Chapter III (4)

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.