Lord Jesus:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.[A]

[Footnote A: Gen. 3: 15.]

Turning to the New Testament, we read:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.[A]

[Footnote A: St. John 3:16, 17.]

I say to be the Savior of the world was the primary purpose of Christ's mission. But there is another purpose spoken of in scripture concerning the mission of the Lord Jesus. To one of the old prophets in Israel it was said: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and shall 'call his name Immanuel."[A]—"which," says Matthew in his Gospel, "being interpreted, is God with us."[B]

[Footnote A: Isaiah 7:14.]

[Footnote B: Matt. 3:23.]

In connection with this there is one more scripture to which I desire to call your attention:

Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.[A]

[Footnote A: I Tim. 3:16.]

That this passage has direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ no one can doubt; for to none but to him does the language apply. Here let me say with reference to the Bible statement that Christ was God "manifest in the flesh," that some scholars hold that the Greek word translated "manifest," in our English Bible, should be rendered "manifested," a stronger word; so that Jesus Christ, if this rendering of the Greek be true, according to the teachings of Paul, was God "manifested" in the flesh.

With this brief scriptural introduction to the subject, and with the statement clearly before you that Jesus Christ is God, and, moreover, is God manifested in the flesh, I desire to call your attention to the ideas prevailing in the world respecting Deity at the time of Messiah's advent among men; and this to show you there certainly was a very great necessity for a revelation of God being given; for men knew him not; nor had they by searching been able to find him out. Men were without the knowledge of God, when it pleased God to reveal himself to them through his only begotten Son, Jesus, the Christ.

I first direct your attention to India and Egypt. In these two countries what is commonly called Pantheism prevailed. Now, I know that word represents complex rather than simple ideas to you, and needs a little explanation. Pantheism, speaking in a general way, is of two kinds: First, the Pantheism that sinks all nature into one substance, one essence, and then concludes that that one substance or essence is God. Such Pantheism as this is the purest Monism—that is, the one substance theory; and is spoken of by some of our philosophers as the purest Theism—that is, faith in one God. Indeed, Pantheism, in this aspect of it, is looked upon as a sort of exaggerated Theism; for it regards "God" as the only substance, of which the material universe and man are but ever-changing manifestations. It is the form of Pantheism which identifies mind and matter, the finite and infinite, making them but manifestations of one universal being; but in effect it denies the personality, by which I mean the individuality, of God. This was, and, for matter of that, is now, the general belief of many millions in India. The Pantheism which expands the one substance into all the variety of objects that we see in nature, is the second kind of Pantheism referred to a moment since, and regards those various parts as God, or God expanded into nature. This leads to the grossest kind of idolatry, as it did in Egypt, at the time of which I am speaking. Under this form of Pantheism men worshiped various objects in nature; the sun, moon, stars; in fact, anything and everything that bodied forth to their minds, some quality, or power, or attribute of the Deity. This was the Pantheism of Egypt, and led to the abominable and disgusting idolatry of that land.

Turn your attention now northward from India, and take into account those great masses of our race inhabiting China; and you will find there, according to the statement of Max Muller,

A colorless and unpoetical religion; a religion we might almost venture to call monosyllabic, consisting of the worship of a host of single spirits, representing the sky; the sun, storms and lightning, mountains and rivers; one standing by the side of the other without any mutual attraction, without any higher principle to hold them together. In addition to this we likewise meet in China with the worship of ancestral spirits, the spirits of the departed, who are supposed to retain some cognizance of human affairs, and to possess peculiar powers which they exercise for good or evil. This double worship of human and natural spirits constitutes the old and popular religion of China, and it has lived on to the present day, at least in the lower ranks of society, though there towers above it a more elevated range of half religious and half philosophical faith, a belief in two higher Powers, which, in the language of philosophy, may mean Form and Matter, in the language of ethics, Good and Evil, but which in the original language of religion and mythology are represented as Heaven and Earth.[A]

[Footnote A: Science of Religion (Muller) pp. 61, 62.]

Such was the ancient religion of China; and such, to a very large extent, is the religion of China to this day. It must be remembered that the great Chinese philosopher Confucius did not disturb this ancient religious belief. He did not, in fact, profess to be a teacher of religion at all, but was content if he could but influence men to properly observe human relations. On one occasion he was asked how the "spirits could be served," to which he made answer, "If we are not able to serve men, how can we serve the spirits?" On another occasion he said to his followers, "Respect the gods, and keep them at a distance."[A]

[Footnote A: Ibid p. 87.]

Let us now enter Northern Europe, among the Germanic tribes, and make inquiry as to what conceptions of God they held. Here you find a shadowy, undefined, and not well understood belief in the existence of an all-pervading influence, or spirit; a Supreme Being, to whom the Goths, at least, gave the name of "Alfader," meaning the Father of all; yet, strange to say, they paid him no divine honors, gave him no worship, but contented themselves in worshiping inferior deities, their old war heroes in the main, whom they had apotheosized and who, it must be acknowledged, represented the national qualities of that people at that time.

Having thus briefly mentioned the faith of the people of north Europe—and I can do no more than this in each instance—I next invite your attention to the ideas about God that obtained among the highly civilized Romans. And, by the way, the Romans accepted, for the most part, the mythology and the religion of the Greeks, so that when we consider the ideas that prevailed among the Romans about God, it must be remembered that we are at the same time considering the views of God that were entertained by the Greeks—a people noted for the subtlety of their intellect, for their powers both of analysis and of synthesis: and for intuition of intellect which made them well nigh prophets, at least of an intellectual, if not of a spiritual order. The Romans for the most part were divided into the two great schools of philosophy, the Epicurean and the Stoic. Some of our young students will be telling me perhaps that I have overlooked the Academics. I do not mention them as a school of philosophy for the reason that, in my judgment, they had no philosophy; they advocated nothing; they were the agnostics of their time—that is, they were people who did not know, and like our modern agnostics, had a strong suspicion that nobody else knew. They represented merely the negative attitude of mind in their times. Still they numbered in their following some of the most considerable men of Rome, Cicero being among the number. By the way, it is through the writings of Cicero—especially through his Tusculan Disputations—that we become best acquainted with the theories of the two chief schools of philosophy I have mentioned. And it is from his writings that I shall here condense what I have to say of the creeds of these schools of philosophy, or at least that part which concerns us here—the part relating to their conceptions of Deity, and first as to the Doctrine of Epicurus.

The Epicureans held that there were Gods in existence. They accepted the fact of their existence from the constant and universal opinion of mankind, independent of education, custom or law. "It must necessarily follow," they said, "that this knowledge is implanted in our minds, or, rather, innate in us." Their doctrine was: "That opinion respecting which there is a general agreement in universal nature must infallibly be true; therefore it must be allowed that there are Gods."

"Of the form of the Gods, they held that because the human body is more excellent than that of other animals, both in beauty and for convenience, therefore the Gods are in human form. All men are told by nature that none but the human form can be ascribed to the Gods; for under what other image did it ever appear to anyone either sleeping or waking?" Ye these forms of the Gods were not "body," but "something like body;" "nor do they contain blood, but something like blood." "Nor are they to be considered as bodies of any solidity, or reducible to number." "Nor is the nature or power of the Gods to be discerned by the senses, but by the mind." They held, moreover, that the universe arose from chance; that the Gods neither did nor could extend their providential care to human affairs.

The duty of worshiping the Gods was based upon the fact of their superiority to man. "The superior and excellent nature of the Gods requires a pious adoration from men, because it is possessed of immortality, and the most exalted felicity; for whatever excels has a right to veneration." Yet "all fear of the power and anger of the Gods should be banished; for we must understand that anger and affection are inconsistent with the nature of a happy and immortal being. These apprehensions being removed, no dread of the superior power remains." On the same principles that the existence of the Gods was allowed, that is, on the pre-notion and universal belief of their existence, it was held that the Gods were happy and immortal, to which the Epicurians added this doctrine: "That which is eternally happy cannot be burdened with any labor itself, nor can it impose any labor on another; nor can it be influenced by resentment or favor; because things which are liable to such feelings must be weak and frail."

It was generally held by the opponents of Epicurus that, as a matter of fact, he did not believe in the existence of the Gods at all; but dared not deny their existence for fear of the Athenian law against impiety, and because such denial would render him unpopular. But after becoming acquainted with his views as to the nature of the Gods, one is prepared to accept the criticism of his doctrines which Cicero puts in the mouth of Cotta, in his Tusculan Disputations, viz., "Epicurus has allowed a deity in words but destroyed him in fact." He rendered his Gods as intangible, as useless, as far removed from exciting adoration, or of controlling the universe, as have the orthodox Christian sects their Deity, who is said to be without body, or parts, or passions; which, if such be his nature, leaves him without quality through which he may affect humanity or the universe either for good or evil.

I next take up the school of Stoics. The Stoics believed (1) that there were Gods; (2) they undertook to define their character and nature; (3) they held that the universe is governed by them, and (4) that they exercise a superintendency over human affairs.

The evidence for the existence of the Gods they saw primarily in the universe itself. "What can be so plain and evident," they argued, "when we behold the heavens, and contemplate the celestial bodies, as the existence of some supreme, divine intelligence by which these things are governed?" "Were it otherwise," they added, "Ennius would not with universal approbation have said,

Look up to the refulgent heavens abovewhich all men call unanimously Jove—* * * Of Gods and men the sire.

Of the nature of the Deity they held two things: First of all, that he is an animated though impersonal being; secondly, that there is nothing in all nature superior to him. "I do not see," says one well versed in their doctrines, "what can be more consistent with this idea and pre-conception than to attribute a mind and divinity to the world, the most excellent of all beings." The God of the Stoics is further described as a corporeal being, united to matter by a necessary connection; and, moreover, as subject to fate, so that he can bestow neither rewards nor punishments. That this sect held to the extinction of the soul at death, is allowed by all the learned. The Stoics drew their philosophy mainly from Socrates and Aristotle. Their cosmology was pantheistic, matter and force being the two ultimate principles, and God being the working force of the universe, giving it unity, beauty and adaptation.

I shall finish this brief review of the prevailing ideas about Deity at the advent of Messiah by reference to the state of belief respecting God among the Jews at this period. I have reserved the consideration of their views upon the subject until the last advisedly, chiefly for the reason that to their ancestors, in very ancient times, a knowledge of the true God was revealed. Their ancestors constituted a nation, a people, peculiarly related to God; chosen by him, it would seem, to stand as his witnesses among the nations of the earth. But at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, the Jews were in an apostate condition, and ready to reject their God when he should come. Moreover, their leading teachers, especially in the two centuries preceding the coming of the Messiah, were taking every step that their ingenuity could devise for harmonizing the truths which God had made known to them with the more fashionable conceptions of God as entertained by one or the other of the great sects of philosophy among the Romans. The way had been prepared for the achievement of this end, in the first place, by the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language, which version of the Old Testament is usually called the Septuagint, or the LXX. This latter name is given to it because of a tradition that the translation was accomplished by seventy, or about seventy, elders of the Jews. The most generally accepted theory concerning it, however, is that it was a work accomplished at various times between 280 B. C. and 150 B. C. The books of Moses being first translated as early as the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 284-246 B. C, while the Prophets and Psalms were translated somewhat later. It is not, however, the time or manner in which the translation was accomplished that we are interested in, but the character of the translation itself; and of this, Alfred Edersheim, in his "Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah," in the division of his work which treats of the preparation for the Gospel, says of the Septuagint:

Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version. It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt, in its use of Egyptian words and references, and equally evident traces of its Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great liberty, if not license, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of some able scholars. Distinct Jewish elements are undeniably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed. This we can easily understand, since only those traditions would find a place which at the early time were not only received, but in general circulation. The distinctly Grecian elements, however, are at present of chief interest to us.They consist of allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek philosophical ideas. However few, even one well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others, and in general give to the version the character of Jewish Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristics of the LXX version, which, for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and apologetic. Difficulties—or what seemed such—are removed by the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More especially, a strenuous effort is made to banish all anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of the Deity.[A]

[Footnote A: "Jesus, the Messiah," by Edersheim,vol. I, pp. 27-8, eighth edition.

Later the same authority points out the fact that the Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures became really the people's Bible to that large Jewish world through which Christianity was afterwards to address itself to mankind. "It was part of the case," he adds, "that this translation should be regarded by the Hellenists as inspired like the original. Otherwise it would have been impossible to make final appeal to the very words of the Greek; still less to find in them a mystical and allegorical meaning."[A]

[Footnote A: Ibid, p. 29.]

The foundation thus laid for a superstructure of false philosophy there was not wanting builders who were anxious to place a pagan structure upon it. About the middle of the second century B. C., one Aristobulus, a Hellenist Jew of Alexandria, sought to so explain the Hebrew scriptures as "to bring the Peripatetic philosophy out of the law of Moses, and out of the other Prophets." Following is a sample, according to Edersheim, of his allegorizing: "Thus, when we read that God stood, it meant the stable order of the world; that he created the world in six days, the orderly succession of time; the rest of the Sabbath, the preservation of what was created. And in such manner could the whole system of Aristotle be found in the Bible. But how was this to be accounted for? Of course, the Bible had not learned of Aristotle, but he and all other philosophers had learned from the Bible. Thus, according to Aristobulus, Pythagoras, Plato, and all the other sages, had really learned from Moses, and the broken rays found in their writings were united in all their glory in the Torah."[A]

[Footnote A: "Jesus, the Messiah," Edersheim, vol. 1, p. 36.]

Following Aristobulus in the same kind of philosophy was Philo, the learned Jew of Alexandria, born about the year 20 B. C. He was supposed to be a descendant of Aaron, and belonged to one of the wealthiest and most influential families among the merchants of Egypt; and he is said to have united a large share of Greek learning with Jewish enthusiasm. He followed most worthily in the footsteps of Aristobulus. According to him, the Greek sages had learned their philosophy from Moses, in whom alone was all truth to be found. "Not indeed, in the letter," says Edersheim, "butunderthe letter of Holy Scripture. If in Numbers 23:19 we read 'God is not a man,' and in Deut. 1:31 that the Lord was 'as a man,' did it not imply on the one hand the revelation of absolute truth by God, and on the other, accommodation to those who were weak? Here then, was the principle of a two-fold interpretation of the Word of God—the literal and the allegorical. * * * To begin with the former: the literal sense must be wholly set aside, when it implies anything unworthy of the Deity—anything unmeaning, impossible, or contrary to reason. Manifestly this canon, if strictly applied, would do away not only with all anthropomorphisms, but cut the knot wherever difficulties seemed insuperable. Again, Philo would find an allegorical, along with the literal, interpretation indicated in the reduplication of a word, and in seemingly superfluous words, particles, or expressions. These could, of course, only bear such a meaning on Philo's assumption of the actual inspiration of the Septuagint version."[A]

[Footnote A: When one thinks of the mischief that may arise from such perversions of scripture by the application of Philo's principles of interpretation, we do not marvel that some of the Jews regarded the translation of the Seventy "to have been as great a calamity to Israel as the making of the golden calf."]

Edersheim admits, however, that in the Talmudic canon, the interpretation where "any repetition of what had been already stated, would point to something new;" and holds that these are comparatively sober rules of exegesis. "Not so the license," he remarks, "which he [Philo] claimed, of freely altering the punctuation of sentences, and his notion that, if one from among several synonymous words was chosen in a passage, this pointed to some special meaning attaching to it. Even more extravagant was the idea that a word which occurred in the Septuagint might be interpreted according to every shade of meaning which it bore in the Greek, and that even another meaning might be given it by slightly altering the letters." Of Philo's further efforts at harmonizing the revelations of God to the Jews with the teachings of the Greeks, it will only be necessary to read the following quotation from an authority upon such subjects:

Philo's doctrine starts from the idea that God is "being" absolutely bare of all quality. All quality in finite beings has limitation, and no limitation can be predicated of God, who is eternal, unchangeable, simple substance, free, self-sufficient. To predicate any quality of God would be to reduce him to the sphere of finite existence. Of him we can only saythathe is, notwhathe is, and such purely negative predictions as to his being appear to Philo * * * the only way of securing his absolute elevation above the world [that is, above and outside of the material universe]. A consistent application of Philo's abstract conception of God would exclude the possibility of any active relation of God to the world, and therefore of religion; for a being absolutely without quality and movement cannot be conceived as actively concerned with the multiplicity of individual things. And so, in fact, Philo does teach that the absolute perfection, purity and loftiness of God would be violated by direct contact with imperfect, impure, and finite things. But the possibility of a connection between God and the world is reached through a distinction which forms the most important point in his theology and cosmology. The proper being of God is distinguished from the infinite multiplicity of divine ideas or forces: God himself is without quality, but he disposes of an infinite variety of divine forces, throughwhosemediation an active relation of God to the world is brought about. In the details of his teaching as to these mediating entities, Philo is guided partly by Plato and partly by the Stoics; but at the same time he makes use of the concrete religious conceptions of heathenism and Judaism. Following Plato, he first calls them "Ideas," or patterns of all things; they are thoughts of God, yet possess a real existence, and were produced before the creation of the sensible world, of which they are the keys. * * * Philo maintains that the divine forces are identical with the "demons" of the Greeks and the "angels" of the Jews, i. e., servants and messengers of God, by means of which he communicates with the finite world. * * * Philo regards all individual "ideas" as comprehended in one highest and most general "idea" or force—the unity of the individual idea—which he calls the "logos" or "reason" of God, and which is again regarded as operative "reason." The logos, therefore, is the highest mediator between God and man, the world, the first-born son of God, the archangel, who is the vehicle of all revelation, and the high priest who stands before God on behalf of the world. Through whom the world was created.[A]

[Footnote A: Professor E. Schurer, of University of Giessen, art.Philoin Encyclo. Brit.]

In all this one may see only too plainly the effort to harmonize Jewish theology with Greek philosophy—an effort to be rid of the plain anthropomorphism of the Hebrew scriptures for the incomprehensible "being" of Greek metaphysics.

Thus the Jews—the people who had been chosen to be witnesses for God to the world—appeared to have grown weary of the mission given to them. Tired were they of standing in a position where their hands seemed to be raised against all men, and all men's hands against them. They had lost the spirit that had supported their fathers, and hence were searching out these cowardly compromises by which harmony could be shown to exist between the philosophy of the Gentiles and the revelations of God to their fathers.

This completes the survey I intended to make of this field. Nowhere have we found a knowledge of the true and living God. Nowhere a teacher who comes with definite knowledge of this subject of all subjects—a subject so closely related to eternal life, that to know God is said in the scriptures to be life eternal; and of course, the corollary naturally follows, viz, not to know God isnotto possess eternal life. We can form no other conclusion from the survey we have taken of the world's ideas respecting the existence and nature of God, than that forced upon us—the world stood in sore need of a revelation of God. He whom the Egyptians and Indians sought for in their Pantheism, must be made known. God, whom Confucius would have men respect, but keep at a distance, must draw near. The "Alfader" of the Goths, undefined, incomprehensible to them, must be brought out of the northern darkness into glorious light. The God-idea that prevailed among the Greek philosophers must be brought from the mists of their idle speculations and made to stand before the world, He whom the Jews were seeking to deny and forsake must be revealed again to the children of men. And lo! when the vail falls from the revelation that God gives of himself, what form is that which steps forth from the background of the world's ignorance and mystery? A MAN, as God lives! Jesus of Nazareth—the great Peasant Teacher of Judea. He is God revealed henceforth to the world. They who thought God impersonal, without form, must know him henceforth as a person in the form of man. They who have held him to be without quality, must henceforth know him as possessed of the qualities of Jesus of Nazareth. They who have regarded him as infinitely terrible, must henceforth know him also as infinitely gentle. Those who would hold him at a distance, will now permit him to draw near. This is the world's mystery revealed. This is God manifested in the flesh. This is the Son of God, who comes to reveal the Father, for he is the express image and likeness of that Father's person, and the reflection of that Father's mind. Henceforth when men shall say, Show us the Father, he shall point to himself as the complete revelation of the Father, and say, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also." Henceforth, when men shall dispute about the "being" and "nature" of God, it shall be a perfect answer to uphold Jesus Christ as the complete, perfect revelation and manifestation of God, and through all the ages it shall be so; there shall be no excuse for men saying they know not God, for all may know him, from the least to the greatest, so tangible, so real a revelation has God given of himself in the person and character of Jesus Christ. He lived his life on earth—a life of sorrow and of gentleness, its pathway strewn with actions fraught with mercy, kindness, and love. A man he was, approved of God among men, by miracles, and wonders and signs which God did by him. Being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, men took and by wicked hands crucified and slew him, but God raised him up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it; and exalted him on high at the right hand of God, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.[A]

Back to Index Next