The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Seventy's Course in Theology (Third
Year), by B. H. Roberts
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.
Title: The Seventy's Course in Theology (Third Year)
The Doctrine of Deity
Author: B. H. Roberts
Release Date: October 26, 2019 [EBook #60575]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SEVENTY'S COURSE IN THEOLOGY (3RD YEAR) ***
Produced by the Mormon Texts Project
(https://mormontextsproject.org/), with thanks to Renah
Holmes
THE
Seventy's Course in Theology
THIRD YEAR
The Doctrine of Deity
Compiled and Edited by
B. H. ROBERTS
Of the First Council of The Seventy
_"And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the Only True
God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent."--Jesus._
_"It is the First Principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the
Character of God."--Joseph Smith._
Salt Lake City
1910
_SEVENTY'S YEAR BOOK NO. III._
_INTRODUCTION._
The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, treats directly of
the Doctrine of Deity. In structure and treatment of the theme, it
follows the general plan of the First and Second Year Books. Therefore
what was said in the Introduction to the First Year Book to "Class
Teachers;" and on the "Manner of Lesson Treatment;" "Home Reading and
Preparation;" "Scripture Reading and Special Texts;" and on "Lectures,"
will be available here. As quite a number of the Quorum members will
not have First and Second Year Books, it is recommended that the
Presidents or Class Teachers bring the suggestions under the above
headings to the attention of the classes, and read them in class. An
entire class session indeed, could be well spent in consideration of
methods of work.
One modification only is suggested in methods of work. Where the
Seventies meet in classes that are only fragments of quorums, in
instances where the number of meetings does not average more than from
three to six or eight, it is thought that better results would be
obtained if such a class would convert the occasion into a lesson-study
meeting, for three lessons in the month, and instead of trying to
deliver the lesson statement in lecture form, remain seated around the
table and read the lesson, hunt up the citations given, and discuss the
notes--in a word study the lesson together and profit by each other's
assistance. Then, on the fourth lesson of the month--when the Seventies
are supposed to meet in quorum capacity, the usual quorum methods could
be followed.
_The importance of the Subject, "The Doctrine of Deity:"_ Of the
importance of the subject treated in this present Year Book, but
little need be said, as its importance is largely self-evident; but to
minds that do not so conceive it, perhaps its importance will be made
apparent by such expressions as these:
_"This is life eternal that they might know Thee, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."--Jesus, the Christ_.
_"It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the
Character of God; and to know that we may converse with Him as one man
converses with another."--Joseph Smith, the Prophet_.
Far be it from me to hold that faith in God, and participation in
salvation, depends upon a scientific knowledge of the being, and the
kind of being, God is. The Soul of man, self-conscious of the being
of God, and enlightened, if only in a general way--in a way far from
what would be regarded as well-arranged knowledge--may yet have faith
in God. So that I am not holding that the very definite knowledge we
are seeking through this treatise, is necessary to first steps in what
must always be a progressive faith. I do not address the men for whom
these Lessons are prepared from the standpoint that I would have them
understand in order that they may believe; but rather that they may
understand--as clearly as I can help them to understand--that which
they already believe. Also that they may more distinctly teach that
which they believe, for surely well-ordered knowledge can have no other
effect upon faith than to increase it, to strengthen it.
In any event it would be neglect of duty in men if, after coming to
belief, they did not study to understand what they believe. It would
be doubly a neglect of duty on the part of men who are consecrated by
solemn ordination to teach the true doctrine about God, and stand as
Witness for him, if they should be indifferent to an understanding of
the nature and character of God. The pleas that are sometimes made
on the ground of incomprehensibility of the subject, resulting in
recommendations that the nature and attributes of Deity had best be
left hidden in the mystery supposed to enshroud them; and that God be
held as an object of faith rather than of understanding--analyzed, you
shall find such views bottomed rather on indifference than in grace or
true modesty. What has been revealed about God may be known; beyond
that our treatise does not seek to go, except where the treatise deals
historically with the doctrines and speculations of theologians and
philosophers. If this part of the treatise deals at times with "Thin
Thought" and difficult abstractions, two things at least can be said
for it, namely: (1) It will furnish good mental exercise; and (2) It
will have the effect of making more clear by contrast the simple and
beautiful doctrine of Deity as revealed in the person and character of
Jesus, the Christ.
SPECIAL LESSONS.
There are five special lessons in the course, viz., Lessons V, X,
XV, XXIV and XXXI, designed to be given in the form of discourses
or lectures, by one or more speakers to each subject as shall be
determined upon by the Presidents and Class Teachers. As suggested in
previous Year Books these Lessons should be made special occasions by
the Quorums; and in order that the work shall be well done, plenty of
time should be allowed for preparation by making the assignment for the
discourse or lecture, several weeks in advance. For example, at the
second session of the classes assignments should be made for Lesson
V., and so for each special Lesson, allowing from two to three weeks
for preparation, having it understood that something like thorough and
intelligent handling of the subject will be expected.
It is further suggested that not more than forty-five or at the outside
sixty minutes be devoted to the main question, and then that fifteen or
twenty minutes be allowed for criticism and the asking of questions,
to be answered by the principal speaker or speakers who have had the
subject in hand.
In these special Lessons, and quite aside from the main theme of which
they treat are parts of two other lessons, to which the whole class
should be required to give attention. These two lessons are first,
Delivering a Discourse; and second, On Strength of Expression. The
first subject runs through the five special lessons, the second through
but four. It has been the aim of the writer to give one lesson on each
of these subjects in the five and four parts respectively, into which
the lessons are divided; and he entertains the hope that they will
be helpful, at least to those just beginning their efforts at public
speech.
_SUGGESTIONS AS TO PART III._
In Lessons under Part III, "Conceptions of God," it is suggested
that the effort of the classes be, simply to master the information
contained in the lessons. It will not be found feasible to undertake a
discussion of the various conceptions of God presented with any view
to reconciliation with each other or with the scripture. Strive only
for an understanding of what these conceptions are as presented by the
advocates of them.
_DIVISION OF LESSONS._
Where the Lessons are thought to contain too much matter for one
session of the class it is quite within the province of the Presidents
or Class Teachers to divide them; and it is especially recommended that
they do so in Lessons xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv.
BOOKS OF REFERENCE.
The books of reference used in the following lessons would make an
extended list, and in some cases the volumes named could only be
found in reference libraries, as they are now out of print; it would
therefore be of no advantage to give a complete enumeration of them
here. I have given copious and extended notes upon many subdivisions of
the lessons, especially where the books quoted would be difficult to
obtain. The following named works, however, can be obtained and some of
them are indispensable:
_The Seventy's Indispensable Library,_ consisting of the Bible,
Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Richards
and Little Compendium--this set of books in special and uniform
bindings can be obtained; and we suggest that it would be a good thing
for prospective missionaries among the Seventies to get these books in
convenient form and durable bindings, so that when going upon missions
they can take books with them with which they are familiar through
frequent handling and reading.
_Some Standard Dictionary of the English Language,_ such as is used
in high schools and academies, where unabridged Standard Dictionaries
cannot be obtained.
_A Dictionary of the Bible._ (Dr. Wm. Smith's "Dictionary of the
Bible," the four-volume edition by Prof. H. B. Hackett, contains, it is
said, "the fruit of the ripest biblical scholarship of England").
_Smith's Smaller Dictionary of the Bible_ (one volume) is the same
work condensed. In somewhat the same line, owing to its very valuable
introductory articles (thirty in number, one of which, "Belief in
God," we were permitted by the publishers to reproduce in the January
and February numbers of the Era) is _Dummelow's "One-Volume Bible
Commentary,"_ published by the MacMillan Company, New York.
Some _Standard Ecclesiastical_ or _Church History,_ such as
Mosheim's or Dr. Neander's. The former can be had both in one or three
volumes. The latter is in six volumes. In this line, and in preference
to any other Church histories--after Mosheim's and Neander's--that have
fallen under my notice, I recommend for the period it covers--the first
ten centuries--Dr. Philip Smith's "History of the Christian Church,"
two volumes. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, covering
the first three and one half--nearly--Christian centuries; and the
Early Christian Literature Primers, four books, covering the first
seven and a half centuries.
_The History of Christianity._ This is a collection from the
writings of Gibbon, chiefly selected chapters from the author's
celebrated "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," edited and annotated
by Peter Eckler. It is published in one volume, and as a history of
Christianity's struggle with Pagan philosophy, and of the paganization
of Christianity in the Early Christian Centuries, it is a valuable work.
_"A History of Christian Doctrine,"_ by Wm. G. T. Shedd (two
volumes), is a valuable work. Written from a sympathetic view-point of
orthodox Christianity, but valuable for its history of the development
of the orthodox doctrine.
_The Nicene Creed,_ by J. J. Lias, gives detailed analysis of that
somewhat famous "symbol of the Christian faith," as it is sometimes
called (one volume).
_"Story of the World's Worship,"_ by Frank S. Dobbins--1901--(one
volume).
_"Ten Great Religions,"_ by James Freeman Clarke (two volumes).
This work on the general subject, Conceptions of God, would be the best
here enumerated.
_"History of the Warfare of Science with Theology,"_ by Andrew
Dixon White (two volumes).
_"Conflict Between Religion and Science,"_ John William Draper (one
volume). By the same Author, _"Intellectual Development of Europe"_
(two volumes).
_"Science of Religion,"_ by Max Muller (one volume). By the same
Author, _"Chips from a German Workshop"_ (two volumes).
_The Philosophers:_ To name the works of the philosophers from
Plato to modern times would be to uselessly enumerate a library. The
following works, however, could perhaps be obtained by the quorums if
not by individuals:
_Outlines of Lectures on the History of Philosophy,_ by Elmendorf
(one volume). It is in the nature of an amplified index to the subject,
and presupposes some general knowledge of it.
Maurice's _"Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy"_ (two volumes, 1395
pages), a noble work.
_"Typical Modern Conceptions of God,"_ Leighton (one volume), 1901.
Cicero's _"Tusculan Disputations,"_ (one volume), translated by
Yonge.
Spencer's _"First Principles,"_ (one volume).
John Fiske's _"Studies in Religion"_ (one volume).
_"The Truth of Thought,"_ Poland, (one volume).
_"Scientific Aspects of Mormonism,"_ Prof. N. L. Nelson, of Brigham
Young University (one volume). A work not yet fully appreciated.
Orson Pratt's Works, _"The Kingdom of God."_
_"Mormon Doctrine of Deity"_ (Roberts).
Joseph Smith, _The Prophet-Teacher._ (Roberts).
_The Seventy's Course in Theology,_ Numbers I and II. They can be
obtained bound together in cloth, 75c. General Seventy's office.
_The Current Volume of the Improvement Era._ The organ of the
Priesthood Quorums.
_The Seventy's Course in Theology._
THIRD YEAR.
__The Doctrine of Deity_._
_PART I._
_The Sources of Man's Knowledge of God._
LESSON I.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_I.--TRADITION._
_ANALYSIS_ _REFERENCES._
_I. Adamic Tradition._ Doc. & Cov.[1] Lectures
on Faith, No. II.
_II. Antediluvian._[2] "The Gospel" (Roberts).
Ch. ix, 3d Edition.
_III. Postdiluvian._[3] Note 1.
_IV. Tradition Reversed--Child to Parent, Note 3. Consider
back to Adam._ notes 4, 5, 6.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "Can'st thou by searching find out God? Can'st thou find
out the Almighty unto perfection?" Job xi: 7_.
_NOTES._
1. _Tradition as a Source of the Knowledge of God:_ The first
evidence men have of the existence of God comes from tradition, from
the testimony of their fathers; and this has been the case from
that event known in history as the Fall, until the present. Nor is
this evidence unworthy of serious attention; it rests upon a surer
foundation than is usually accorded it. Suppose we go back to its
beginning, to its first introduction into the world, and observe how
well founded it is.
According to the account given by Moses in Genesis, previous to the
Fall. Adam associated with God; conversed with Him respecting the
works of creation, and gave names to the cattle and all living things
upon the earth. How long continued, or how intimate this association
was, we are not informed in Genesis; but at all events, it was long
enough continued, and sufficiently intimate to fix definitely in the
minds of Adam the fact of God's existence. Then when Adam and his wife
transgressed God's law, their recollection of his existence did not
vanish, but they tried to hide from his presence; and were afterwards
visited by the Lord, who reproved them for their sin and pronounced
the penalty which would overtake them for their transgression. All I
wish to call attention to in this is the fact that they knew positively
of the Lord's existence before their transgression, and they did not
forget his existence after that event; but, on the contrary, had a
lively recollection of what they had seen and heard before they fell.
This they related, undoubtedly, to their children, who, in turn,
transmitted the knowledge to their children, and so from generation to
generation the tradition of God's existence has been handed down until
the present time.
2. _Antediluvian Tradition of God:_ It will be remembered that Adam
and all the patriarchs previous to the Flood lived to a very great
age. Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years, and during that time
Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, and Lamech,
the father of Noah, were born. Indeed, the last named patriarch was
fifty-six years old when Adam died; so that for a number of years he
must have had the pleasure of Adam's acquaintance; while the patriarchs
between Adam and Lamech all associated with him for hundreds of years,
and would learn well the story that the grand Patriarch of our race
would have to tell respecting Eden before the Fall.
3. _Postdiluvian Tradition of God:_ We are told in Genesis that
when Lamech was one hundred and eighty-two years old he begat Noah;
and since Lamech was fifty-six years old when Adam died, Adam had been
dead but one hundred and twenty-six years when Noah was born. After the
birth of Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, so that
Noah associated with his father, who had seen Adam, for more than five
hundred years; and also with a number of the other patriarchs--with
Enos, the grandson of Adam, and son of Seth--with Cainan, Mahalaleel,
Jared and Methuselah. Then, the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth,
all of whom were born before the Flood, would likewise be acquainted
with a number of these worthies who had lived with Adam and heard his
testimony of God's existence.
Again, Noah lived three hundred and fifty years after the Flood; that
would give him ample time and opportunity to teach his posterity
for several generations the tradition respecting God, which he had
received from a number of patriarchs, who lived previous to the Flood,
and thus the said tradition became firmly fixed in the minds of men.
The chronology here followed is that of the authorized version of the
English Bible as summarized in the Second Lecture on Faith. Doctrine
and Covenants.
4. _The Bible Here Regarded as a Body of Tradition:_ It may be
thought that in the foregoing notes, dealing with tradition, we have
been really appealing to Revelation, the Bible--the product of a divine
inspiration resting upon men, hence Revelation--not tradition as men
commonly understand tradition, viz: something handed down from age to
age by oral communication without the aid of written memorials. But the
Bible is sometimes regarded in more than one aspect. Commonly it is
held to be a volume of inspired writings, revelation indeed; but it is
also regarded as a body of traditions crystalized into writing. As such
it has been used in preparing the foregoing notes.
5. _Reversed Order of Tradition:_ By this title I ask you to
reverse the order of considering tradition. Instead of beginning with
Adam and coming down through the generations to our own times, begin
with the child of today and go up through the generations of men to
Adam. How do children of our generation get their first idea of God?
Ordinarily from their fathers. In Christian lands they obtain the
"God idea" in childhood at their mothers' knee. And these mothers and
fathers from the preceding generation of fathers and mothers; and
these again from a preceding generation of fathers and mothers, and so
following until the stream of tradition is traced to its source, which
the Bible, considered as a body of tradition, now of long standing,
represents to be Adam, who was "the first man." It is interesting to
note, in passing, that the Bible tradition--when we consider the Bible
at no higher value than a volume of tradition--is confirmed in many
respects by the tradition of other people than the Hebrews; namely, the
Chaldeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians and Egyptians. (See the
Seventy's First Year Book, note 2 pp. 24, 25.[4])
6. _How True Traditions Degenerated Into Mythology:_ Traces of
that tradition, (of the existence of God) and of these patriarchs
connected with it, may be found in nearly all, and so far as I know,
in all the mythologies of the world, as well in ancient as in modern
times; as well in the mythology of the civilized Greeks and Romans,
as in that of India, China, Egypt, and that of the American Indians.
The tradition has evidently been corrupted, added to and twisted into
fantastic shapes by the idle fancies of corrupt minds, but despite
all the changes made in it, traces of this tradition are discoverable
in the mythology of all lands. I believe, too, with Crabb, "That the
fictions of mythology were not invented, (always) in ignorance of
divine truth, but with a wilful intention to pervert it; not made only
by men of profligate lives and daring impiety, who preferred darkness
to light, because their deeds were evil, but by men of refinement and
cultivation, from the opposition of science, falsely so-called; not
made, as some are pleased to think, by priests only, for interested
purposes, but by poets and philosophers among the laity, who, careless
of truth of falsehood, were pleased with nothing but their own corrupt
imaginations and vain conceits."
Thus the tradition of the patriarchs was, in time, degraded, by some
branches of their posterity, to mythology--a muddy, troubled pool,
which like a mirror shattered into a thousand fragments, reflects while
it distorts into fantastic shapes the objects on its banks. Still,
under all the rubbish of human invention may be found the leading
idea--God's existence; and that fact alone, however mis-shapen it may
be, proves how firmly fixed in the human mind is the tradition of the
fathers; while the universality of that tradition goes very far towards
proving its truth. Scriptural evidences that traditions are sometimes
made to distort truth, revealed or received from the fathers, may be
learned from the following passages: Matt. XV:2; Mark VII:5, 9, 13;
Col. 11:8; II Thes. III:6; I Peter 1:18.
Footnotes
1. The abbreviations stand for Doctrine and Covenants throughout. It is
expected that the whole lecture will be read as a preparation for the
lesson.
2. What is the meaning of Antediluvian?
3. What of Postdiluvian?
4. References to past Year Books will occasionally be made throughout
our course, and it should be the desire of every Seventy to have a
complete set of these Year Books. Numbers One and Two bound together,
in strong cloth, can now be had by application to the General Secretary
of the Seventies, price 75c, post paid.
LESSON II.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_II.--CREATION--THE WORKS OF GOD._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. The extent and greatness of Psalms xix: 1-6.[1]
Creation._ Rom. 1:18. "Evidences of
Theism," pp. 167-175.[2]
Dummelow's "Commentary
on the Bible."
p. xcix-cv.[3]
_II. The Evidence of Design in Creation._ (1) See Seventy's Second
Year Book, Lesson VI,
Note 2, for sources
of Information.[4]
Also Notes 1, 2, 3, this
lesson.
_III. Incompleteness of the Evidences (2) Notes 4, 5.
from Creation and Design._ (3) Note 6.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high,
I cannot attain unto it...Marvelous are Thy works, and that my soul
knoweth right well." Ps. cxxxix_.
_NOTES._
1. _The Testimony of the Creation to the Existence of God:_ When
once the idea of the existence of God is suggested to the mind of man
by the testimony of the fathers, and represented as he is by that
tradition, as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and also as the
great governing and guiding power throughout the universe--very much is
discovered in the marvelous works of nature to strengthen and confirm,
almost to a certainty, the truth of that tradition.
Man is conscious of his own existence, and that existence is a
stupendous miracle of itself; he is conscious, too, of other facts.
He looks out into space in the stillness of night, and sees the deep
vault of heaven inlaid with suns, the centers, doubtless of planetary
systems, all moving in exact order and harmony, in such regularity that
he cannot doubt that Intelligence brought them into being, and now
sustains and directs the forces that preserve them. Thus the heavens
declare the existence of God as well as His glory. This thought is
in harmony with the tradition of his fathers, and he recognizes the
identity between the Intelligence that he knows must control the
universe, and the God of whom his fathers testify.
Nor is this all: but in the mysterious changes which take place on our
own planet, in the gentle Spring, luxuriant Summer, fruitful Autumn
and nature-resting Winter, with its storms and frosts--the "mysterious
round" which brings us our seed time and harvest, and clothes the earth
with vegetation and flowers, perpetuating that wonderful power we call
life,--the strangest fact in all the works of nature--in these mighty
changes so essential and beneficent, man recognizes the wisdom and
power of God of whom his fathers bear record.
As the heavens declare God's existence and glory, so, likewise, do
these changes and a thousand other things, connected without earth,
until lost in wonder and admiration, one exclaims with Paul,
"The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
power and godhead." (Rom. 1:20.)
Or else He calls to mind another Scripture, still more sublime--
"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. & Cov. Sec. 88.)
"But wandering oft, with brute unconscious gaze,
Man marks not thee; marks not The Mighty hand,
That, ever busy, wheels the silent speres!"--Thompson.
This much we may say, in conclusion, tradition confirmed by the works
of creation, lays a broad foundation for an intelligent belief in God's
existence, intelligence, power, and glory.
2. _The Law of Substance and the Universe._ "Through all eternity
the infinite universe has been, and is, subject to the law of
substance: * * * * *
1. "The extent of the universe is infinite and unbounded; it is empty
in no part, but everywhere filled with substance."
2. "The Duration of the world (i. e. universe) is equally infinite and
unbounded; it has no beginning and no end; it is eternity."
3. "Substance is everywhere and always in uninterrupted movement and
transformation; nowhere is there perfect repose and rigidity; yet the
infinite quantity of matter and of eternally changing force remains
constant." ("Riddle of the Universe." Ernest Haeckel p. 242. Harper &
Brothers, 1900. See his whole chapter xii, on the "Law of Substance."
Also Seventy's Second Year Book, Lesson V.)
2. _Extent and Greatness of the Universe--The Solar System:_ The
heavenly bodies belong to two classes, the one comprising a vast
multitude of stars, which always preserved their relative positions,
as if they were set in a sphere of crystal, while the others moved,
each in its own orbit, according to laws which have been described. We
now know that these moving bodies, or planets, form a sort of family
by themselves, known as the Solar System. This system consists of the
sun as its center, with a number of primary planets revolving around
it, and satellites, or secondary planets, revolving around them. Before
the invention of the telescope but six primary planets were known,
including the earth, and one satellite, the moon. By the aid of that
instrument, two great primary planets, outside the orbit of Saturn,
and an immense swarm of smaller ones between the orbits of Mars and
Jupiter, have been discovered; while the four outer planets--Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus and Neptune--are each the center of motion of one or
more satellites. The sun is distinguished from the planets, not only by
his immense mass, which is several hundred times that of all the other
bodies of his system combined, but by the fact that he shines by his
own light, while the planets and satellites are dark bodies, shining
only by reflecting the light of the sun.
"A remarkable symmetry of structure is seen in this system, in that
all the large planets and all the satellites revolve in orbits which
are nearly circular, and, the satellites of the two outer planets
excepted, nearly in the same plane. This family of planets are all
bound together, and kept each in its respective orbit, by the law of
gravitation, the action of which is of such a nature that each planet
may make countless revolutions without the structure of the system
undergoing any change." (Newcomb's Popular Astronomy, School Edition,
pp. 103-4. Part III of Newcomb's work which deals at length with the
Solar System could also be considered with profit.)
3. _Number and Distances of the Fixed Stars:_ "Turning our
attention from this system to the thousands of fixed stars which
stud the heavens, the first thing to be considered is their enormous
distance asunder, compared with the dimensions of the Solar System,
though the latter are themselves inconceivably great. To give an idea
of the relative distances, suppose a voyager through the celestial
spaces could travel from the sun to the outermost planet of our system
in twenty-four hours. So enormous would be his velocity, that it would
carry him across the Atlantic ocean, from New York to Liverpool, in
less than a tenth of a second of the clock. Starting from the sun with
this velocity, he would cross the orbits of the inner planets in rapid
succession, and the other ones more slowly, until, at the end of a
single day, he would reach the confines of our system, crossing the
orbit of Neptune. But, though he passed eight planets the first day,
he would pass none the next, for he would have to journey eighteen
or twenty years, without diminution of speed, before he would reach
the nearest star, and would then have to continue his journey as far
again before he could reach another. All the planets of our system
would have vanished in the distance, in the course of the first three
days, and the sun would be but an insignificant star in the firmament.
The conclusion is, that our sun is one of an enormous number of
self-luminous bodies scattered at such distances that years would be
required to traverse the space between them, even when the voyager went
at the rate we have supposed." (Newcomb's Astronomy p. 104.) * * * * *
"The total number of stars in the celestial sphere visible with the
average naked eye may be estimated, in round numbers, as 5000. The
number varies so much with the perfection and training of the eye,
and with the atmospheric conditions, that it cannot be stated very
definitely. When the telescope is pointed at the heavens, it is found
that for every star visible to the naked eye there are hundreds, or
even thousands, too minute to be seen without artificial aid. From the
counts of stars made by Herschel, Struve has estimated that the total
number of stars visible with Herschel's twenty-foot telescope was about
20,000,000. The great telescopes of modern times would, no doubt, show
a yet larger number; but a reliable estimate has not been made. The
number is probably somewhere between 30,000,000 and 50,000,000." (Ibid.
p. 422.)
4. _The Design Argument:_ "The Design Argument is wholly grounded
on experience. Certain qualities, it is alleged, are found to be
characteristic of such things as are made by an intelligent mind for a
purpose. The order of Nature, or some considerable parts of it, exhibit
these qualities in a remarkable degree. We are entitled, from this
great similarity in the effects, to infer similarity in the cause, and
to believe that things which it is beyond the power of man to make, but
which resemble the works of man in all but power, must also have been
made by intelligence, armed with a power greater than human." (John
Stuart Mill. Essay on "Theism," see "Three Essays on Religion," p. 167.
The whole essay, if possible, should be read.)
5. _The Evidence of a Designer:_ "The consideration of the external
world around him, even in its broadest aspect, leads man up to the
thought of an Eternal Cause; the study of its phenomena in detail
with its marvelous intricacy of harmonious interaction produces the
impression of design, and leads to the thought of a Designer--i. e., of
an Eternal Cause that is intelligent and free. * * * * *
"The Design Argument is perhaps the most ancient and the most popular
of all. It is never actually formulated in the Bible, for the Bible, as
we have seen, never treats God's existence as the subject of argument.
But its basis, the marvelous harmony of the created world, is the theme
of more than one of the Psalms (cf. e. g. Pss. 19, 104, 147, 148); and
St. Paul comes very near to stating the argument in so many words,
when he says (Rom. 1, 20) in depreciation of pagan superstitions and
immortality, that the 'everlasting power and divinity' of the Creator
are clearly discernible from His works.
"Granted that the very existence of the world implies an Eternal Cause,
what can we learn about that Cause? The nearest thing to a true first
Cause of which I have experience, is my own personality; hence there
is a presumption that the world's first Cause will be at least what we
know as personal. But that presumption is not all we have to go upon.
There are definite indications in nature, when more closely observed,
that make it impossible to regard the Eternal Cause as a merely
mechanical originator of the world-process, that stamp it--or rather
Him--as intelligent and free, a nature like my own rational nature,
only far above and beyond it.
"Everywhere in nature we see the teleological principle (as it is
called) at work, i. e., we see means adapted to ends, and the present
subordinated to the future. This adaptation of means to ends manifests
itself in a bewilderingly complex way--in each individual member of
the great organism, in the lesser and greater groups, and in the
whole. Everywhere, in fact, I see traces of purpose and design--for
such adaptation speaks to me irresistibly of these. My only direct
experience of like phenomena is in my own personality, and so I am led
to infer a Designer." ("Commentary on the Holy Bible." Dummelow, 1909,
Art. Belief in God, pp. ci, cii.)
6. _Incompleteness of the Evidences from Creation:_ Some extol
the evidences for the existence of God found in creation, out of all
proportion to their merit. "The wonderful structure of the universe,"
said Thomas Paine, "and everything that we behold in the system of the
creation prove to us far better than books can do, the existence of
God and at the same time proclaim his attributes. It is by exercise
of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in his works and
imitate him in his ways. When we see his care and kindness extended
over all his creatures it teaches us our duty towards each other, while
it calls forth our gratitude to Him." And again, "the Almighty Lecturer
(Deity) by displaying the principles of science in the structure of
the universe, has invited man to study and to imitation. It is as if
he had said to the inhabitants of this globe we call ours, I have
made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry
heavens visible to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide
for his comfort, and learn from my munificence to all, to be kind to
each other." Far be it from me to say any word that would detract from
any class of evidence for the truth of God's existence; and for the
evidence to be found in the works of creation, I have the profoundest
esteem. They do indeed testify of the existence of intelligence
higher than of man and these creations do convey to the mind not
only the idea of the existence of these higher intelligences but to
some extent they reveal their greatness and majesty and power; and
also to some extent the munificence and beneficence of their nature.
But the evidences of the works of nature are defective in that they
scarcely indicate the relationship of these divine intelligences to
man, or man's relationship to them, or the purpose and destiny of the
creation. Standing alone on these evidences of the creation one asks
in vain for a complete manifestation of God to man. Not so much as to
his being--bare existence--but as to the kind of being he is. Is He
personal or impersonal? Merely "a power outside ourselves"? or, Is He
not only a power outside ourselves, but a power outside ourselves that
makes for righteousness? and does He hold personal relations to man,
and men definite and personal relations to Him? Why should man obey
God? And what is man that God is mindful of him? On these questions
the revelations from the works of nature are unsatisfactory, and
certainly need the supplemental knowledge that comes from the direct
revelations of God to man. Both John Stuart Mill and Dummelow state
the weakness or incompleteness of this Design Argument. The former
in his "Theism"--"Three Essays" pp. 167 et. seq., and the latter in
his "Belief in God." Nearly all our modern writers on the subject of
the "design argument" depreciate the treatment of it by Paley in his
"Natural Theology."
Footnotes.
1. Cf. Abbreviation of the latin Confere, i. e. "Compare."
2. John Stuart Mill, the above title is a subdivision in his "Three
Essays on Religion." (1874 Edition.)
3. This Commentary is a fine one-volume work, and gives the very latest
results of Modern Scholarship in reference to Bible interpretation. Its
article on "Belief in God," cited above, will be published in the Era
for January.
4. See foot note from note 5, Lesson I of this Year Book.
LESSON III.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_III.--MISCELLANEOUS EVIDENCES AND ARGUMENTS FOR THE DIVINE
EXISTENCE._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. The Soul's Innate Consciousness A History of Christian
of God._ Doctrine (Shedd), Vol. I,
Book III, pp. 223-240.
General History of the
Christian Religion (Neander),
Vol. I Appendix,
pp. 557-560.
_II. The Argument from "The General Confessions of St. Augustine
Consent of Mankind."_ (Oxford Translation),
Book X, pp. 186-188.
"Theism" (Mill), pp. 161-166[1]
(1) Luke x:21, 22;
John xvii.
(2) Acts xvii: 22-28.
Notes 4, 5, 6, 7.
_Special Text: "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand
at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms shall
destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." Job xix:25_.
_NOTES._
1. _Patristic Arguments:_ "The Patristic arguments for the Divine
Existence rest mainly upon the innate consciousness of the human
mind. They magnify the internal evidence for this doctrine. * * *
* God was conceived as directly manifesting himself to the moral
sense, through that Divine Word or Reason who, in their phraseology,
was the manifested Deity. In their view, God proved his existence by
his presence to the mind. In the Western Church, particularly, this
immediate manifestation and consequent proof of the Divine Existence
was much insisted upon. Augustine in his Confessions implies that
the Deity evinces His being and attributes by a direct operation--an
impinging, as it were, of Himself, upon the rational soul of His
creatures." (History of Christian Doctrine (Shedd) Vol. I, pp. 229-30.)
2. _The "Heart" Knowledge of God:_ "This _heart knowledge_
is, after all, to each individual who has it, the most direct form
of evidence for the existence of God--the personal intercourse with
Him of our personal spirit--the communion in virtue of which we can
say, 'I know that there is a God because I know him. I experience in
prayer and sacrament and meditation a conviction of His reality and His
presence which is quite as real to me as is the conviction that those
things exist which I can touch and see. This conviction is clearest
and strongest when I am at my best, and I attribute all that is best
and highest in my character to such communion, as thousands have done
before me.'
"This is the kind of Knowledge of God that cries aloud to us from the
Psalms and Prophecies, and underlies the other writings of the Old
Testament. And the perfection of this communion is to be found in Jesus
Christ as portrayed for us in the Synoptic Gospels (Lk. 10:22; cf. Mk.
13:32), but especially in St. John (5:19 cf. 10:15, 30; cf. 14:11,
etc.) and reaches its climax in the great high-priestly prayer of Jn.
17. After our Lord's Ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit, it
takes the form, for Christ's members, of a fellowship with the blessed
Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. (2 Cor. 13:14; cf. 1 Jn. 1:3.)
"Being, however, in one sense, a purely personal and individual matter,
this sense of communion is commonly thought to be too subjective to
be adduced as an argument for the existence of God. It is always open
to an objector to say, 'You assert that you have this feeling; I am
willing to admit your sincerity, but you may be the victim of illusion.
All I can say is that I have no such feeling myself.' To such an
assertion it seems perhaps inadequate to reply, 'If you will but assume
first provisionally (as we have to assume many things in practical
life,) that existence which you cannot demonstrate, and then act upon
the assumption, conviction will come with experience.' Yet such a reply
may be enforced and corroborated with all the weight of more than
nineteen centuries of personal experience. Generation after generation
of martyrs and saints have testified in the strongest possible manner
to their conviction that God is, and is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him.' (Heb. 11:6); and have been ready to seal the
conviction with their life's blood. ("Belief in God," Dummelow's
Commentary, p. c.)
_The General Sense of the Divine Existence Deepened by
Christianity:_ "The consciousness of the God in whom we live, move
and have our being. This, too, [by reason of Christianity] became,
in believers, a more living, a more profound sentiment. They [the
Christians] felt more strongly and vividly the all-pervading presence
of that God who made himself to be felt by them in nature, and whose
existence to the spirit is undeniable. It was to this undeniable
fact of consciousness, indeed, they appealed, in endeavoring to lead
the pagans away from the gods which they themselves had made to the
acknowledgment of the only true God. This appears to us as the one
common feature in the mode of expressing themselves on this subject,
which prevailed among the church fathers, amid all the differences of
form between those whose education had led them through the Platonic
philosophy, and such men as Tertullian, who--a stranger and an enemy to
philosophical culture--witnessed, in an original manner, of that which
had penetrated deeply into the vigorous but stern individuality of his
character." (History of the Christian Religion (Neander), Vol. I, pp.
55-66.)
2. _The Spirit of Man Intuitively Conscious of Truth:_ Somewhat
akin to this "Heart Knowledge" of God is the following very remarkable
passage in one of the revelations of God through Joseph Smith:
"Intelligence or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither
indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God
has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise
here is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is
the condemnation of man, because that which was from the beginning is
plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every
man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation, for man
is spirit." (Doc. & Cov., Sec. xciii.) As if the Lord would say: Truth
is native to the spirit of man, when unrestrained by man's perverse
will--when he has not reached the point where he chooses darkness
rather than light because his deeds are evil--then Truth is native to
the spirit of man and will, when unrestrained, intuitively rise to meet
it as flame leaps toward its kindred flame and unites with it. And it
is because the spirit of man refuses to live true to this quality of
his spirit that he comes under condemnation when rejecting the truth.
The Prophet Joseph emphasized this doctrine in his public teachings.
On one occasion he said: "Every word that proceedeth from the mouth
of Jehovah has such an influence over the human mind--the logical
mind--that it is convincing without other testimony. Faith cometh by
hearing." (Hist. of the Ch. Vol. V, p. 526.)
3. _Defect of "Soul Consciousness" Argument:_ "They [who accept the
soul conscious argument] labor under the common infirmity that one man
cannot by proclaiming with ever so much confidence that he perceives
an object, convince other people that they see it too. If, indeed, he
laid claim to a divine faculty of vision, vouchsafed to him alone, and
making him cognizant of things which men, not thus assisted, have not
the capacity to see, the case might be different. Men have been able
to get such claims admitted; and other people can only require of them
to show their credentials. But when no claim is set up to any peculiar
gift, but we are told that all of us are as capable as the prophet of
seeing what he sees, feeling what he feels, nay, that we actually do
so, and when the utmost effort of which we are capable fails to make us
aware of what we are told we perceive, this supposed universal faculty
of intuition is but
'The dark lantern of the spirit
Which none see by but those who bear it;'
and the bearers may fairly be asked to consider whether it is not more
likely that they are mistaken as to the origin of an impression in
their minds, than that others are ignorant of the very existence of an
impression in theirs." "Theism" (Mill, p. 162.)
The proper answer to this argument is found in Note 2, this lesson.
4. _The Consent of Mankind:_ "As far back as Cicero in the first
century B. C. or even earlier, pagan thinkers had observed that
religion in some form or other is a universal trait in human nature.
And though in modern days apparent exceptions of 'atheistical tribes'
have been adduced to prove the contrary, the trend of anthropological
science may be said on the whole to support the judgment of antiquity.
There may indeed be savages (though the point has not been proved)
among whom no definite trace of religious observance can be discerned;
but are they normal representatives even of undeveloped humanity?
Is there no such thing as degradation? And have not even these poor
savages some vestige at least of the religious faculty? For that is
all our argument really requires. The world-wide progress of Christian
missions to the heathen seems to testify quite triumphantly that no
race or tribe of men, however degraded and apparently atheistic, lacks
that spark of religious capacity which may be fanned and fed into a
mighty flame.
"Granted, then, that the religious faculty is practically universal
among mankind, what is the significance of this fact? From ancient
times it has been regarded as an argument--often (wrongly) as a proof
that God exists. It is called the argument 'from the general consent of
mankind.'" (Belief in God, Dummelow's Commentary, p. ci.)
5. _Existence of Gods by Universal Consent:_ "In the question now
before us, the greater part of mankind have united to acknowledge
that which is most probable, namely, that there are Gods. * * * *
* * Here, then, you see the foundation of this question clearly
laid; for since it is the constant and universal opinion of mankind,
independent of education, custom, or law, that there are Gods, it
must necessarily follow that this knowledge is implanted in our
minds, or, rather, innate in us. 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; for in this we have
the concurrence, not only of almost all philosophers, but likewise of
the ignorant and illiterate. It must be also confessed that the point
is established that we have naturally this idea, and as I said before,
or prenotion, of the existence of the Gods." (Tusculan Disputations
(Cicero) Yonge's Translation, pp. 225-6.)
6. _Cotta's Comment:_ On the matter of the foregoing note Cicero
represents "Cotta" the Academician, as commenting as follows:
"You have said that the general assent of men of all nations and all
degrees is an argument strong enough to induce us to acknowledge the
being of Gods. This is not only a weak, but a false, argument; for,
first of all, how do you know the opinions of all nations? I really
believe there are many people so savage that they have no thoughts of a
Deity." (Ibid. p. 231.)
7. _Spencer's Comment on Universality of Religious Ideas:_
"Religious ideas of one kind or other are almost universal. Admitting
that in many places there are tribes who have no theory of creation,
no word for a deity, no propitiatory acts, no ideas of another
life--admitting that only when a certain phase of intelligence is
reached do the most rudimentary of such theories make their appearance;
the implication is practically the same. Grant that among all races
who have passed a certain stage of intellectual development there
are found vague notions concerning the origin and hidden nature of
surrounding things; and there arises the inference that such notions
are necessary products of progressing intelligence. Their endless
variety serves but to strengthen this conclusion; showing as it does a
more or less independent genesis--showing how, in different places and
times, like conditions have led to similar trains of thought, ending
in analogous results. That these countless different, and yet allied,
phenomena presented by all religions are accidental or factitious, is
an untenable supposition. A candid examination of the evidence quite
negatives the doctrine maintained by some that creeds are priestly
inventions." ("First Principles," Appleton & Co.'s Edition of 1896, pp.
13, 14.)
Footnotes
1. As these works of reference may be somewhat difficult to obtain,
copious notes are made for this lesson.
LESSON IV.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_III. MISCELLANEOUS EVIDENCES AND ARGUMENTS FOR THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.
(Continued.)_
_I. THE ARGUMENT FROM "A FIRST CAUSE."_
_ANALYSIS_ _REFERENCES._
_I. Definition of Cause._ "Theism" (Mill)
"Three Essays on Religion."
pp. 142-154.
_ II. Necessity of Causation to John Fisk's "Cosmic
Account for the External World._ Philosophy." Vol. I,
Chapter vi on "Causation."
"First Principles,"
Herbert Spencer, pp. 37-44
_ III. Mind as the Originator and pp. 95-96.
of Force._
_ IV. The Substitution of "Eternal (1) Note 1.
Cause" for "First Cause."_
(2) Notes 2 and 3.
(3) Notes 4, 5, 6, 7.
(4) Notes 8, 9.
_SPECIAL TEXT: Intelligence, or the Light of Truth, was not created or
made, neither indeed can be. (Doc. & Cov., Section cxiii, 30_)
_NOTES._
1. _Definition of Cause:_ "The power or efficient agent producing
anything or event; agent or agency; as gravitation is the cause of the
stone's falling; malice is a cause of crime. * * * In a comprehensive
sense, all the circumstances, (powers, occasions, actions, and
conditions) necessary for an event and necessarily followed by it; the
entire antecedent of an event. _Efficient Cause,_ the power or
agency producing anything or event; _Material Cause,_ the material
out of which by the efficient causes anything is made; _Formal
Cause,_ the pattern, place, or form according to which anything is
produced by the operation of efficient causes; _Final Cause,_--God
as uncaused and as the original source of all power, change, motion,
and life. Styled by Plato and Aristotle the "Prime Mover." (Standard
Dictionary, Funk and Wagnall.) The four last forms of the definition
are known as "Aristotelian Causes."
2. _Evidence of Causation in the External World:_ "The
consideration of the external world around him, even in its broadest
aspect, leads man up to the thought of an Eternal Cause; the study of
its phenomena in detail with its marvelous intricacy of harmonious
interaction produces the impression of design, and leads to the thought
of a Designer--i. e., of an Eternal Cause that is intelligent and free.
"Man finds in himself a principle of causality in the light of which he
interprets the external world. He cannot help regarding the succession
of phenomena which he observes as effects--attributing each to some
cause, When he examines that again he discovers it to be no true or
absolute cause, but itself the effect of something further back, and so
on. He finds in himself the nearest approach to a _vera causa._ Yet
he would recognize the absurdity of calling himself self-caused. And
the mind cannot rest in an endless chain of cause-effects. There must
be, he feels, if you go far enough back, a real cause, akin, in some
way, to man's own power of origination, yet transcending it--a cause
that owns no cause--no source of being--but itself." (Belief in God,
Dummelow's Commentary, p. ci.)
3. _The Mind and the Necessity of Causation:_ "The mind is
compelled to believe in the necessity of causation, and that the
cultivated mind, which can realize all the essential conditions of
the cause, is compelled to believe in its universality. For what is
the belief in the necessity and universality of causation? It is the
belief that every event must be determined by some preceding event and
must itself determine some succeeding event. And what is an event?
It is a manifestation of force. The falling of a stone, the union of
two gases, the blowing of a wind, the breaking of wood or glass, the
vibration of a cord, the expansion of a heated body, the sprouting of
a seed, the circulation of blood, the development of inflammation, the
contracting of a muscle, the thinking of a thought, the excitement of
an emotion,--all these are manifestations of force. To speak of an
event which is not a manifestation of force, is to use language which
is empty of significance. Therefore, our belief is that necessity and
universality of causation is the belief that every manifestation of
force must be preceded and succeeded by some equivalent manifestation.
Or, in an ultimate analysis, it is the belief that force, as manifested
to our consciousness, can neither arise out of nothing nor lapse into
nothing--can neither be created nor annihilated. And the negation of
this belief is unthinkable; since to think it would be to perform
the impossible task of establishing in thought an equation between
something and nothing."
4. _The "Eternal Cause":_ "The argument for a First Cause admits of
being (existence), and is, presented as a conclusion from the whole of
human experience. Everything that we know (it is argued) had a cause,
and owed its existence to that cause. How, then, can it be but that the
world, which is but a name for the aggregate of all that we know, has a
cause to which it is indebted for its existence?
"The fact of experience, however, when correctly expressed, turns out
to be, not that everything which we know derives its existence from a
cause, but only every event or change. There is in nature a permanent
element, and also a changeable; the changes are always the effects of
previous changes; the permanent existences, so far as we know, are not
effects at all.[1] It is true we are accustomed to say not only of
events, but of objects, that they are produced by causes, as water by
the union of hydrogen and oxygen. But by this we only mean that when
they begin to exist, their beginning is the effect of a cause. But
their beginning to exist is not an object, it is an event, i. e., the
uniting of the elements that make the water. If it be objected that
the cause of a thing's beginning to exist may be said with propriety
to be the cause of the thing itself, I shall not quarrel with the
expression. But that which in an object begins to exist, is that in it
which belongs to the changeable element in nature; and the outward form
and the properties depending on mechanical or chemical combinations of
its component parts. There is in every object another and a permanent
element, viz., the specific elementary substance or substances of which
it consists and their inherent properties. These are not known to us
as beginning to exist; within the range of human knowledge they had no
beginning, consequently no cause; though they themselves are causes
or con-causes of everything that takes place. Experience, therefore,
affords no evidences, not even analogies, to justify our extending
to the apparently unmutable, a generalization grounded only on our
observation of the changeable.
"As a fact of experience, then, causation cannot legitimately be
extended to the material universe itself, but only to its changeable
phenomena; of these, indeed, causes may be affirmed without any
exception. But what causes? The cause of every change is a prior
change, and such it cannot but be; for if there were no new antecedent,
there would not be a new consequent. If the state of facts which brings
the phenomenon into existence, had existed always or for an indefinite
duration, the effect also would have existed always or been produced
an indefinite time ago. It is thus a necessary part of the fact of
causation, within the sphere of our experience, that the causes as well
as the effects had a beginning in time, and were themselves caused.
It would seem, therefore, that our experience, instead of furnishing
an argument for a first cause, is repugnant to it; and that the very
essence of causation as it exists within the limits of our knowledge,
is incompatible with a First Cause.
"But it is necessary to look more particularly into the matter, and
analyze more closely the nature of the causes of which mankind have
experience. For if it should turn out that though all causes have a
beginning, there is in all of them a permanent element which had no
beginning, this permanent element may, with some justice, be termed a
first or universal cause, inasmuch as though not sufficient of itself
to cause anything, it enters as a _con_-cause into all causation.
Now it happens that the last result of physical inquiry, derived from
the converging evidences of all branches of physical science, does,
if it holds good, land us, so far as the material world is concerned,
in a result of this sort. Whenever a physical phenomenon is traced to
its cause, that cause when analyzed, is found to be a certain quantum
of Force, combined with certain collocations. And the last great
generalization of science, the 'Conservation of Force,' teaches us that
the variety in the effects depends partly upon the amount of the force,
and partly upon the diversity of the collocations. The force itself
is essentially one and the same; and there exists of it in nature a
fixed quantity, which, (if the theory be true), is never increased
or diminished. Here, then, we find, even in the changes of material
nature, a permanent element; to all appearances the very one of which
we were in quest. This it is apparently to which, if to anything, we
must assign the character of First Cause, the cause of the material
universe. For all effects may be traced up to it, while it cannot be
traced up, by our experience, to anything beyond; its transformations
alone can be so traced, and of them the cause always includes the
force itself; the same quantity of force, in some previous form. It
would seem, then, that in the only sense in which experience supports
in any shape the doctrine of a First Cause, viz, as the primaeval and
universal element in all causes, the First Cause can be no other than
Force." ("Theism" Mill. "Three Essays on Religion," pp. 142-145.)
5. _Of Mind as Originating Force:_ Mr. Mill in his treatise on
Theism, from which the foregoing note is quoted, recognizes the fact
that the conclusion with which our quotation ends, is not the last
word on the subject. On the contrary, he recognizes the fact that the
greatest stress of the argument comes forward at that point. "For,"
Mr. Mill goes on to say, "it is maintained that _mind_ is the only
possible cause of Force; or rather, perhaps, that Mind is a force, and
that all other forces must be derived from it inasmuch as mind is the
only thing which is capable of originating change. This is said to be
the lesson of human experience. In the phenomena of inanimate nature
the force which works is always a pre-existing force, not originated,
but transferred. One physical object moves another by giving out
to it the force by which it has first been itself moved. The wind
communicates to the waves, or to a windmill, or a ship, part of the
motion which has been given to itself by some other agent. In voluntary
action alone we see a commencement, an origination of motion; since
all other causes appear incapable of this origination, experience is
in favor of the conclusion that all the motion in existence owed its
beginning to this one cause, viz, _voluntary agency,_ if not that
of man, then of a more powerful Being." ("Theism" (Mill) p. 146.) The
fact is, however, that mind, spirit, intelligence (representing one
thing) is eternal, not first, since there can be no first. (See Notes 8
and 9.)
6. _Mind not the Sole Originator of Force:_ "This argument," our
author suggests, "is a very old one, going back at least as far as
Plato, and is still a favorite argument with certain metaphysical
defenders of natural theology." But Mr. Mill holds that "if there be
truth in the doctrine that the total amount of force in the universe
remains constant, i. e., is not diminished nor increased, but remains
always the same (the fact is usually called the conservation of
force)--then "This doctrine does not change from true to false when it
reaches the field of voluntary agency." "The will," he goes on to say,
"does not any more than any other causes, create force; granting that
it originates motion, it has no means of doing so but by converting
into that particular manifestation a portion of force which already
existed in other forms. It is known that the source from which this
portion of force is derived, is chiefly, or entirely, the force evolved
in the processes of chemical composition and decomposition which
constitute the body of nutrition; the force so liberated becomes a
fund upon which every muscular and even every merely nervous action,
as of the brain in thought, is a draft. It is in this sense only, that
according to the best lights of science, volition is an originating
cause. Volition, therefore, does not answer to the idea of a 'First
Cause,' since Force must in every instance be assumed as prior to it;
and there is not the slightest color, derived from experience, for
supposing force itself to have been created by a volition. As far as
anything can be concluded from human experience force has all the
attributes of a thing eternal and uncreated.
7. _Volition Does Not Answer the Idea of a First Cause:_ Observe
the statement in the above note (6), "Volition, therefore, does
not answer to the idea of a First Cause; since force must in every
instance be assumed as prior to it." But why must Force "in every
instance be assumed as prior" to volition? May not eternal things
exist together as the two eternal things, matter and force, co-exist;
as duration and space co-exist? Indeed Mr. Mill in a tentative way
suggests the co-eternity of will and force as a possibility. "Whatever
verdict experience can give in the case," he remarks, "is against the
possibility that will ever originates force; yet if we can be assured
that neither does force originate will, will must be held to be an
agency, if not prior to force yet co-eternal with it; and if it be
true that will can originate, not indeed force but the transformation
of force from some other of its manifestations into that of mechanical
motion, and that there is within human experience no other agency
capable of doing so, the argument for a will as the originator, though
not of the universe, yet of the cosmos, or order of the universe,
remains unanswered." (Theism p. 148.)
8. _The "Eternal Cause."_ In the passage quoted in the above
note, Mr. Mill is very near the truth; and if only his term "will"
could be dropped for the term "Intelligence," which represents a
larger fact than volition merely, then Mr. Mill would be exactly
right. Intelligence stands for consciousness, self-consciousness and
consciousness of not-self; for reason; for judgment, the power that
after ratiocination determines that this state or thing is better than
that state or thing; and granting also that volition is a factor of
Intelligence, (and one sees not how it can be otherwise), grant this,
and also that intelligence is as eternal as force and matter, and you
have if not every element of a first cause, at least every element of
the "Eternal cause," which stands for the same thing--God!
But Mr. Mill insists, and very truly, that the statement last quoted
from him, in so far at least as it holds that "there is within human
experience no other agent capable of transforming force from some
other of its manifestations into that of mechanical motion," is not
conformable to fact. "Whatever volition can do," he says, "in the
way of creating motion out of other forms of force, and generally of
evolving force from a latent into a visible state, can be done by many
other causes. Chemical action, for instance, electricity, heat, the
mere presence of a gravitating body; all these are causes of mechanical
motion on a far larger scale than any volitions which experience
presents to us; and in most of the effects thus produced the motion
given by one body to another, is not, as in the ordinary cases of
mechanical action, motion that has first been given to that other by
some third body. The phenomenon is not a mere passing on of mechanical
motion, but a creation of it out of a force previously latent or
manifesting itself in some other form. Volition, therefore, regarded
as an agent in the material universe, has no exclusive privilege of
origination."
So let it be. But this does not diminish the value of that
transformation (and in a sense origination) of force by intelligence,
by reason of which order is brought forth from disorder--cosmos
from chaos. What matters it if great spaces of matter are "without
form and void," and "darkness is upon the face of the deep," if
only intelligence is there brooding over the mass to give purposive
direction to the forces there latent or blindly tumbling in chaotic
confusion, until light and orderly development shall bring forth worlds
to answer noble ends. And that the 'Eternal Cause' does thus operate
upon co-eternal force and eternal matter is witnessed by the orderly
universe, everywhere giving evidence of the reign of law. It is this
fact of an orderly universe, whose phenomena run backward through a
chain of causes that suggest a purposive Eternal Cause, back of it.
This necessity for an Eternal Cause makes that cause one of the sources
of man's knowledge of God.
9. _On the Use of the Phrase "Eternal Cause."_ It will be observed
that in the quotation made from the article "Belief in God," in
this lesson, (Note 2) that the term "Eternal Cause" is used instead
of "First Cause." It is used by the author of that Article without
explanation. Mr. Mill uses the term "First Cause" and "Eternal Cause"
interchangeably. The reason for our use of "Eternal Cause," instead of
"First Cause" will appear in part from the quotation made from Mill in
note 2, where the difficulty of arriving at a cause that is not itself
an effect to some preceding cause is pointed out; and where also it
is shown that "though all causes have a beginning, there is in all of
them a permanent element which had no beginning;" and "this permanent
element may with some justice be termed a first or universal cause."
In both Mormon Theism and Mormon philosophy, matter is eternal force,
the permanent element in all causation, according to the suggestion of
Mr. Mill, is eternal; and intelligence, with its power to direct force
to purposive ends, is eternal. "Intelligence, * * * was not created or
made, neither indeed can be." (Doc. and Cov. Sec. XCIII.) To talk of
"beginnings," then, or "firsts," in any absolute sense, in the midst of
these eternal things, is to talk nonsense.
As Mr. Herbert Spencer remarks, "We are no more able to form a
circumscribed idea of cause, than of space or time; and we are
consequently obliged to think of the cause which transcends the
limits of our thought as positive though indefinite. Just in the same
manner that on conceiving any bounded space there arrives a nascent
consciousness of space outside the bounds; so, when we think of any
definite cause, there arises a nascent consciousness of a cause behind
it; and in the one case as in the other, this nascent consciousness is
in substance like that which suggests it, though without form." (First
Principles, p. 95-6.)
It may be difficult, then, especially within the range of human
experience or even within human power of conception, to posit a cause
that is not itself an effect of some antecedent cause, in other words,
a "first cause;" but it is not difficult to apprehend an eternal cause,
co-existing with eternal matter and force; and by the interaction of
these eternal things an orderly universe under the reign of law is the
outcome. I say it is not difficult to apprehend an eternal cause. I
mean, of course, it is no more difficult to apprehend an eternal cause
than it is to apprehend any other eternal thing--matter or force or
extension.
Footnotes
1. Such as space, duration, matter, force. See Seventy's Second Year
Book, all the notes of Lesson V, pp. 28-32.
LESSON V.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
SPECIAL LESSON.
_ARE THE SOURCES OF MAN'S KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, APART FROM REVELATION,
SUFFICIENT FOR AN INTELLIGENT FAITH IN GOD?_
_NOTES._
1. _The Reason For No Analysis:_ As in all these special lessons,
no analysis of the subject is given in this one, the design being, that
helped by the analysis of other lessons, the student will exercise his
own ingenuity in planning his treatment of the subject here presented.
2. _Suggestions to the Class Teacher:_ This subject may with
profit be allotted to two or even more speakers. Permission should
be given members of the class to ask questions which the speakers in
these special lessons rather than the teacher should be required to
answer. Answering questions will be found to be a most excellent mental
exercise.
3. _Treatment of the Subject:_ From the nature of the subject
its treatment must be argumentative. See the suggestions as to
argumentative discourse, Seventy's Year Book No. II, pp. 68-72.
4. _Introduction, Discussion, Conclusion:_ Each speaker to the
above important, and rich-with-opportunity question, should remember
our old formula of the First and Second Year Book in relation to
speeches, lectures and discourses--viz: In what you say be sure to have
a beginning, a middle, and an end. That is to say, an introduction, a
discussion and a conclusion. See Seventy's Year Book No. 1, pp. 59-60
and also pp. 86-87.
5. _Suggestions to the Speakers:_ In both the First and the Second
Seventy's Year Book, frequent use of suggestions is made from the
work of Mr. Pittinger on "Extempore Speech," referring therein to the
formation of discourses, methods of preparation, gathering materials,
thought-gatherings, and the like. In these special lessons occasion
will arise to quote him again on other phases of the art of expressing
thought; and I know of nothing now that could be of more benefit to the
young student than what he says in relation to the--
6. _First Moment of Speech:_ "Having completed all your
preparations, you now anxiously await the commencement of the
intellectual battle. This period is often a severe trial. Men who are
physically brave sometimes tremble in anticipation of speedily standing
before an audience. The shame of failure then may appear worse than
death itself. As the soldier feels more of cold and shrinking terror
when listening for the peal of the first gun, than afterward, when
the conflict deepens into blood around him, so the speaker usually
suffers more in this moment of expectancy than in any that follows. You
behold the danger in its full magnitude, without the inspiration that
attends it. Yet whatever effort it may cost, you must remain calm and
collected, for if not master of yourself, you cannot expect to rule
others. Your material must be kept well in hand, ready to be used at
the proper time, though it is not well to be continually conning over
your preparation. That would destroy the freshness of your matter and
bring you to the decisive test weary and jaded. You only need such an
occasional glance as will assure you that all your material remains
within reach. It is seldom possible by any means to banish all fear,
and it is to the speaker's advantage that he cannot. His timidity
arises from several causes, which differ widely in the effects they
produce. A conscious want of preparation, expecially when this arises
from any neglect or indolence, is one of the most distressing sources
of fear. A species of remorse then mingles with the embarrassment
natural to the moment. If the speaker has no other motive than to win
reputation--to minister to his own vanity--he will feel terrified,
as he realizes that shame instead of honor may be the result of his
rashness. That man is fortunate who can say, "I only speak because
I feel it to be a duty which I dare not refuse--a work that I must
perform whether well or ill. The lawyer who must defend his client, the
minister who feels that the hour of service has arrived, the teacher in
the presence of his class, are examples of those who speak under the
same kind of compulsion that calls a field laborer out into the burning
heat of a July noon whether he feels like it or not." (Extempore
Speech, pp. 187-8.)
LESSON VI.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_IV. REVELATION._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. Definition of Revelation and 1. Seventy's Year
Inspiration._ Book No. 1, pp. 140-142.
Notes 3 and 4 of that
_II. The Revelation of God in the Bible._ lesson should be made
part of this. Note 1.
_III. In the Book of Moses and the Book
of Abraham. Pearl of Great Price._ "The Gospel" (Roberts)
Third Edition, Ch. x.
_IV. In the Book of Mormon._ (Covers all divisions
of this lesson.)
(2) Notes 2, 3, 4, 5.
(3) Note 6.
(4) Note 7.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth
any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will
reveal him." Matt. xi:27_.
_NOTES._
1. _Revelation By Divers Means:_ "Revelation is the name of that
act by which God makes communication to men. Inspiration is the name
of that influence, that divine influence which operates upon the minds
of men under which they may be said to receive divine guidance."
(Cambridge Bible Helps). The inspiration may be strong or it may be
weak. It may be so over-powering in its character that the person for
the time being loses largely his own individuality and becomes the
mouthpiece of God, the organ through which the Divine speaks to the
children of men. There exist all degrees of inspiration, from human
intelligence and wisdom slightly influenced, up to that fulness of
inspiration of which I have spoken. Revelations may be made from God to
man in various ways. They may be made by God in his own proper person,
speaking for himself. On such occasions I take it that the revelation
would be most perfect. I know of no more beautiful or complete
illustration of such a perfect revelation than that great revelation
with which the dispensation of the fulness of times began, when God the
Father and Jesus the Christ, stood revealed in the presence of Joseph
Smith, when every veil was removed, and the glory of God extended
throughout the forest in which the Prophet had prayed; when he heard
the Father speak to him as one friend speaks to another, saying:
_"Joseph, this is My beloved Son; hear him."_
Then followed a conversation with this second Divine personage, to
whom he was thus so perfectly introduced, and from whom he received
the light and knowledge that laid the foundations of the great
latter-day work--Mormonism. There was no imperfection whatsoever in
that revelation; it was complete, overwhelming, and one of the most
remarkable revelations that God has deigned to give to the children of
men. Revelations may be made, and have been made, by the visitation
of angels, such as when Moroni came and revealed the existence of the
Nephite record, the American volume of scripture, the Book of Mormon;
and who afterwards from time to time, met with the Prophet of the last
dispensation and gave him knowledge and information as to the manner
in which the Church should be organized, and how its affairs should be
conducted. Then again, revelations may come through the operations of
the Holy Spirit upon the mind of man, as when the Prophet Joseph took
Urim and Thummim and with them and by their aid, under the influence
of the Holy Spirit, translated the Book of Mormon into the English
language. In a similar manner the Lord influences the minds of his
servants when preaching the gospel, and thus delivers his word to the
Church and to the world.
Through all these various means God speaks, and it is our good fortune
to be his witnesses, that he speaks in these various ways as well in
modern days as in ancient times.
2. _The Bible Revelation of God:_ "The knowledge of God with which
the Bible provides us is of a progressive character. It was revealed
'in many parts and in many modes' as men were able to receive it. We
therefore find a fuller knowledge in the New Testament than in the
Old, and among the Prophets than among the Patriarchs. Throughout the
Bible the existence of God is taken for granted; we are not supplied
with arguments to prove it. In earlier days men sometimes had doubts
as to whether God felt any interest or took any part in the affairs of
men, but they never doubted that He exists. The Bible teaches that the
knowledge of God is possible for us, not because he makes himself known
unto us; i. e. we are taught that there is such a thing as Revelation,
God has come forth, out of the "thick darkness" (I K 8:12) in which he
dwells, and has declared himself to His servants in such a way that we
may get a true knowledge of His character and of his purposes and of
his purposes for the world." (Cambridge Teachers Bible Dictionary.)
("Seventy's Bible," pp. 64-65).
3. _The Presence of God in the Bible:_ "The statements about God in
Holy Scripture are uttered with an air of authority, dogmatically; not
as the result of a long chain of reasoning: 'The Lord said' this--did
that--or more emphatically, in the form of a message, 'Thus saith
the Lord,' the teaching of the Bible is not the result of deductive
or inductive reasoning. No direct arguments are adduced to prove the
existence of God--that is assumed throughout. His attributes may
be the subject of argument; His existence, never. His justice, His
wisdom, His power may be momentarily obscured by the mystery of evil
in the world--as in the book of Job. Incidentally we may get arguments
dealing with the nature of the Deity, as e. g. the interesting a
fortiori argument from creature to Creator in Ps. 94. 'He that made
the eye, shall he not see?' etc., which logically carried out becomes
in inference of personality in God from man's personality--there are
arguments such as these either stated or suggested in Holy Scripture,
but the existence of God never comes within their scope. It lies
behind all else; it is the fundamental conception in the light of
which all else is viewed. Not only in the Pentateuch and the Prophets
and the Psalms, but in the historical narratives--in the brief and
apparently barren records of the accession, regnal years, and death
of the various kings, it is made clear that God's hand is at work
throughout the course of events, and that He is the ever-present Judge
by whom the actions of kind and subject alike are weighed. Even in the
Book of Esther, in which the divine name never once occurs, no doubt
is left upon the mind as to the providential over-rulings of events
both great and small. Nay, in those books which are least formally
theological--Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, the works of the 'wise
man,' the humanists or philosophers of Israel--the thought of God is
present from first to last. They do not grope and search after Him
like the great pagan thinkers. They set out, not to discover, but to
recognize Him; to learn from His dealings with nature and human nature
more about that divine personality who is the primary presupposition
of all their system, and with whom their heart holds sacred communion
even while the intellect stands baffled before the insoluble problems
involved in His permission of evil in the world He rules." "Belief in
God." Dummelow's Commentary, R. C.
4. _The Bible "A Picture of the World With God at Work In It:"_
The Bible, as we have said, does not offer arguments to prove the
existence of the Deity, but it offers something which is far more
valuable to most of us than any abstract proof. It gives us a
concrete, experimental, descriptive theology. It shows us a picture
of the world with God at work in it, which the devout, appreciative
soul instinctively recognizes as truth. It offers us, largely
in the concrete form of narrative and history, a theory of the
universe which, rightly understood, is found to meet the demands
of hearts and minds alike; revealing a God whose character is such
and whose relation to man is such that in Him both our needs and
our aspirations find satisfaction. At the same time it incidentally
provides a theory of human nature (see especially Gen. 1-3) that
affords the only satisfactory key to the raison d'etre of those needs
and aspirations--the explanation of man's actual littleness and his
potential greatness."--Ibid. D. C.
5. _The Relations of the Testimony of Nature and Revelation:_
"In the first place, then, the indications of a Creator and of his
attributes which we have been able to find in nature, though so much
slighter and less conclusive even as to his existence than the pious
mind would wish to consider them, and still more unsatisfactory in the
formation they afford as to his attributes, are yet sufficient to give
to the supposition of a revelation a standing point which it would not
otherwise have had. The alleged Revelation is not obliged to build up
its case from the foundation; it has not to prove the very existence
of the being from whom it professes to come. It claims to be a message
from a being whose existence, whose power, and to a certain extent
whose wisdom and goodness, are, if not proved, at least indicated with
more or less of probability by the phenomena of nature. The sender
of the alleged message is not a sheer invention; there are grounds
independent of the message itself in his reality; grounds which, though
insufficient for proof, are sufficient to take away all antecedent
improbability from the supposition that a message may really have been
received from him. It is, moreover, much to the purpose to take notice,
that the very imperfection of the evidences which Natural Theology can
produce of the Divine attributes, removes some of the chief stumbling
blocks to the belief of a revelation; since the objections grounded on
imperfections in the revelation itself, however conclusive against it
if it is considered as a record of the acts or an expression of the
wisdom of a being of infinite power combined with infinite wisdom and
goodness, are no reason whatever against its having come from a being
such as the course of nature points to, whose wisdom is possibly, his
power certainly, limited, and whose goodness, though real, is not
likely to have been the only motive which actuated him in the work of
Creation." "Theism" (Mill). From "Three Essays on Religion." (1874).
The whole work can be studied with great profit as confirmation of many
revealed truths of our day to be found in Mr. Mill's deductions; also
upon the same line of thought may profitably be consulted, Book III of
Shedd's "History of Christian Doctrine," the chapter on "Evidence of
the Divine Existence."
6. _The Revelation of God in the Pearl of Great Price:_ The Book of
Moses and the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price [1] follow
the Bible in the peculiarity of making no argument for the existence of
God. That existence is assumed. The opening paragraphs of the Book of
Moses plunge one immediately into the very presence of God. Thus: "The
words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught
up into an exceeding high mountain, and he saw God, face to face, and
he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses, therefore
Moses could endure his presence. And God spake unto Moses, saying:
Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and endless is my name; for I am
without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?
And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the
workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end,
and also my words, for they never cease. Wherefore, no man can behold
all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all
my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth." (Chapter 1.)
The Book of Abraham with equal force assumes the existence of God, and
its opening paragraphs deal with Abraham seeking his rights to the
Priesthood of God, and announcing himself as one who was a "follower of
righteousness," * * * "and desiring to receive instruction, and to keep
the commandments of God;" and so following. The existence of God is a
settled question; and the books here considered are chiefly of value
because, like the revelations of the Bible, they unfold the nature of
God, and his relationship to man, rather than argue for his existence.
7. _The Book of Mormon on the Existence of God:_ The Book of
Mormon, like the Bible, takes the existence of God as a thing granted;
and only in one remembered instance is the question of God's existence
argued. This is in the case of the controversy between Alma, the High
Priest, and the desperate Anti-Christ, Korihor. The latter denied
the existence of God; Alma affirmed it. Korihor demanded a sign in
attestation of the Divine existence. Alma appealed to the consciousness
of God in the soul of man as manifest in his own knowledge and the
experience of others that were present; to the testimony of the
prophets, to the scriptures, and to the creation, as being a witness
to the existence of a Creator--"all things denote there is a God; yea,
even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it; yea, and
its motion; yea, and also the planets which move in their regular form,
(order)--* * * * * witness that there is a supreme Creator." And from
this basis of testimony he affirms the existence of God, and justifies
the Priesthood of God, and the Church, in the course that is pursued in
teaching faith in and obedience to God; (Alma XXX: 37-44) and the hope
of salvation through the atonement of the Messiah.
Footnotes
1. For the origin, contents, and character of this collection of
revelations see Seventy's First Year Book, Part V, Lessons V, VI and
VII.
LESSON VII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_IV. REVELATION.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_V. Revelation of God in the Doctrine Doc. & Cov. Lectures
and Covenants._ on Faith, Lecture II,
also Sec. xx:17-28; also
_VI. The Revelation of God to Joseph Sec. lxxvi:1-24. Notes 1
Smith._ and 2.
"New Witnesses for
God," Vol. I, Ch. x. "History
of the Mormon
Church." Americana,
Vol. iv, (1909), Ch. v.
Pearl of Great Price,
Writings of Joseph
Smith, Ch. ii. Note 3.
_SPECIAL TEXT: I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy
all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto
me calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other: "Joseph, this
is My beloved Son, hear Him." Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, p.
85. (Edition of 1902.)_
_NOTES._
1. _The Doctrine and Covenants on the Existence of God:_ The
Doctrine and Covenants in the main is a collection of Revelations
given through Joseph Smith. The revelations are not a formal treatise
on theology. In all the revelations the existence of God, as would
naturally be expected, is assumed. "There is a God in heaven who
is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the same
unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things that
are in them." (Doc. & Cov. Sec. XX; 17). This declaration is made in
the revelation which directed the organization of the Church to be
made, on the 6th day of April, 1830. So all through the revelations,
God's existence is proclaimed, but never argued: "Hear, O Ye Heavens,
and give ear O Earth, and rejoice ye inhabitants thereof, for the
Lord is God, and beside Him there is no Savior. Great is His wisdom,
marvelous are His ways, and the extent of His doings none can find out.
His purposes fail not, neither are there any who can stay his hand;
from eternity to eternity he is the same and his years never fail. *
* * And now after the many testimonies which have been given of him,
this is the testimony last of all, which we give of him, that he lives;
for we saw Him, even on the right hand of God, and we heard the voice
bearing record that He is the Only Begotten of the Father--that by Him,
and through Him, and of Him the worlds are and were created and the
inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." Doc. &
Cov., Sec. LXXVI. This kind of proclamation recurs at times in other
revelations.
2. _The Lectures on Faith:_ In the fore part of the Doctrine and
Covenants there is a series of six lectures on faith. The lectures, of
course, are not on the same level of authority with the revelations.
They constitute a treatise on the subject of their title drawn up by
a committee appointed from among the Elders of the Church by the High
Council at Kirtland, on the 24th of September, 1834. The committee
consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick
G. Williams. (History of the Church, Vol. II, p. 165.) The lectures
were first delivered to a class of elders at Kirtland during the winter
of 1834-5, under the title of "Lectures on Theology." The Prophet
alludes to the circumstance in his journal as follows, under date of
December 1st, 1834: "Our school for the Elders was now well attended,
and with the lectures on theology, which were regularly delivered
absorbed for the time being, everything else of a temporal nature."
(Hist. of the Church, Vol. II, pp. 175-6.) On the first of January
following he refers to the same subject as follows: "During the month
of January I was engaged in the school of the Elders and in preparing
the lectures on theology for publication in the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants which the committee [above named] appointed last September
were now compiling."
The following is a foot note from page 176 of the History of the
Church, Volume II: These "Lectures on Theology" here referred to were
afterwards prepared by the Prophet, (See p. 180), and published in the
Doctrine and Covenants under the title "Lectures on Faith." They are
seven in number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the current
editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are not to be regarded
as of equal authority in matters of doctrine with the revelations of
God in the Doctrine and Covenants, but as stated by Elder John Smith,
who, when the book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the
several quorums of the Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17, 1835,)
speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High Council, "bore record that
the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were
judicially written and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine."
The distinction which Elder John Smith here makes should be observed
as marking the difference between the Lectures on Faith and the
revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants. (See also Seventy's
First Year Book, Part V, Lesson I, pp. 135-138.)
3. _The Objective Reality of Joseph Smith Vision:_ Did the visions
of Joseph Smith have objective reality, or were they purely subjective,
mere creations of the mind? This question has been extensively debated.
Of course, from the Mormon point of view, the visions had objective
reality. That is to say, the Divine personages of the first vision were
tangible, bodily persons. One of them, in fact, was the risen Christ,
who, when he arose from the dead left a tomb empty; who, to some of
his doubting disciples, on appearing to a number of them after his
resurrection, said "handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bone as ye see me have." And who in further attestation of the reality
of his bodily existence ate of a fish and honey-comb in the presence
of these same disciples. And we have warrant even of the Athanasian
Greed that "such as the Father is, such is the son;" and conversely it
follows of necessity that as the Son is, so is the Father! Hence the
Father a tangible reality, a personage of flesh and bone as indeed was
and is the Christ.
_The Singularity of Joseph Smith's Vision of God:_ Joseph Smith's
vision of God is the most singular of any given to mortal man. The
only other vision that approaches it is that of Stephen described in
Acts VII. "He being full of the Holy Ghost looked up steadfastly unto
heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand
of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man
standing on the right hand of God." Then the Jews cried out with a
loud voice, stopped their ears that they might not hear his supposed
blasphemy, and ran upon him with one accord, and stoned him to death.
Stephens's vision of God, however, is not equal to Joseph Smith's
vision for distinctiveness of view, and definiteness of revelation of
the Father's person. Hitherto it could be said--"And no man knoweth * *
* * the Father save the Son, and He to whomsoever the Son will reveal
Him (Matt. xi:27); also "No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him." (John i:18.) The Father according to these sayings--except for
the vision of Stephen--had kept in the background of revelation; for
the Jehovah of the Jews--God--was but the pre-existent spirit of the
Christ of the New Testament. (See also revelation of Moriancumer,
the brother of Jared, Ether III.) But when the "dispensation of the
Fulness of Times" was being ushered in, it was fitting that a fulness
of knowledge of God should be revealed to the first great witness and
prophet of that dispensation. Fitting, too, that the Father should
introduce the son to that witness and prophet. Nowhere else is there a
vision of God so perfect, and glorious as in that vision with which the
dispensation of the fulness of times opens--the dispensation in which
it is promised that all things shall be gathered together in one--"all
things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are in earth, even
to him. (Eph. I:10).
LESSON VIII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR REVELATIONS._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. The Earth and its Relations to the Gen. i, ii. Doc. & Cov.,
Universe._ Sec. 88:42-61. New Witnesses
for God, Vol. I.
_II. The Revelations of God to Moses (Treatise on Joseph Smith.)
Limited to Our Earth and Related Chs. xxviii, xxix,
Spheres._ xxx. Notes 1, 2, 3, 4.
Book of Moses, Chs. i,
ii. Seventy's Year Book
No. II, Lesson V, note
10. Notes, this lesson,
5, 6.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and darkness was upon the face of the
deep; and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Gen.
i_:1, 2.[1]
_NOTES._
1. _View of the Universe, (a) Mediaeval:_ In past ages what was
called the geocentric theory, that is, earth-center theory, respecting
the universe prevailed. It was believed that the earth was in shape
flat, and the immovable center of the universe; that about it circled
sun, moon and stars in regular order. Indeed it was supposed that the
specific and only purpose for which the sun was formed was to give
light and heat to the earth; and the moon and stars were formed to give
light by night in the absence of the sun. Above the earth was bent the
vast dome of the blue sky, its edges apparently resting on the supposed
circumfluous waters. Above the blue sky was heaven, the abode of God
and the blest; and under the earth was the dark region of hell, into
which was thrust the wicked--the damned. It was believed that God,
about six thousand years ago, created by a word, out of nothing, all
this universe--earth, sun, moon, stars, and all things in the earth.
That man and all living creatures were moulded from the dust, and
then had breathed into them the spirit of life, and so became living
creatures. This was the view "authoritatively asserted by the church."
(Draper.)
2. _Views of the Universe, (b) Modern:_ The views expressed in
note 1, however, by our modern knowledge is changed. The modern view
enforced by absolute knowledge respecting the universe is thus stated
by John W. Draper: "As there are other globes like our earth, so, too,
there are other worlds like our solar system. There are self-luminous
suns exceeding in number all computation. The dimensions of the earth
pass into nothingness in comparison with the dimensions of the solar
system, and that system, in its turn, is only an invisible point if
placed in relation with the countless hosts of other systems which
form, with it, clusters of stars. Our solar system, far from being
alone in the universe, is only one of an extensive brotherhood, bound
by common laws and subject to like influences. Even on the very verge
of creation, where imagination might lay the beginning of the realms
of chaos, we see unbounded proofs of order, a regularity in the
arrangement of inanimate things, suggesting to us that there are other
intellectual creatures like us, the tenants of those islands in the
abysses of space. "Though it may take a beam of light a million years
to bring to our view those distant worlds, the end is not yet. Far
away in the depths of space we catch the faint gleams of other groups
of stars like our own. The finger of a man can hide them in their
remoteness. Their vast distances from one another have dwindled into
nothing. They and their movements have lost all individuality; the
innumerable suns of which they are composed blend all their collected
light into one pale milky glow."
"Thus extending our view from the earth to the solar system, from
the solar system to the expanse of the group of stars to which we
belong, we behold a series of gigantic nebula creations rising up one
after another, and forming greater and greater colonies of worlds.
No numbers can express them, for they make the firmament a haze of
stars. Uniformity, even though it be the uniformity of magnificence,
tires at last, and we abandon the survey, for our eyes can only behold
a boundless prospect, and conscience tells us our own unspeakable
insignificance." Draper's Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol.
II, p. 299. New Witnesses for God, Vol. I (Treatise on Joseph Smith)
Chapter XXVIII.
3. _Larger Worlds and Larger World-Systems than Ours:_ "These
distant suns are, many of them, much larger than our sun. Sirius, the
beautiful Dog-star, is (so far as can be judged by its amount of light)
nearly 3,000 times larger, and therefore its system of dependent worlds
must be so much more important than those which form our solar system.
Its planets may far exceed ours in size and revolve at far greater
distances; for such a sun would throw its beams of light and heat very
much beyond a distance equal to that of our Neptune."--Samuel Kinns,
Ph. D., F. R. A. A. S., in "Harmony of the Bible with Science," second
edition, p. 238.
"Man when he looks upon the countless multitudes of stars--when he
reflects that all he sees is only a small portion of those which exist,
yet that each is a light and life-giving sun to multitudes of opaque,
and therefore invisible worlds--when he considers the enormous size of
these various bodies and their immeasurable distance from one another,
may form an estimate of the scale on which the world (universe) is
constructed." "Intellectual Development of Europe," Vol. II, p. 279.
4. _The Argument Based Upon the Data of Notes One, Two and Three:_
The argument to be based upon the preceding notes is this: Since our
earth, and even our solar system, as presented to us by our modern
knowledge, is so insignificantly small and doubtless inferior to the
more splendid worlds and world-systems of the universe, it would
be ridiculous to suppose that the revelations granted to us in our
written scriptures were intended to cover all things pertaining to the
limitless universe and its equally limitless sentient inhabitants. It
is more reasonable to suppose that the revelations vouch-safed to us
through our seers are revelations pertaining to our earth and associate
spheres--(its heavens); our God, and those intelligences that pertain
to our earth and that order of things with which it is associated.
5. _The Vision of Moses:_ "And it came to pass, as the voice (of
God) was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth,
yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did
not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God. And he beheld also the
inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not;
and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were
great, even numberless as the sands upon the sea shore. And he beheld
many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants
on the face thereof. And it came to pass that Moses called upon God,
saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou
madest them? And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that
Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face.
And the Lord God said unto Moses: "For mine own purpose have I made
these things. Here is wisdom, and it remaineth in me. And by the word
of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who
is full of grace and truth. And worlds without number have I created;
and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created
them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I
called Adam, which is many." (Book of Moses--Pearl of Great Price--Ch.
I).
6. _The Limits of Moses' Special Revelation:_ "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 God spake unto Moses, saying:
"The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but
they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall
pass away, and the heavens thereof, even so shall another come; and
there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is
my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life
of man. 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." (Book of Moses--Pearl of Great Price--Ch. I:35-40.)
"And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold,
I reveal unto you concerning this Heaven, and this Earth; write the
words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God;
by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I
created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest. And the
earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon
the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water;
for I am God. And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was
light."--Thence the revelation proceeds much as in Genesis, chapters
one and two. (See Book of Moses--Pearl of Great Price--Ch. II:1-3.)
Footnotes
1. _"In the Beginning:"_ When the Bible says, "In the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth"; and "thus the heavens and the
earth were finished and all the hosts of them," it has reference not
to any "absolute beginning," or "absolute finishing," but only to the
"beginning" and "finishing" as pertaining to our earth and the order of
creation with which it is connected, and the "hosts" that pertain to
our order of existence, not absolutely to all existences.
LESSON IX.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR REVELATIONS--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_III. Revelation Respecting God, Limited I Cor. viii:5, 6.
to the Divine Presidency of Our Mormon Doctrine of
Earth and Related Spheres.--Its Deity, pp. 156, 159. Ibid.
Heavens._ 229-233.[1] Also Sermon
of the Prophet, June 16,
1844. Mill. Star, Vol. 24,
p. 108 et seq. Notes.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and
that there is none other God but one. 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, of whom are
all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things." I Cor. viii:4-6_.
_NOTES._
[Transcriber's Note: start of this paragraph appears to be missing
due to a printer's error in the original.] the passage from Paul, "We
know an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God
but one. 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, of whom are all things, and we in him." (I
Cor. VIII, 5, 6.) Commenting, I say, upon this, the Prophet said: Paul
says there are Gods many, and Lords many, * * * * but to us there is
but one God--that is, pertaining to us; and he is in all and through
all, [i. e., His influence or spirit permeates his dominions.] But if
Joseph Smith says there are Gods many, and Lords many, they cry:--"Away
with him, crucify him, crucify him! * * * Paul, if Joseph Smith is a
blasphemer, you are. I say there are Gods many, and Lords many, but to
us only one; and we are to be in subjection to that one. * * * * * *
Some say I do not interpret the Scriptures the same as they do. They
say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many, and
Lords many, and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims
of all men. You know, and I testify, that Paul had no allusion to the
heathen gods. I have it from God. * * * I have a witness of the Holy
Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in
the text." (Discourse at Nauvoo, July 16, 1844. Mill. Star, Vol. 24, p.
108, et seq.)
_2. The Argument Based on the Data of Note One:_ The argument to be
based upon the data of note one, and the whole subject of Lessons VIII
and IX is this: If "pertaining to us" there is only one God to whom we
are subject, then the revelations received are concerning him and his
relations to our race; and our race's relations to him; they concern
themselves with our race's past and future, and its salvation. Those
revelations relate to our earth and its heavens or associated spheres.
And while in a far off way we may dimly know that other mighty Divine
Intelligences exist and preside over and guide the destinies of other
worlds, still directly associated with our world, and our race is One
Mighty Intelligence whom we recognize as the Father; another whom we
recognize as the Son; another intelligence, unbodied in tabernacle of
flesh and bone, a personage of spirit, whom we recognize as the Holy
Spirit; and these three constitute one presiding council or God-head of
our earth and its heavens. It is no more a marvel that we should have a
God-head or great Presiding Council for our earth than that we should
have a sun for it; and our having a great Presiding Council or God-head
for our earth or our world-system would no more be in conflict with
like grand councils for other worlds and world-systems than our sun
would conflict, disrupt or injure other suns of other world-systems,
since all are of the same nature, and act under the universal reign of
law that preserves the harmony and nicely balanced forces and processes
of the universe. So, too, the divine Intelligences of the universe are
of "one nature in manifold persons;" "a system of self-acting beings
forming a unity"--a free harmony of individual Divine Intelligences
governing their world and world-systems under the universal reign of
moral and spiritual laws.
3. _The Three Personages of Our God-Head:_ "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." (Gems, Richard and Little Compendium.)
I have not been able to find this passage in any of our Church annals,
except in the "Gems" of the "Richard & Little Compendium." It stands
there on the authority of the late Elder Franklin D. Richards, of the
Council of the Twelve, and Historian of the Church. It is also in
harmony with the whole tenor of the Prophet's teaching on the subject
of the God-Head, in the last year of his life.
4. _The Pros and Cons of Psalms 82:6 and I Corinthians 8:5, 6:_
_Mr. Van Der Donckt:_ "Two of these texts, for instance, have the
significant qualification: 'Being called gods.' 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. "Although there be that are
_called gods_ either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many
and lords many); yet to us there is but one God" (1 Corinthians 8:5,
6). Jesus answered, referring to Psalm 82:6, "Is it not written in your
law: I said ye are Gods? If he _called_ them gods to whom the word
of God was spoken" * * * (John 10:34, 35). Neither Christ nor Paul say
that they are or were gods, but simply that they are called gods.
_Mr. Roberts' Answer:_ One wonders at this argument 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
gain-said. Nor is this indorsement of David's utterance weakened by
the subsequent remark of Jesus, "If he called them Gods 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 from
him, viz., "There be Gods many and Lords many; yet to us there is
but one God." * * * * 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 Fulness of Times, should
take up the same refrain as these ancient servants of God, and say,
"Pertaining to us, there is but one God." ("Mormon Doctrine of Deity,"
Roberts-Van Der Donckt discussion.)
Footnotes
1. This reference may carry the student beyond the immediate point of
the subject in hand, but it will be well for him to read the pages of
the work indicated, and then extract from them what is there said which
bears immediately upon the point in the lesson.
LESSON X.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
(SPECIAL LESSON.)
_THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS' SUPERIOR GROUNDS FOR FAITH IN THE EXISTENCE
OF GOD._
(A DISCOURSE)
_NOTES._
1. _Suggestion to the Speaker:_ (a) Suggestions for constructing
a discourse or lecture will be found in the Seventy's Year Book, No.
I, pp. 59, 60; also 86, 87; and Year Book No. II, pp. 113-115; also
149-150.
(b) The theme of this lesson will call for both expository and
argumentative treatment. Of argumentative treatment of a subject
something, and doubtless enough, has been said in Seventy's Year Book,
No. II, pp. 68-71, and it only remains to say a word on exposition.
"Exposition consists merely in explaining the meaning of a proposition
or subject, and giving proof and reasons for the explanations made.
It consists in defining terms and setting forth a subject in its
various relations, or "presenting principles or rules for the purpose
of instructing others." A treatise on grammar, for instance, consists
principally of exposition. This Year Book is an exposition of the
"Doctrine of Deity." "Clearness being the chief object (of exposition),
and the nature of the subject excluding ornament, this kind of matter
should be presented in a neat, concise style." (Quackenbos Rhetoric.)
2. _The First Moment of Speech:_ In our last special lesson a
word was said in relation to the "first moment" of speech. Further
suggestions from the same authority then quoted may not be amiss
here. "The most formidable and common foe of the speaker's, in these
preliminary moments, is a general dread that can neither be analyzed
nor accounted for. Persons who have never felt its power sometimes make
light of it, but experience will change their views. The soldier who
has never witnessed a battle, or felt the air throb with the explosion
of cannon, or heard the awful cries of the wounded, is often a great
braggart; while "the scarred veteran of a hundred fights" never speaks
of the carnival of blood without shuddering, and would be the last,
but for the call of duty, to brave the danger he knows so well. There
may be a few speakers who do not feel such fear, but it is because
they do not know what true speaking is; they have never known the full
tide of inspiration which sometimes lifts the orator far above his
conceptions, but which first struggles in his own bosom like the pent
fires of a volcano. They only come forward to relieve themselves of the
interminable stream of twaddle that wells spontaneously to their lips,
and can well be spared the pangs preceding the birth of a powerful and
living discourse.
"This kind of fear belongs to every kind of speaking, but is most
intense on those great occasions, in presence of large audiences, when
men's passions run high. In mere instructive address, where the ground
has been repeatedly gone over and where the effort is mainly of an
intellectual character, it is less noticeable. It resembles the awe
felt on the eve of all great enterprises, and when excessive, as it is
in some highly gifted minds, it constitutes an absolute bar to public
speech. But in most cases it is a source of inspiration rather than of
repression." ("Extempore Speech," Pittenger, pp. 188-9.)
The lesson in the above passage is that the young speaker should not
be discouraged because he experiences this fear--"man-fearing spirit,"
it is sometimes called--at the beginning of a discourse. The more
frightened he is the more hope is there that, ultimately, he will
succeed; for his very fright, or dread, is a sure token that he has
the necessary nervous temperament, the sensitiveness, essential to his
success in this most wonderful accomplishment of instructive speaking.
3. _Strength, Force, Emphasis:_ In the special lessons in Year Book
No. II, the subject of "clearness" in speech was dwelt upon repeatedly.
In this and the remaining special lessons in this Year Book, something
will be said of _"strength or force"_ in speech, and a few
suggestions made as to the things essential to acquire this, after
clearness, most desirable quality of expression.
The three terms at the head of this note are used because they are
employed by various text books; they mean, however, the same thing.
Strength, as the property of a good style in speaking or writing,
consists in such a use and arrangement of words as will make a deep
impression on the mind of the reader or hearer.
"The first requisite of strength is the rejection of all superfluous
words, which constitutes one of the elements of precision also.
Whatever adds nothing to the meaning of a sentence takes from its
strength; and, whether it be simply a word, a clause, or a member,
should be rejected. In the following passage, the words in black type
convey no additional meaning, and, consequently, a regard for strength
requires their omission."
Examples: 1. "_Being_ satisfied with what he has achieved, he
attempts nothing further."
2. "_If I had not been absent,_ if I had been here, this would not
have happened."
3. "The very first discovery of it strikes the mind with inward joy,
_and spreads delight through all its faculties_."
Observe the difference in strength when the unnecessary words are
eliminated:
1. Satisfied with what he has achieved, he attempts nothing further.
2. If I had been there, this would not have happened.
3. The very first discovery of it strikes the mind with inward joy.
PART II.
_Conceptions of God._
LESSON XI.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. Antediluvian Knowledge of God; Genesis, Ch. iii-x.
Testimony of--_ Book of Moses, Chs. iv-viii,
1. Adam, Inclusive. Especially
2. Enoch, v:4-9, 11, 12; vi:1; 56-58.
3. Noah, Doc. & Cov. Lecture
on Faith No. II, verses
_II. Postdiluvian Knowledge of God; 18-20; also v. 30-36.
Testimony of--_ "The Gospel" (Roberts),
Ch. ix (3d Edition),
Note 1. Genesis, Chs. iii-x.
Book of Moses as
above. Lecture on Faith
No. II, 37-56.
Ether, Chs. I, II, III.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the
day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and
female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam,
in the day when they were created." (Gen. v:12.)_
_NOTES._
1. _Sources of Information:_ The sources of information in this
lesson are so completely within the reach of all that notes upon the
various subdivisions are not considered necessary.
2. _Lecture II On Faith:_ Too much cannot be said of the value of
the Second Lecture on Faith in the Doctrine and Covenants. Nowhere else
is the manner in which faith in God was brought into the world and
preserved among men, so well worked out as in that lecture. It is a
very instructive bit of literature, and should be highly prized by the
ministry of the Church.
3. _Parallel Between Adam and Noah:_ Each of these great patriarchs
occupies a singular relationship to the question of faith in God. Each
stood at the head of a great dispensation of the Gospel. Each received
the commandment--"Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth,"
(Gen. I:28, and Gen. IX:1); and as Adam brought with him the knowledge
of God for men from beyond the "Fall"--from Eden to this side Eden, so
Noah brought the knowledge of God for men from beyond the flood to this
side the flood, and is a great witness for God to men. Adam is Michael.
(Doc. & Cov. Sec. cvii:54.) Noah is Gabriel. (Hist. of the Church, Vol.
III, p. 386); and each was the "Father of all living" in his day.
4. _Importance of the Period Covered in this Lesson:_ To be
well versed in the history of the period covered by this lesson,
is important. Especially in relation to the knowledge of God that
then existed among men; for the knowledge then revealed became the
foundation of that belief in God found in subsequent generations of
men in the nations of antiquity. Also in this period will be found the
roots of those myths and fables in relation to gods, with which some
nations and races of men were pleased to amuse, and at last deceive
themselves. Believe me, it is not a waste of time to study the historic
period from Adam to Noah; and from Noah to Abraham.
5. _Testimony of Moriancumer:_ Let the student also give more than
a passing thought to Moriancumer, the Brother of Jared, of the Book of
Mormon. He brought the knowledge of God to the Western hemisphere; and
the revelation of God to him (Ether: III), was most important, since it
was the source of the knowledge of God to that great Jaredite empire
which endured for sixteen hundred years in the Western hemisphere, and
which was one of the greatest nations of antiquity. (Ether i:42, 43,
and xv:2).
LESSON XII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_III. The Course of Ancient Nations in Meditation and Atonement.
General in Turning from God._ (President John Taylor)
Appendix, pp. 190-205.
_IV. The Nations of the Euphrates Valley._ "History of All Religions"
(Burder), Introduction.
1. Babylon. Also Part VI, p. 505 et seq, Notes
1, 2, 3.
2. Assyria. Gen., Chs. ix, x, xi.
Book of Abraham, Ch. 1.
3. Chaldea. "The World's Worship"
(Dobbins), Ch. v. Myers'
4. Babylonian and Assyrian Beliefs "General History," Ch. iv.
in God. Burder's "History of
All Religions," pp. 511-519.
Oxford and Cambridge
Bible Helps and "Bible
Treasury," Articles on
Babylonia and Assyria.
The Book of Daniel,
Chs. i-v.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "And I will sanctify My great name, which was profaned
among the heathen which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the
heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall
be sanctified in you before their eyes." Ezekiel xxxvi:23._
_NOTES._
1. _Early Corruption of the Doctrine of Deity:_ Believing that the
knowledge of God in this world, started with the information which Adam
brought with him through the fall, from Eden (See Lesson I, this Book),
and with the revelations given in his day, it is believed by the writer
that all traditions and conceptions of God which afterwards obtained in
very ancient nations were influenced more or less by that knowledge;
and that in so far as confusion, mystery and idolatry respecting the
being and character of God existed among those nations, it resulted
from the early apostasy of men in ancient times from God. On this head
the late President John Taylor held the following strong views:
"It is an important fact, holding good of other ancient civilizations
as well as that of Egypt, that the farther we trace back their
religious beliefs and mythologies, the purer does the creed become,
the nearer it approaches to heavenly truth, and the stronger and
more evident are the traces of gospel teachings. This fact alone is
sufficient to prove that paganism had its origin in the revelations
of heaven, from which, in its various diverse branches, it had turned
and strayed, and by gradual growth, had become the vile, inconsistent,
degrading and loathsome system which is abhorred by all pure-minded,
honorable and intelligent people. Had the various forms of ancient,
dominant, pagan worship been radically and entirely different, with
only those features in common that could reasonably be attributed to
accident or the inter-communication of races, the inference would be
strong that they had different origins; but when, as is the case,
there is a strong family likeness, and that likeness grows stronger
the further it is traced back, and continually points to a common
parentage, and that parentage is the truth as taught by the early
patriarchs and inspired servants of heaven, our conclusions must
necessarily be that these correct and God-given teachings were the
source from whence the whole sprang, and the differences in development
arose from the varied incidents in the history, and the peculiar
surroundings of the various races that gave a local hue and tinge to
their forms of belief." (Mediation and Atonement, pp. 196-7).
2. _On the Great Diversity of Beliefs in God:_ "A great diversity
of religious opinions has prevailed in the world, and different forms
of ceremonies have been and still are observed. The religious notions
and practices of mankind early diverged from one another,--the 'sons of
men' were soon distinguished from 'the sons of God,' the impious from
the holy,--and notwithstanding the purgation of the world by a flood,
and the subsequent re-establishment of one common faith no sooner did
the earth begin to be peopled again, than a diversity of religions
took place, each nation and tribe embracing some peculiarity of its
own. Such has been the fact, through all the intervening periods of
history, to the present day. Each distinct portion of the human family,
especially its larger divisions, has had its separate religious dogmas
and practices, ranging from pure theism to the grossest idolatry."
(Burder's History of All Religions, Introduction, p. 9).
3. _On The Cause of Departure From True Conceptions of God:_ After
determining, by extended discussion, that the great diversity in
men's beliefs respecting God does not arise from chance, nor external
circumstances, nor from any necessity arising from the nature of man's
mind, nor from the want of revelation, William Burder, in his great
work on the "History of All Religions," finds the true cause of man's
departure from the knowledge of God in the radical depravity of the
human heart. "Is not that the true cause?" he inquiries. "It seems
to us that it can be resolved into no other. Of the depravity of the
human heart we are not permitted to doubt, in view of the decisions of
the Bible and the results of observation. This, existing and reigning
in all men, by nature, would readily dispose them to a diversity of
religious views and practices, or rather irreligion under various
names. It would readily dispose them to depart from the true belief,
and to cast off the restraints of the divine authority. They would be
prone to invent many schemes and devices with a view to appease an
upbraiding conscience, and to gratify that ceaseless love of novelty,
which characterizes the human mind. Except in those in whom the effects
of depravity are counteracted by divine grace, there would exist a
continual propensity to depart from God and his institutions--to
lose sight of religious truth, and become involved in gross darkness
and superstition. In such a state, the mind is prepared for every
absurdity--
'Nations ignorant of God, contrive
A wooden one.'
"Hence have arisen the altars and demons of heathen antiquity, their
extravagant fictions, and abominable orgies. Hence we find among the
Babylonians and Arabians the adoration of the heavenly bodies, the
earliest form of idolatry; among the Canaanites and Syrians, the
worship of Baal, Tammuz, Magog and Astarte; among the Phoenicians, the
immolation of children to Moloch; among the Egyptians divine honors
bestowed on animals, birds, insects, leeks, and onions; among the
Persians, religious reverence offered to fire; and among the polished
Greeks, the recognition in their system of faith of thirty thousand
Gods." (Burder's History of All Religions, p. 12).
4. _Babylonia and Assyria:_ "These were the two great Eastern
empires before which all the old states of Syria and Palestine fell.
We learn their history partly from the Bible narrative, and also from
contemporary monuments written in cuneiform characters and recently
deciphered.
"Babylonia or Shinar (Gen. 10:10) is the alluvial country on the
lower course of the Euphrates and Tigris, of which Babel or Babylon
[the same] was the chief city. Assyria, or Asshur, occupied the
Tigris valley to the north of Babylonia. Its center lay on the left
bank of the Tigris, where the great city of Nineveh stood, opposite
Mosul. Babylon and Nineveh were long rivals, but they had a common
civilization, of which the southern alluvium was the original home.
Their language was Semitic, but in the southern country the Semites
seem to have been preceded by another race from whom they acquired many
things in their culture and religion, and to whom the origin of their
peculiar cuneiform system of writing is generally ascribed. In process
of time Assyria became the stronger power, and after the Egyptians
retired from Mesopotamia, it began to push forth beyond its original
limits." (Cambridge Bible Dictionary--70's Bible--p. 14).
5. _The Second Babylonian Kingdom--Or Chaldea:_ The supremacy of
the Assyrian Empire over the old, or first, Babylonian Monarchy, lasted
but little more than a century. It began 728 B. C. and was overthrown
625 B. C. (Myers' General History, cf. pp. 33, 47.)
"Nabopolassar (625-605 B. C.) was the founder of what is known as
the Chaldean or New Babylonian Empire. At first a vassal king, when
troubles began to thicken about the Assyrian court, he revolted and
became independent. Later he entered into an alliance with the Median
king against his former suzerain. Through the overthrow of Nineveh and
the break-up of the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian kingdom received
large accessions of territory. For a short time thereafter Babylon
filled a great place in history. Nabopolassar was followed by his son
Nebuchadnezzar, whose renown filled the ancient world. One important
event of his reign was the taking of the rebellious city of Jerusalem.
The temple was stripped of its sacred vessels of silver and gold, which
were carried away to Babylon, and the building itself was given to the
flames; a part of the people were also carried away into the "Great
Captivity, 586 B. C." (Myers' General History, p. 47.)
6. _The fall of the Chaldean, or Second Babylonian Empire. (538
B. C.):_ "The glory of the New Babylonian Empire passed away with
Nebuchadnezzar. To the east of the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates
there had been growing up an Aryan kingdom, the Medo-Persian, which, at
the time now reached by us [558-529 B. C.] had become a great imperial
power. At the head of this new empire was Cyrus, a strong, energetic,
and ambitious sovereign. Coming into collision with the Babylonian king
Nabonidus, he defeated his army in the open field, and the gates of the
strongly fortified capital, Babylon, were without further resistance
thrown open to the Persians." (Myers' General History, p. 48).
With the fall of Babylon the scepter of dominion, borne so long by
Semitic princes, was given into the hands of the Aryan peoples, who
were destined from this time forward to shape the main course of events
and control the affairs of civilization.
7. _The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria:_ "The religion of the
country was a combination of the Shamanistic belief [1] (i. e., a
belief that each force of nature had its "spirit," good or bad) of the
original Accadian population, along with the nature-worship of the
Semitic conquerors. Inscriptions which have been recently deciphered,
show that the Babylonians had accounts of the creation and deluge, in
many ways similar to those given in the book of Genesis." (Cambridge
Bible Dictionary--70's Bible--p. 17).
8. _Underlying Principles of Assyrian-Babylonian Beliefs:_ "The
religion of Assyria and Babylonia, was, in its essential principles,
and in the general spirit of its conceptions, of the same character
of the religion of Egypt, and in general as all pagan religions.
When we penetrate beneath the surface which gross Polytheism has
acquired from popular superstition, and revert to its original and
higher conceptions, we shall find the whole based on the idea of
the unity of the Deity, the last relic of the primitive revelation,
disfigured indeed and all but lost in the monstrous ideas of pantheism;
confounding the creature with the Creator; and transforming the Deity
into a god-world, whose manifestations are to be found in all the
phenomena of nature. Beneath this supreme and sole God, this great
ALL, in whom all things are lost and absorbed, are ranked in an
order of emanation corresponding to their importance, a whole race
of secondary deities who are emanations from His very substance, who
are mere personifications of His attributes and manifestations. The
differences between the various pagan religions, is chiefly marked by
the differences between these secondary divine beings. * * * * The
Chaldea-Assyrian, especially devoted to astronomy, saw in the astral,
and especially in the planetary system, a manifestation of the divine
being. They considered the stars as His true external manifestation,
and in their religious system made them the visible evidence of the
subordinate divine emanations from the substance of the infinite
being, whom they identified with the world, his work." (The World's
Worship--Dobbins--pp. 126, 127).
9. _The Supreme God of the Assyrians--Ilu:_ "The supreme god, the
first and sole principle from whom all other deities were derived, was
Ilu, whose name signified God par excellence. Their idea of him was
too comprehensive, too vast, to have any determined external form,
or consequently to receive in general the adoration of the people. *
* * * In Chaldea it does not seem that any temple was ever specially
dedicated to him; but at Nineveh, and generally throughout Assyria, he
seems to have received the peculiarly national name of 'Asshur' (whence
was derived the name of the country, Mat Asshur), and this itself seems
related to the Aryan name of the deity Asura. With this title he was
great god of the land, the especial protector of the Assyrians, he who
gave victory to their arms. The inscriptions designate him as "Master,
or Chief of the Gods." He it is, perhaps, who is to be recognized in
the figure occasionally found on the Assyrian monuments (but probably
adopted in later times by the Persians to represent their Ormuzd),
representing a human bust, wearing the royal tiara in the middle of
a circle borne by two large eagle wings, and with an eagle's tail."
(World's Worship,--Dobbins--pp. 126, 127).
10. _Doubts of a Supreme God:_ Myers doubts of there being a
conception of a supreme God in the religion of the Bablyon-Assyrian
peoples. "At the earliest period made known to us by the native
records, we find the pantheon to embrace many local deities (the patron
gods of the different cities and nature gods); but at no period do we
find a Supreme God. The most prominent feature from first to last of
the popular religion was the belief in spirits, particularly in wicked
spirits, and the practice of magic rites and incantations to avert
the malign influence of these demons. A second important feature of
the religion was what is known as astrology, or the foretelling of
events by the aspect of the stars. This side of the religious system
was most elaborately and ingeniously developed until the fame of the
Chaldean astrologers was spread throughout the ancient world." Yet this
Historian admits that, "alongside these low beliefs and superstitious
practices, there existed, however, higher and purer elements. This is
best illustrated by the so-called penitential psalms, dating, some of
them, from the second millennium B. C., which breathe a spirit like
that which pervades the penitential psalms of the Old Testament."
In confirmation of this statement, he quotes one of these psalms,
translated by Jastro:
"O, my god, who art angry with me, accept my prayer!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
May my sins be forgiven, my transgressions be wiped out.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(May) flowing waters of the stream wash me clean!
Let me be pure, like the sheen of gold."
(Myers' General History, p. 38.)
"The cuneiform writings on the tablets," says James Freeman Clarke,
author of 'Ten Great Religions,' "show us that the Assyrians also
prayed." "On an unpublished tablet in the British Museum, is this
prayer of King Asshur-da-ni-pal, B. C. 650:
"May the look of pity that shines in thine eternal face dispel my
griefs.
"May I never feel the anger and wrath of the God.
"May my omissions and my sins be wiped out.
"May I find reconciliation with Him, for I am the servant of His
power, the adorer of the great gods.
"May Thy powerful face come to my help; may it shine like
heaven, and bless me with happiness and abundance of riches.
"May it bring forth in abundance, like the earth, happiness and every
sort of good." (Ten Great Religions, p. 234).
10. _The Assyrian Triads--Trinities:_ "Below Ilu, the universal and
mysterious source of all, was placed a triad, composed of his three
first external and visible manifestations, and occupying the summit of
the hierarchy of gods in popular worship. Anu, the Oannes of the Greek
writers, was the lord of darkness; Bel, the demiurgus, the organizer
of the world; Ao, called also Bin, that is, the divine 'Son' par
excellence, the divine light, the intelligence penetrating, directing
and vivifying the universe. These three divine persons esteemed as
equal in power and consubstantial, were not held as of the same degree
of emanation, but were regarded as having on the contrary, issued the
one from the other--Ao from Oannes, and Bel from Ao. Oannes, the "Lord
of the Lower World, the Lord of Darkness," was represented on the
monuments under the strange figure of a man with an eagle's tail, and
for his head dress an enormous fish, whose open mouth rises over his
head, while the body covers his shoulders. It is under this form that,
Berosus tells us, according to Babylonian tradition, he floated on the
surface of the waters of Chaos. Bel, the 'Father of the Gods,' was
usually represented under an entirely human form, attired as a king,
wearing a tiara with bull's horns, the symbol of power. But this god
took many other secondary forms, the most important being Bel-Dagon, a
human bust springing from the body of a fish. We do not know exactly
the typical figure of Ao or Bin, 'the intelligent guide, the Lord of
the visible world, the Lord of Knowledge, of Glory and Light.' The
serpent seems to have been his principal symbol; though some other
sculptured figures seem to be intended to represent Bin.
"A second triad is produced with personages no longer vague and
indeterminate in character, like those of the first, but with a clearly
defined sidereal aspect, each representing a known celestial body, and
especially those which the Chaldeo-Assyrians saw the most striking
external manifestations of the deity; these were Shamash, the sun; Sin,
the moon god; and a new form of Ao or Bin, inferior to the first, and
representing him as god of the atmosphere or firmament. Thus did they
industriously multiply deities and representations of them." (World's
Worship--Dobbins--p. 128-9).
11. _Observations on This Lesson:_ The notes on this lesson are
copious; made so because it is quite possible that the books quoted may
not be within reach of many of the students, and yet, of course, they
convey a very incomplete idea of the views of the Babylonian-Assyrians
respecting God. It is suggested that some of the members of the class
make special preparation on the subject, by a careful study of the
authorities cited in the references given in the analysis of the lesson
(and other authorities), and deliver a public lecture on the subject.
It is really rich in points of contact with the great Latter-day work,
which will suggest themselves to any well-informed Elder.
Footnotes
1. _Shamanism:_ "A general name applied to the idolatrous religions
of a number of barbarous nations. * * These nations generally believe
in a supreme being, but to this they add the belief that the government
of the world is in the hands of a number of secondary gods, both
benevolent and malevolent toward man, and that it is absolutely
necessary to propitiate them by magic rites and spells. The general
belief respecting another life appears to be that the condition of
man will be poorer and more wretched than the present, hence death is
regarded with great dread." (Century Dictionary.)
LESSON XIII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_V. Belief of the Egyptians:_ Book of Abraham (P.G.P.),
Ch. i, 16-31. Hist.
1. Origin of the Egyptians. of Ancient Egypt (Rawlinson
1882), Ch. iii.
2. Egyptians a Deeply Religious Book of Abraham, A
People. Divine and Ancient Record
(Reynolds), Ch. iv.
3. Esoteric and Exoteric Religion Notes 1, 2.
in Egypt.
Hist. Ancient Egypt
4. Significance of Animal Worship (Rawlinson), Ch. x.
by Egyptians. Burder's "Hist. of All
Religions," Part vi, pp. 505
et seq. "Story of
the World's Worship"
(Dobbins), Ch. v. Notes
3, 4, 5.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians
shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation;
yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord and shall perform it." Isaiah
xix:21._
_NOTES._
1. _Origin of the Egyptians:_ Speaking of the king of Egypt, who
was reigning at the time the Lord called Abraham to be His witness
among men, the patriarch said: "Now this king of Egypt was a descendant
from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the
Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and
thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. The land of
Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham,
and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt,
which signifies that which is forbidden. When this woman discovered
the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and
thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
Now, the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the
eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner
of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal." (Book of Abraham--P.
G. P.--Ch. 1; verses 21-26).
2. _Confirmation of Statements From Book of Abraham on Origin of
Egyptians:_ The student will find the origin of the Egyptians,
according to standard secular histories upon the subject--Bunsen,
Rawlinson, Wilkinson, and the Encyclopaedia Articles--wrapped in
mystery. These facts, however, may be gathered from the authorities
referred to above, that tend to confirm the important information
given in the Book of Abraham quoted in note 1, with reference to the
Egyptians: "Although located in Africa [they] were not an African
people (i. e., not an indigenous race). * * * * The Egyptian language,
while of a peculiar type, has analogies which connect it both with the
Semitic and with the Indo-European forms of speech, more especially
with the former. We must regard the Egyptians, therefore, as an
Asiatic people, immigrants into their own territory, which they
entered from the East." (History of Ancient Egypt--Rawlinson--Vol.
I, Ch. III). The theory that the Egyptians immigrated from the
South--Ethiopia--down the Nile, is discussed by these writers, but
usually discredited. Josephus, when speaking of one of the ancient
Egyptian kings Sethosis, says, upon the authority of Manetho, that
"Sethosis was called 'Egyptus,' and that the country also was called
from his name, 'Egypt'" (Against Apion, Book I:15). Which circumstance,
doubtless, is but a confusion of the more ancient facts related in
the Book of Abraham with reference to "Egyptus," wife of Ham, son
of Noah, whose descendants inhabited Egypt. Her name, "Egyptus,"
signifying "that which is forbidden," proclaims her race, a descendant
of Cain, the murderer, with whose seed the descendants of Adam,
through Seth--to whom pertained the covenants and promises of the
priesthood,--were forbidden to inter-marry. But Ham, it appears,
violated that injunction, and married into Cain's race. His wife's
name was 'Egyptus,' signifying "forbidden"; and their daughter, who
discovered the valley of the Nile and settled her sons in it, was
also called "Egyptus" (Cf. v. 23 and 25, Ch. i. Book of Abraham),
and her name, following or, perhaps, one had better say, originating
the custom of ancient nations in naming lands and cities after the
persons discovering them, or founding them, or who were prominently
connected with their history, (see New Witness for God, Vol. III, pp.
139-42),--her name was given to the land she discovered and settled.
3._ Ancient Egyptians Essentially A Religious People:_ The
"Egyptians," said Herodotus, writing in the middle of the fifth
century before our Era--"The Egyptians are religious to excess, far
beyond any other race of men." "Religion permeated the whole being
of the people," writes Rawlinson; and then quoting Lenormant, says:
"Writing was so full of sacred symbols and of allusions to mythology,
that it was scarcely possible to employ it on any subject which lay
outside the religion." Then again: "To understand the Egyptians, it
is thus absolutely necessary to have something like a clear idea of
their religion. The subject is, no doubt, one of great complexity
and considerable obscurity; the views of the best authorities with
respect to it still differ to no small extent; but a certain number
of characteristic features, belonging to the inner life, seem to have
obtained general recognition while there is a still more complete
agreement as to the outward presentation of the religion in the habits
and actions of the people." (Rawlinson's History of Ancient Egypt, Vol.
I, pp. 322-3).
4. _Dual Nature of the Egyptian Religion:_ "It appears to be
certain that the Egyptian religion, like most other religions in the
ancient world, had two phases or aspects: One, that in which it was
presented to the general public or vast mass of the population. The
other, that which it bore in the minds of the intelligent, the learned,
the initiated. To the former, it was a polytheism of a multitudinous,
and, in many respects, of a gross character. To the latter it was a
system combining strict monotheism with a metaphysical, speculative
philosophy on the two great subjects of the nature of God and the
destiny of man, which sought to exhaust those deep and unfathomable
mysteries. Those who take the lowest views of the Egyptian religion,
admit that 'the idea of a single, self-existent deity,' was involved in
the conceptions which it set forth, and is to be found not unfrequently
in the hymns and prayers of the ritual. It is impossible that this
should have been so, unless there were a class of persons who saw
behind the popular mythology, understood its symbolical or metaphysical
character, and were able in this way to reconcile their conformity
to the established worship with the great truths of natural religion
which, it is clear, they knew, and which they must have cherished in
their heart of hearts."
5. _Esoteric Doctrine of the Egyptians:_ "The primary doctrine of
the esoteric religion undoubtedly was the real essential Unity of the
Divine Nature. The sacred texts taught that there was a single Being,
'The sole producer of all things both in heaven and earth, Himself not
produced of any'--'the only true, living God, self-originated'--'who
exists from the beginning'--'who has made all things, but has not
Himself been made.' This _'Being'_ seems never to have been
represented by any material, even symbolical, form. It is thought
that He had no name, or, if He had, that it must have been unlawful
either to pronounce or write it. He was a pure Spirit, perfect in every
respect--all-wise, almighty, supremely good.
6. _The Gods of the Egyptian Popular Mythology:_ "The gods of the
popular mythology were understood, in the esoteric religion, to be
either personified attributes of the Deity, or parts of the nature
which He had created, considered as informed and inspired by Him Num,
or Kneph, represented the creative mind, Phthah the creative hand,
or act of creating; Maut represented matter, Ra the sun, Khons the
moon, Seb the earth, Khem the generative power in nature, Nut the
upper hemisphere of heaven, Athor the lower world or under hemisphere;
Thoth personified the Divine wisdom; Ammon, perhaps, the Divine
mysteriousness or incomprehensibility; Osiris (according to some) the
Divine goodness. It is difficult, in many cases, to fix on the exact
quality, act, or part of nature intended; but the principle admits of
no doubt. No educated Egyptian priest certainly probably no educated
layman, conceived of the popular gods as really separate and distinct
beings. All knew that there was but one God, and understood that when
worship was offered to Khem, or Kneph, or Phthah, or Maut, or Thoth,
or Ammon, the one God was worshipped under some one of His forms or in
some one of His aspects. It does not appear that in more than a very
few cases did the Egyptian religion, as conceived of by the initiated,
deify created beings, or constitute a class of secondary gods who owed
their existence to the supreme God. Ra was not a Sun-Deity with a
distinct and separate existence, but the supreme God acting in the sun,
making His light to shine on the earth, warming, cheering, and blessing
it; and so Ra might be worshipped with all the highest titles of honor,
as indeed might any god, except the very few which are more properly
called genii, and which corresponded to the angels of the Christian
system. Such is Anubis, the conductor of souls in the lower world,
and such probably are the four "genii of the dead," Amset, Tuamutef,
Hapi (Apis), and Kebhsnauf, who performed so conspicuous a part in the
ceremonial of Amenti." (For Notes 4 to 6 inclusive, see Rawlinson's
History of Ancient Egypt, Vol. I, pp. 323-326).
7. _Significance of Animal Worship By Egyptians:_ "To exhibit in
some symbol their ideas of their gods, was the very essence of Egyptian
religion. This brought about the grossest of superstitious worship.
To set forth in symbol the attributes, qualities and nature of their
gods, the priests chose to use animals. The bull, cow, ram, cat, ape,
crocodile, hippopotamus, hawk, ibis, scarabaeus, were all emblems of
the gods. Often the head of one of these animals was joined to the
body of a man in the sculpture. But let it be remembered, that the
Egyptians never worshipped images or idols. They worshipped living
representations of the gods, and not lifeless images of stone or metal.
Their sculptures were never made for worship. They chose animals which
corresponded as nearly as possible to their ideas of the gods. Each
of these sacred creatures was carefully tended, fed, washed, dressed,
nursed when sick, and petted during its whole life. After death, its
body was embalmed. Certain cities were set apart for certain animals,
and apartments of the temples were consecrated to their use. Priests
were appointed to attend them. Not every animal of every kind was
worshipped, only a few of each sacred kind were considered as sacred.
A few of the whole number were supported at the expense of the state,
and were attended by great personages. Certain animals were worshipped
in parts of Egypt and detested in other parts. Thus the hippopotamus
was worshipped in Papaemis alone; while the Thebans worshipped the
crocodile; in other places they were hunted to death.
"Popularly, these animals were regarded as gods, and were really
worshipped. By the Priests they were regarded simply as the
representatives of the gods. If a man killed certain of the sacred
animals, by the laws of Egypt he must die; if, however, in regard to
some of them the killing was accidental, then he might escape by paying
a heavy fine. (Dobbins" "World's Worship," pp. 101-2.)
"The ancient Egyptians had a tradition, that, at a certain period, men
rebelled against the gods, and drove them out of heaven.[1] Upon this
disaster taking place, the gods fled into Egypt, where they concealed
themselves under the form of different animals; and this was the first
reason assigned for the worship of these creatures. But there was
another reason assigned for the worship of these animals, namely, the
benefits which men often received from them, particularly in Egypt.
"Oxen, by their labor, helped to cultivate the ground; sheep clothed
them with their wool; dogs, among many other services, prevented their
houses from being robbed; the ibis, a bird somewhat resembling a stork,
was of great service in destroying the winged serpents with which Egypt
abounded; the crocodile, an amphibious creature, was worshipped because
it prevented the wild Arabs from making incursions; the ichneumon,
a little animal, was of great service to them in different ways; he
watches the crocodile's absence and breaks his eggs, and when he lies
down to sleep on the banks of the Nile, which he always does with his
mouth open, this little creature jumps out of the mud, and leaping
down his throat, forces his way down to his entrails, which he gnaws,
then he pierces his belly, and thus triumphs over this most dreadful
animal."--(Burder's "History of All Religion," pp. 507-8.)
8. _Disparagement Between Moral Code and Egyptian Practice:_ "In
morals, the Egyptians combined an extraordinary degree of theoretic
perfection with an exceedingly lax and imperfect practice. It has been
said that the forty-two laws of the Egyptian religion, contained in the
125th chapter of the 'Book of the Dead,' fall short in nothing of the
teachings of Christianity, and conjectured that Moses, in compiling his
code of laws, did but 'translate into Hebrew the religious precepts
which he found in the sacred books' of the people among whom he had
been brought up. Such expressions are no doubt exaggerated; but they
convey what must be allowed to be a fact, viz., that there is a very
close agreement between the moral law of the Egyptians and the precepts
of the Decalogue." (Rawlinson's History of Ancient Egypt, Vol. I, p.
108).
This high praise for the moral law of the Egyptian religion is borne
out by answers that the spirit of man must make before Osiris in the
judgment hall, where the decisive sentence is pronounced, either
admitting the candidate to happiness, or excluding him forever.
"The deceased is obliged to _give proof of his knowledge;_ he must
show that it is great enough to give him the right to be admitted
to share the lot of glorified spirits Each of the forty-two judges,
bearing a mystical name, questions him in turn; he is obliged to tell
each one his name, and what it means. Nor is this all; he is obliged to
give an account of his whole life."
"I have not blasphemed," says the deceased; "I have not stolen; I have
not smitten men privily; I have not treated any person with cruelty;
I have not stirred up trouble; I have not been idle; I have not been
intoxicated; I have not made unjust commandments; I have shown no
improper curiosity; I have not allowed my mouth to tell secrets; I have
not wounded anyone; I have not let envy gnaw my heart; I have spoken
evil neither of the king nor my father; I have not falsely accused
anyone; I have not withheld milk from the mouths of sucklings; I have
not practiced any shameful crime; I have not calumniated a slave to his
master."
"The deceased does not confine himself to [merely] denying any ill
conduct; he speaks of the good he has done in his lifetime: 'I have
made to the gods the offerings that were their due; I have given food
to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and clothes to the naked.' We may
well, on reading these passages, be astounded at this high morality,
superior to that of all other ancient people, that the Egyptians
had been able to build up on such a foundation as their religion.
Without doubt it was this clear insight into truth, this tenderness of
conscience, which obtained for the Egyptians the reputation for wisdom,
echoed even by Holy Scripture." (Dobbin's World's Worship, pp. 110,
111).
Yet notwithstanding this profound knowledge of high moral truth, "the
practice of the people," remarks Rawlinson, "was rather below, than
above the common level. The Egyptian women were notoriously of loose
character; and, whether as we meet with them in history, or as they are
depicted in Egyptian romance, appear as immodest and licentious. The
men practiced impurity openly, and boasted of it in their writings;
they were industrious, cheerful, nay, even gay, under hardships, and
not wanting in family affection; but they were cruel, vindictive,
treacherous, avaricious, prone to superstition, and profoundly
servile." (Rawlinson's History of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, p. 109).
Is not the fact of this disparagement between the moral code and
Egyptian practice, explained by the Book of Abraham, in its account of
the origin of the Egyptian religion?
"Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the
eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner
of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a
righteous man, established his kingdom, and judged his people wisely
and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order
established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of
the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of
Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth,
and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the
Priesthood." (Book of Abraham, Ch. i; 25-6).
The moral law of the Egyptian religion, then, was doubtless copied
from the true religion of the Antediluvian patriarchs by this wise
and righteous Pharaoh; but being left in the hands of a people who
soon fell away from righteous principles to the practice of gross
sensualism, the divergence between moral theory and moral practice soon
set in and drifted ever wider and wider apart, until we have the result
observed and commented upon by the authorities above quoted.
9. _Observations on this Lesson:_ Read Note II, Lesson XII, and
accept explanation there made as to copious notes for this lesson. Also
adopt suggestion as to larger treatment of this lesson.
Footnotes
1. This is, doubtless, the "War in heaven" of the Hebrew Scriptures,
with the results reversed.
LESSON XIV.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_VI. Beliefs of the Phoenicians and Their Myers "General History."
Colonies._ Ch. vii. "Mythologies
of All Nations"
1. The Phoenicians. (Crabb), Chs. lv and lvi.
"The Story of the
2. Their Principal Deities. World's Worship" (Dobbins),
p. 142 et seq.
_VII. Persian Ideas of God, and Worship._ Myers' "General History,"
1. The Persians. Ch. viii. Book of
2. Persian Religion and Worship. Daniel, the Prophet.
Burder's "History of All
Religions," p. 519 et seq.
Ten Great Religions
(Clarke), Ch. 1, and the
_SPECIAL TEXT: "Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus: * * * *
I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. I am
the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside Me; I girded
thee, though thou hast not known Me." (Isaiah xlv:1, 2, 3.)_
_NOTES._
1. _The Phoenicians:_ "Ancient Phoenicia embraced a little strip
of broken seacoast lying between the Mediterranean Sea and the ranges
of Mount Lebanon. * * * The Phoenicians were of Semitic race. Their
ancestors lived in the neighborhood of the Persian Gulf. From their
seats in that region they migrated westward, like the ancestors of the
Hebrews, and reached the Mediterranean before the light of history had
fallen upon its shores. The various Phoenician cities never coalesced
to form a true nation. They constituted merely a sort of league or
confederacy, the petty states of which generally acknowledged the
leadership of Tyre or of Sidon, the two chief cities. The place of
supremacy in the confederation was at first held by Sidon, but later by
Tyre.
"The greatest of the Phoenician colonies was Carthage, on the northern
coast of Africa, founded by Dido, a Tyrian princess, 878 B. C. For
awhile, Carthage contested the mastery of the world with Rome." (Myers'
General History, p. 54.)
2. _The Gods of the Phoenicians:_ "The Phoenicians had somewhat the
same religious notions as the Babylonians, and worshipped some of the
same gods, Baal for instance" (Crabb Ch. lv.). "Baal was the supreme
male divinity of the Phoenician and Canaanitish nations. Ashtoreth was
their female divinity. The name Baal means lord. He was the sun-god.
The name is generally used in connection with other names as Baal-Gad,
that is Baal the Fortune-bringer; Baal-Berith or Covenant-making Baal;
Baal-Zebub, the Fly-god. The people of Israel worshipped Baal up to the
time of Samuel, at whose rebuke they forsook this iniquity for nearly
a hundred years. The practice was introduced again in the time of
Solomon, and continued to the days of the captivity." (Dobbin's World's
Worship, p. 142).
It was with the priests of Baal, on Mount Carmal, that Elijah had his
great contest, in which Jehovah was vindicated as God. (See I Kings,
xviii.)
3. _The Worship of Moloch:_ Saturn was most honored by the
Carthaginians a colony of the Phoenicians, be it remembered; and Saturn
was the Moloch of the Jewish scripture.
"This idol was the deity to whom they offered up human sacrifices, and
to this we owe the fable of Saturn's having devoured his own children.
Princes and great men, under particular calamities, used to offer up
their most beloved children to this idol. Private persons imitated
the conduct of their princes, and thus, in time, the practice became
general; nay, to such a height did they carry their infatuation, that
those who had no children of their own purchased those of the poor,
that they might not be deprived of the benefits of such a sacrifice,
which was to procure them the completion of their wishes. This horrid
custom prevailed long among the Phoenicians, the Tyrians, and the
Carthaginians; and from them the Israelites borrowed it, although
expressly contrary to the order of God.
"The original practice was to burn these innocent children in a fiery
furnace, like those in the valley of Hinnom, so often mentioned in
Scripture; and sometimes they put them into a hollow brass statue
of Saturn, flaming hot. To drown the cries of the unhappy victims,
musicians were ordered to play on different instruments--and
mothers--shocking thought!--made it a sort of merit to divest
themselves of natural affections while they beheld the barbarous
spectacle. If it happened that a tear dropped from the eyes of a
mother, then the sacrifice was considered as of no effect; and the
parent who had that remaining spark of tenderness was considered as an
enemy to the public religion. In later times they contented themselves
with making their children walk between two slow fires to the statue
of the idol; but this was only a more slow and excruciating torture,
for the innocent victims always perished. This is what, in Scripture,
is called the making their sons and daughters pass through the fire to
Moloch; and barbarous as it was, yet those very Israelites in whose
favor God had wrought so many wonders, demeaned themselves so low as
to comply with it." (II Kings, xvi and xxi.) (Burder's History of All
Religions, pp. 510, 511).
4. _The Persians:_ "In remote times some Aryan tribes, separating
from the other members of the Aryan family, sought new abodes on the
plateau of Iran (East of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, and between
the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf). The tribes that settled in the
south became known as the Persians, while those that took possession
of the mountain regions of the northwest were called Medes. The names
of the two peoples were always very closely associated, as in the
familiar legend, 'The law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth
not.' The Medes were at first the leading people. But the leadership
of the Median chieftains was of short duration. A certain Cyrus, king
of Anshan, in Elam, overthrew their power, assumed the leadership of
both Medes and Persians, and soon built up an empire more extended, so
far as we know, than any established before his time." (Myers' General
History p. 59).
5. _Persian Literature:_ "The literature of the ancient Persians
was mostly religious. Their sacred book is called the Zend-Avesta. The
religious system it teaches is known as Zoroastrianism, from Zoroaster,
its supposed founder. This great reformer and teacher is believed to
have lived and taught about six centuries before our era.
"Zoroastrianism was a system of belief known as dualism. Opposed to
the "good spirit," Ormazd (Ahura Mazda), there was a "dark spirit,"
Ahriman (Angro-Mainyus), who was constantly striving to destroy the
good creations of Ormazd by creating all evil things;--storm, drought,
pestilence, noxious animals, weeds and thorns in the world without, and
evil in the heart of man within. From all eternity these two powers
had been contending for the mastery; in the present, neither had the
decided advantage, but in the near future Ormazd would triumph over
Ahriman, and evil be forever destroyed.
"The duty of man was to aid Ormazd by working with him against the
evil-loving Ahriman. He must labor to eradicate every evil and vice
in his own bosom, to reclaim the earth from barrenness, and to kill
all noxious animals--frogs, toads, snakes, lizards--which Ahriman had
created. Herodotus saw with amazement the priests armed with weapons
and engaged in slaying these animals as a pious pastime." (Myers'
General History, p. 63).
6. _The Religion of the Persians:_ "The religion of the Medes and
Persians was of great antiquity, and probably taught by one of the
grandsons of Noah, who planted colonies in those parts, soon after the
confusion of languages. Noah had taught his children the knowledge of
the true God; and that they were to trust in His mercy, through the
mediation of a Redeemer. In Persia, the first idolaters were called
Sabians, who adored the rising sun with the profoundest veneration. To
that planet they consecrated a most magnificent chariot, to be drawn by
horses of the greatest beauty and magnitude, on every solemn festival.
The same ceremony was practiced by many other heathens, who undoubtedly
learned it from the Persian and other Eastern nations.
"In consequence of the veneration they paid to the sun, they worshipped
the fire, and invoked it in all their sacrifices, in their marches
they carried it before their kings, and none but the priests were
permitted to touch it, because they made the people believe that it
came down from heaven. But their adoration was not confined to the
sun; they worshipped the water, the earth, and the winds, as so many
deities. Human sacrifices were offered by them; and they burnt their
children in fiery furnaces, appropriated to their idols. These Medes
and Persians at first worshipped two gods, namely, Arimanius, the god
of evil, and Oromasdes, the giver of all good. By some it was believed
that the good god was from eternity, and the evil one created; but they
all agreed that they would continue to the end of time, and that the
good god would overcome the evil one. They considered darkness as the
symbol of the evil god, and light as the image of the good one. They
held Arimanius, the evil god, in such detestation that they always
wrote his name backward. Some ancient writers have given us a very odd
account of the origin of this god Arimanius, which may serve to point
out their ignorance of divine things. Oromasdes, say they, considering
that he was alone, said to himself, 'It I have no one to oppose me,
where, then, is all my glory?' This single reflection of his created
Arimanius, who, by his everlasting opposition to the divine will,
contributed against inclination to the glory of Oromasdes." (Burder's
History of All Religions, pp. 520, 521).
7. _Persian Worship:_ "The great monarchy of Persia, founded
by Cyrus 100 years before, is now at this period (430 years before
Christ), already tending toward its decline. A hundred years later,
it is to fall before the triumphant march of Alexander and his
Macedonians. But now it still retains the ancient faith of Zoroaster,
though modified by the developments of a thousand years. Herodotus
describes it as it existed at the period of which we speak. In his
insatiate desire for knowledge, he had gathered up all that he could
learn of Persia, and says: 'It is not customary for the Persians to
have idols, temples, or altars. They offer sacrifices on the summits
of mountains, not erecting altars or kindling fires, but they carry
the animal to a pure spot, and there the sacrificer prays for the
prosperity of the empire, the king, and all others.' * * * * * 'The
Persians believe fire to be a god.'
"Herodotus we find to be correct. Here are no temples, no altars,
no idol worship of any kind. The Supreme Being is worshipped by one
symbol--fire, which is pure and purifies all things. The prayers are
for purity, the libation the juice of a plant. Ormazd has created
everything good, and all his creatures are pure. Listen to the priest
chanting the litany, thus: 'I invoke and celebrate Ahura Mazda,
brilliant, greatest, best. All perfect, all-powerful, all-wise,
all-beautiful, only source of knowledge and happiness; he has created
us, he has formed us, he sustains us.' 'He belongs to those who think
good; to those who think evil he does not belong.' He belongs to those
who speak good; to those who speak evil he does not belong. He belongs
to those who do good; to those who do evil he does not belong.' This is
the religion of the great race who founded the Persian Empire.
"To these worshippers life did not seem to be a gay festival, as
to the Greeks, nor a single step on the long pathway of the soul's
transmigration, as to the Egyptians; but a field of battle between
mighty powers of good and evil, where Ormazd and Ahriman meet in daily
conflict, and where the servant of God is to maintain a perpetual
battle against the powers of darkness, by cherishing good thoughts,
good words, and good actions." (Ten Great Religions--Clarke--pp. 11, 12)
8. _Changes in the Persian Religion:_ "The religion of the Persians
underwent a variety of very remarkable revolutions; for the Sabians,
having fallen into disgrace, they were succeeded by another sect,
called the Magi; who, on account of their pretensions to superior
knowledge and sanctity, became extremely popular among the vulgar.
Nay, such was the respect paid to them, that no king could take
possession of the throne till he had been first instructed in their
principles; nor could they determine any affair of importance till it
had received their approbation. They were at the head both of religion
and philosophy; and the education of all the youth in the kingdom was
committed to their care.
"It is the general opinion, that the founder of the Magian religion
was one Zoroaster, who lived about the year of the world 2,900; and
it continued to be the established religion of the country for many
years after. The priests kept up continual fires in their temples; and
standing before these fires with mitres on their heads, they daily
repeated a great number of prayers. The name of their chief temple was
Amanus, or Namanus, which signifies the sun; and is the same with what
we find under the name of Baal in Scripture. Their great reputation
induced people to visit them from all parts of the known world, to
be instructed by them in the principles of philosophy and mythology;
and we are assured that the great Pythagoras studied many years under
them." (Burder's History of All Religions, p. 521).
LESSON XV.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_SPECIAL LESSON._
_THE JAREDITE EMPIRE AND THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE PEOPLE._
(A SUGGESTED LECTURE)
_NOTES._
1. _The Adoption of Previous Suggestions:_ The previous suggestions
and explanations in these special lessons (Lessons V and X), may be
adopted here both by the Teachers and those to whom this lesson shall
be assigned.
2. _The Jaredite Empire:_ This nation was contemporary with those
nations whose religions and gods we have been studying thus far.
Indeed, it had its origin about the same time that Babylon, Assyria
and Egypt had; as well as to run its course with them. It will be of
undoubted interest to the students to bring together in the form of a
lecture so much as may be learned of the religion and worship of this
Western-world-contemporary of Babylon, Assyria and Egypt.
3. _Sources of Information:_ The chief source of information for
the proposed lecture will be Moroni's Abridgment of the writings of
Ether in the Book of Mormon, and those casual references made to the
Jaredite people in other parts of the Book of Mormon, all of which
should be carefully sought out, as they throw important light upon
the character of this ancient people and Empire of the Western world.
Also the student will find help by consulting Roberts' New Witnesses
for God, Vol. II, Ch. x; also Chs. from xxiv. to xxix; and Vol. III,
Ch. xxxi. Reynolds' Dictionary of the Book of Mormon, Art. "Jaredite,"
"Jared," "Jared, Brother of," etc.
4. _Suggestions to Speakers:_ We renew our topic, "Suggestions to
Speakers," last dealt with in Lesson X. We are still dealing with the
"First Moments of Speech," and again quote Mr. Pittenger:
_First Moments of Speech:_ "There is a strange sensation often
experienced in the presence of an audience. It may proceed from the
gaze of the many eyes that turn upon the speaker, especially if he
permits himself to steadily return that gaze. Most speakers have been
conscious of this in a nameless thrill, a real something, pervading the
atmosphere, tangible, evanescent, indescribable. All writers have borne
testimony to the power of a speaker's eye in impressing an audience.
This influence, which we are now considering, is the reverse of that
picture--the power _their_ eyes may exert upon him, especially
before he begins to speak; after the inward fires of oratory are fanned
into flame the eyes of the audience lose all terror. By dwelling on
the object for which we speak, and endeavoring to realize its full
importance, we will in a measure lose sight of our personal danger, and
be more likely to maintain a calm and tranquil frame of mind.
"No change should be made in the plan [of the speech] at the last
moment, as that is very liable to produce confusion.[1] This error is
often committed. The mind has a natural tendency to go repeatedly over
the same ground, revising and testing every point, and it may make
changes, the consequences of which cannot be in a moment foreseen.
But the necessary preparation has been made, and we should now await
the result calmly and hopefully. Over-study is quite possible, and
when accompanied by great solicitude, wearies our mind in advance, and
strips the subject of all freshness. If the eye is fixed too long upon
one object with a steadfast gaze, it loses the power to see at all. So
the mind, if exerted steadily upon a single topic for a long period,
fails in vigor and elasticity at the moment when those qualities
are indispensable. That profound thinker and preacher, Frederick W.
Robertson, experienced this difficulty, and was accustomed to find
relief by reading some inspiring paragraphs upon some totally different
theme from that he intended to speak about. The energy and enthusiasm
of our minds in the moment of speech must be raised to the highest
pitch; the delivery of a living discourse is not the dry enumeration
of a list of particulars; but we must actually feel an immediate and
burning interest in the topics with which we deal. This cannot be
counterfeited.
"To clearly arrange all thoughts that belong to the subject, lay them
aside when the work is done until the moment of speech, and then enter
confidently upon them with only such a momentary glance as will assure
us that all is right--this is the method to make our strength fully
available. This confidence, while in waiting, seems to the beginner
very difficult, but experience rapidly renders it easy. M. Bautain
declares that he has been repeatedly so confident in his preparation as
to fall asleep while waiting to be summoned to the pulpit!
"Those who mis-improve the last moments by too much thought and
solicitude, are not the only class of offenders. Some persons, through
mere indolence, suffer the fine lines of preparation which have been
traced with so much care to fade into dimness. This error is not
infrequently committed by those who speak a second or third time on the
same subject. Because they have once succeeded, they imagine that the
same success is always at command. No mistake could be greater. It is
not enough to have speech-material in a position from which it can be
collected by a conscious and prolonged effort, but it must be in the
fore-ground of the mind. There is no time at the moment of delivery of
reviving half obliterated lines of memory.
"The writer once saw a notable case of failure from this cause. A
preacher, on a great occasion, was much engrossed with other important
duties until the hour appointed for his sermon had arrived. With
perfect confidence he selected a sketch from which he had preached a
short time before, and with the general course of which he was no doubt
familiar. But when he endeavored to produce his thoughts, they were not
ready. He became embarrassed, talked at random for a short time, and
then had the candor to tell the audience that he could not finish, and
to take his seat. Probably half an hour given to reviewing his plan,
would have made all his previous preparation fresh again, and have
spared him the mortification of failure.
"In this last interval it is also well to care for the strength and
vigor of the body, as its condition greatly influences all mental
operations. It is said that the pearl-diver, before venturing into the
depths of the sea, always spends a few moments in deep breathing and
other bodily preparations. In the excitement of speech, the whirl and
hurricane of emotion, it is advisable to be well prepared for the high
tension of nerve that is implied. Mental excitement exhausts and wears
down the body faster than bodily labor. We must carefully husband our
strength that we may be able to meet all demands upon it. * * * * * * *
* * * * Having now done all we can in advance, nothing remains but to
rise and speak. Preparation and precaution are passed. Actual work--the
most joyous, thrilling, and spiritual of all human tasks--is now to be
entered upon." (Extempore Speech, pp. 190-195).
5. _Another Word on Strength:_ The definition of "Strength" as a
property of good style in speaking or writing, was given in Lesson X
(Note 3), and the first requisite to its attainment was considered.
We now consider the second, which is taken from Lockwood's Lessons in
English:
6. _Words of Connection:_ "The strength of a sentence is increased
by careful use of the words of connection.
"(a) Avoid 'stringing' clauses together loosely with _and_ as a
connective.
"(Example:) They were soon at home _and_ surrounded by the family,
_and_ plied with questions as to what they had seen _and_ what
they had heard, _and_ soon the neighbors came in _and_ then the
whole story had to be told again.'
"In this sentence, there is lack of unity as well as lack of strength.
In a sentence containing a series of words or expressions in the same
construction, insert conjunctions between each two words or expressions
if the intention is to make the mind dwell upon each particular.
"(Example:) 'And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of
it.'
"But when the author's object is to give a many-sided view of a
subject, or to convey the idea of rapid movement, the conjunction
should be omitted.
"(Example:) 'Charity beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth
all things, endureth all things.'
'One effort, one, to break the circling host;
They form, unite, charge, waver,--all is lost!'
"(b) Do not weaken the sentence by the omission of the relative
pronoun. Such omissions are allowable in familiar conversation, but
rarely in careful writing or speaking.
"(Example:) 'The idea (which) he is working on is fraught with great
possibilities.'
"(c) Do not have two prepositions govern the same noun. This awkward
construction is called _'splitting particles.'_
"(Example:) 'He ran by but did not look into the windows.' (Better)
He ran by the windows, but did not look into them. (Lessons in
English--Lockwood--pp. 200, 201).
"This fault occurs in the following sentence: 'Though virtue borrows no
assistance from, yet it may often be accompanied by, the advantages of
fortune.' No one can read these lines without perceiving their decided
lack of strength and harmony. A slight change will greatly improve
their effect: 'Though virtue borrows no assistance from the advantages
of fortune, yet it may often be accompanied by them.'
"Avoid, on ordinary occasions, the common expletive _'there,'_ as
used in the following sentence: 'There is nothing which disgusts us
sooner than the empty pomp of language.' The sentiment is expressed
more simply and strongly thus: 'Nothing disgusts us sooner than the
empty pomp of language.' This expletive form is proper only when used
to introduce an important proposition." (Quackenbos Rhetoric, p. 295).
Footnotes
1. This should be understood, so far as the Elders of the Church are
concerned to refer only to ordinary cases of delivering announced
lectures or discourses. But in the course of an Elder's ministry, when
preaching the Gospel, he should respond to the promptings of the Spirit
in his ministry, even to violating the rule here laid down by Mr.
Pittenger.
LESSON XVI.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_VIII. Beliefs of the Greeks and of the Myers' "General History,"
Romans._ Chs. x, xii, xxiv-xxvi.
1. The Origin of the Greeks and Burder's "Hist. of All
Romans. Religions," p. 527 et seq.
"Myths and Myth-Makers"
2. Mythology of the Greeks and (John Fiske);
Romans. "Mythology of All Nations,"
Ch. i, et seq.
3. Classification of the Greek and "The World's Worship"
Roman Deities. (Dobbins), Chs. viii and
ix. The notes of this
lesson.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye
are too superstitious. For as I passed by and beheld your devotions,
I found an altar with this inscription, 'To the Unknown God'; whom ye
ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." (Acts xvii:22, 23.)_
_NOTES._
1. _The Greeks:_ "The ancient people whom we call Greeks, called
themselves Hellenes and their land Hellas. But this term 'Hellas' as
used by the ancient Greeks embraced much more than modern Greece.
'Wherever were Hellenes there was Hellas.' Thus the name included
not only Greece proper and the islands of the adjoining seas, but
also the Hellenic cities in Asia Minor, in Southern Italy, and in
Sicily, besides many other Greek settlements scattered up and down the
Mediterranean and along the shores of the Hellespont and the Euxine.
Yet Greece proper was the real home-land of the Hellenes, and the
actual center of Greek life and culture. (Myers' General History, p.
71).
"The historic inhabitants of Greece were called by the Romans Greeks;
but * * * * * * they called themselves Hellenes, from their fabled ancestor
Hellen (King in Phthia in Thessaly). They were divided into four
families or tribes--the Achaeans, the Ionians, the Dorians, and the
Aeolians. The primitive inhabitants of Greece are supposed to have
been the descendants of Javan, the son of Japhet (son of Noah), and
hence Greece was called by the Hebrews, 'Javan.'" (Anderson's General
History, p. 34.)
2. _The Romans:_ "There were in early times three chief races in
Italy--the Italians, the Etruscans, and the Greeks. The Italians, a
branch of the Aryan family, embraced many tribes (Latin, Umbrians,
Sabines, Samnites, etc.), that occupied nearly all Central, and a
considerable part of Southern Italy. Their life was for the most part
that of shepherds and farmers.
"The Etruscans, a wealthy, cultured, and seafaring people of uncertain
race and origin, dwelt in Etruria, now called Tuscany after them.
Before the rise of the Roman people they were the leading race in
the peninsula. Certain elements in their culture lead us to believe
that they had learned much from the cities of _Magna Graecia._
The Etruscans in their turn became the teachers of the early Romans,
and imparted to them at least some minor elements of civilization,
including hints in the art of building, and various religious ideas and
rites. Through the medium of these cultured communities, the Romans
were taught the use of letters, and given valuable suggestions in
matters of law and constitutional government. Most important of all,
the Italian peoples were the Latins, who dwelt in Latium, between the
Tiber and the Liris. These people, like all the Italians, were near
kindred of the Greeks, and brought with them into Italy those customs,
manners, beliefs and institutions which seem to have been the early
common possession of the various Aryan-speaking peoples." (Myers'
General History, pp. 196-7).
3. _Greek and Roman Mythology:_ "The term mythology comes from
mythos, a fable, and logos, a discourse, signifies a fabulous account
of things, particularly of such things as regard false gods and their
idolatrous worship." (Crabb Mythology of all Nations, Introduction).
"The mythology of the Greeks was, as to the most important particulars,
confessedly borrowed from the Egyptians. Their philosophers,
Anaxagoras, Phythagoras, Thales, and others, traveled into Egypt, where
they gathered all the notions there current concerning the gods, the
transmigration of souls, a future state, and other points, which they
modeled into a system that was afterwards enlarged and adorned by all
the charms and embellishments that poetry and art could furnish."
Thomas Dew, also, in his "Digest of Laws, Customs, Manners and
Institutions of Ancient and Modern Nations," says, on the origin of
the Greek religion,--"Supposed to have been derived in great measure
from the religion of the Egyptians. * * * Still, large portion was of
Grecian origin, and that even though taken from Egypt, became Grecian
in character." (p. 54.) Burder in his History of All Religions,
says (p. 527): "The Greeks are supposed to have derived many of
their deities from the Egyptians as well as no small number of their
religious ceremonies. The Egyptians, no doubt, at an earlier period,
believed in one Deity as supreme, and the Maker and Ruler of all
things; but after that they worshipped the sun, moon, and stars, under
various forms, as well as living creatures and lifeless things."
4. _Religion of Greeks and Romans Identical in Essentials:_ "The
basis of the Roman religious system was the same as that of the Greek.
At the head of the pantheon stood Jupiter, identical in all essential
attributes with the Hellenic Zeus. He was the special protector of the
Roman people. To him, together with Juno and Minerva, was consecrated a
magnificent temple upon the summit of the Capitoline hill, overlooking
the city.
"Mars, the god of war, was the favorite deity and the fabled father of
the Roman race, who were fond of calling themselves the 'Children of
Mars.' They proved themselves worthy offspring of the war-god. Martial
games and festivals were celebrated in his honor during the first month
of the Roman year, which bore, and still bears, in his honor, the name
of March.
"Janus was a double-faced deity, to whom the month of January was
sacred, as were also all gates and doors. The gates of his temple were
always kept open in time of war and shut in time of peace.
"The fire upon the household hearth was regarded as the symbol of the
goddess Vesta. Her worship was a favorite one with the Romans. The
nation, too, as a single great family, had a common national hearth
in the temple of Vesta where the sacred fires were kept burning from
generation to generation by six virgins, daughters of the Roman state."
(Myers' General History, pp. 203-4).
"The Greeks and Romans had many deities in common, particularly the
superior gods, arising partly from adoption, on one side or the other,
but more especially from the circumstance that the two countries were
peopled by different branches of the same family, descended from one
common ancestor, Japhet. At the same time it is evident, from the
difference in the names of the Greek and Roman deities, and in their
primary attributes, that they drew their mythology from different
sources, which may be easily imagined, when it is considered that
they were cut off from all intercourse with each other on their first
settlement, and mingled with different tribes in the course of their
migration. The Tuscans or Etrurians had, as is generally admitted,
their mythology as well as their language, from their Pelasgian
ancestors, long before the Grecians and Romans were known to each
other; but in after ages, when the intercourse between these two people
became intimate, the Romans, without doubt, borrowed many of the fables
of the Greeks, to which their poets and historians, who are very ample
in their descriptions of the gods, added much of their own invention."
(Crabb's Mythology, p. 6.)
5. _The Action and Reaction Involved in the Roman Conquest of
Greece:_ The fact of there being much in common in the religion and
worship of the Greeks and the Romans, while accounted for in part by a
large infusion of Hellenes into the south part of Italy and the Island
of Sicily--by reason of which the ruder Latin tribes of the north were
brought into contact with Greek culture and civilization--still there
was a larger cause for this identity of religion and worship; and that
cause arises out of the reaction of Greek learning upon the Roman
conquerors of Greece. The Roman conquests in Western Europe was the
subjugation of peoples in a low state of civilization "and destitute of
any element of strength in their social and national life;" and their
conquerors treated them, for the most part, as inferiors. "But in the
East the case was different. There the Romans met with a civilization
more advanced than their own which they had already learned to respect,
and an elaborate system of civil government and social usages, which
could not be set aside without undermining the whole fabric of society.
Hence the Greeks, while subjected to the Roman administration, were
allowed to retain a great part of their institutions, together with
their property and private rights, and, from their superiority to the
other conquered peoples, remained the dominant power in the East. Even
in Asia the despotism of Rome was much modified by the municipal system
of the Greek colonies and by the influence of Greek culture. Thus it
came to pass that, while the Western nations were assimilated to Rome,
in the East the Roman empire became Greek, though the Greek nation in
name became Roman. The effects of this are visible at every turn in the
subsequent history, and to this cause must be referred many anomalies
which are traceable at the present day in the condition of Eastern
Europe." (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
6. _The Classification of Greek and Roman Deities:_ "The Greek
and Roman deities are distinguished into three classes; namely, the
Superior Gods, the Inferior Gods, and the Demi-gods.
"The Superior Gods otherwise called _Dii Majorum Gentium_, that is,
gods of the superior houses or families, answering to the patricians
or nobility of Rome, were so named because they were believed to be
more eminently employed in the government of the world. They were also
styled the 'Select Gods,' of whom twelve were admitted into the council
of Jupiter, and on that account denominated 'Consentes.'
"The images of these twelve gods were fixed in the Forum of Rome, six
of them being males, and six females; their names are given in the
following distich by the poet Ennius:
'Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Mars, Mercurius, Jove,
Neptunus, Volcanus, Apollo.'
"These twelve gods were supposed to preside over the twelve months;
to each of them was allotted a month: January to Juno, February to
Neptune, March to Minerva, April to Venus, May to Apollo, June to
Mercury, July to Jupiter, August to Ceres, September to Vulcan, October
to Mars, November to Diana, December to Vesta. They likewise presided
over the twelve celestial signs. If to these twelve be added the eight
following, namely, Janus, Saturnus, Genius, Sol, Pluto, Bacchus, Terra,
and Luna, there will be twenty of the first class, or superior gods.
These superior gods were likewise distinguished, from their usual place
of residence, into Celestial, Terrestrial, Marine, and Infernal gods.
"The Inferior Gods comprehended what Ovid called the 'Celestial
Populace,' answering to the plebeians among the Romans, who had no
place in heaven, as the Penates, Lares--rural-deities, etc.
"The third class, or Demigods, was composed of such as derived their
origin from a god or goddess and a mortal, or such as by their valor
and exploits had raised themselves to the rank of immortals. Of this
class was Hercules, Aesculapius, Castor, Pollux, Achilles, etc.
"To the list of the Roman gods, might be added a fourth class, called
'novensiles,' which the Sabines brought to Rome by the command of King
Tatius. They were so named because, as some suppose, they were the last
of all that were reckoned among the gods. Of this class also were the
deities by whose help and means, as Cicero says, men are advanced to
heaven, and obtain a place among the gods, namely, the moral virtues,
as mercy, chastity, piety, etc." (Crabb's Mythology, pp. 6, 7).
LESSON XVII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_IX. Origin of the Greek and Roman "The World's Worship,"
Deities._ Ch. xiii. "Mythology
of All Nations"
_X. List and Character of the Chief (Crabb), Ch. ii. "The
Greek and Roman Deities._ World's Worship" (Dobbins),
Chs. viii and ix.
_XI. The Greek and Roman Parthenon._
Burder's "History of
_XII. Greek and Roman Worship._ All Religions," Part vi.,
pp. 527-575.
Myers' "General History,"
Chs. xii and xxvi,
and Encyclopaedias, and
Notes of this Lesson.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after
wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling
block, and unto the Greeks foolishness. But unto them that are called,
both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."
1 Cor. i:22-24._
_NOTES._
1. _The Generation of the Gods: (a) The Greeks:_ "Chaos (void
space) was first: then came into being 'broad-breasted' Earth, the
gloomy Tartarus and Love. Chaos produced Erebus and Night, and this
last bore to Erebus Day and Ether.
"Earth now produced Uranus (Heaven), of equal extent with herself,
to envelop her, and the mountains and Pontos (Sea). She then bore to
Uranus a mighty progeny--the Titans; six males and six females. She
also bore Hottos, Briareus and Gyges. These children were hated by
their father, who, as soon as they were born, thrust them out of sight
in a cavern of mother Earth, who, grieved at his conduct, produced the
substance of hoary steel, and, forming from it a sickle, roused her
children, the Titans, to rebellion against him; but fear seized on them
all except Kronos, who, lying in wait with the sickle with which his
mother had armed him, mutilated his unsuspecting sire. The drops which
fell to the earth from the wounds, gave birth to the Erinnyes, the
Giants and the Mehan nymphs; and from what fell into the sea, sprang
Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty.
"Earth finally, after the overthrow of the Titans, bore by Tartaros her
last offspring, the hundred-headed Typhoeus, the father of storms and
whirlwinds, whom Zeus precipitated into Tartarus.
"Rhea was united to Kronos. Kronos, having learned from his parents,
Heaven and Earth, that he was fated to be deprived by one of his
sons of the kingdom which he had taken from his father, devoured his
children as fast as they were born. Rhea, when about to be delivered
of Zeus, besought her parents to teach her how she might save him.
Instructed by Earth, she concealed him in a cavern of Crete, and gave
a stone in his stead to Kronos. This stone he afterward threw up, and
with it the children whom he had devoured. When Zeus was grown up,
he and the other children of Kronos made war on their father and the
Titans. The scene of the conflict was Thessaly; the former fought from
Olympus, the latter from Othrys. During ten entire years the conflict
was undecided; at length, by the counsel of Earth, the Kronids released
the Hundred-handed and called them to their aid. The war was then
resumed with renewed vigor, and the Titans were finally vanquished and
imprisoned in Tartarus, under the guard of the Hundred-handed. The
Kronids then, by the advice of Earth, gave the supreme power to Zeus,
who, in return, distributed honors and dominion among the associates of
his victory." (The World's Worship--Dobbins--pp. 154-5).
(b) _The Romans:_ "The Romans appear to have borrowed their
fictions respecting the creation of the world from the same source as
the Greeks. Ovid expressly calls Chaos, _rudis indigestaque moles,_
'a rude indigested heap'; or, as Moses says, "The earth without form
and void;" after which the poet goes on in a strain very similar to
what has already been set forth.
"The Etruscans, who were among the original settlers in Italy, gave,
according to Suidas, the following account of the creation. 'God,' says
a philosopher of that nation, 'created the universe in six thousand
years, and appointed the same period of time to be the extent of its
duration. In the first period of a thousand years, God created the
heavens and the earth; in the second, the visible firmament; in the
third, the sea and all the waters that are in the earth; in the fourth,
the sun, moon, and stars; in the fifth, every living soul of birds,
reptiles, and quadrupeds, which have their abode either on the land, in
the air, or the water; and in the sixth, man alone.' Now, when it is
considered that in another part of Scripture it is said, that 'one day
is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,'
it is easy to explain the origin of this fiction." (Crabb's Mythology,
Ch. ii).
2. _A Brief List of Some of the Chief Greek and Roman Deities: (a)
Jupiter:_ "Jupiter, the father of gods and men, is said to have been
born in Crete, or to have been sent there in infancy for concealment.
He was the son of Saturn, the god of Time, and of Cybele, otherwise
called Rhea. He was the most powerful of all the gods, and everything
was subservient to his will. His father, Saturn, had received the
kingdom of the world from his brother Titan, on condition of destroying
all the sons who should be born to him. Saturn, therefore, devoured his
children immediately after birth. This may be considered as having an
allegorical meaning; namely, that time destroys all things.
(b) _Apollo:_ "Apollo was the son of Jupiter and Latona, and
brother of the goddess Diana. He was born in the island of Delos, where
his mother fled to avoid the jealousy of Juno. He was the god of all
the fine arts; and to him is ascribed the invention of medicine, music,
poetry and eloquence. He presided over the Muses, and had the power
of looking into futurity. His oracles were in general repute over the
world. Apollo had various other surnames. He was called Delius, from
the island where he was born; Cynthius, from a mountain in that island;
Delphinius, from the city of Delphi, in Boeotia; Didymaeus, from a
Greek word, signifying twins; Nomius, which means a shepherd; Paean,
from his skill in shooting arrows; and Phoebus, from the swiftness of
his motion."
It is generally supposed that by Apollo the sun is to be understood;
for which reason he was called Sol by the Latins.
(c) _Mars:_ "Mars was the god of war, and son of Jupiter and Juno.
He was educated by the god Priapus, who instructed him in every manly
exercise. His temples were not numerous in Greece, but from the warlike
Romans he received unbounded honors. His priests were called Salii.
(d) _Mercury:_ "Mercury was the son of Jupiter and of Maia, the
daughter of Atlas. He was born in Arcadia, upon Mount Cyllene, and in
his infancy was intrusted with the care of the seasons. He was the
messenger of the gods, and more especially of Jupiter. He was the
patron of travelers and shepherds. He conducted the souls of the dead
into the infernal regions, and not only presided over merchants and
orators, but was also the god of thieves and of all dishonest persons.
(e) _Bacchus:_ "Bacchus was the god of wine, and the son of
Jupiter and Semele. Semele was the daughter of Cadmus, celebrated as
the inventor of the alphabet, and of Hermione, the daughter of Mars
and Venus. She was destroyed by the jealous cruelty of Juno. It is
probable that Bacchus was an ancient conqueror and lawgiver. He was
born in Egypt, and educated at Nysa in Arabia. He taught the culture of
the grape, the art of converting its juice into wine, and the manner
of making honey. He was on that account, honored as a god by the
Egyptians, under the name of Osiris.
(f) _Vulcan:_ "Vulcan was the son of Juno; he was the god of fire,
and the patron of all those artists who worked in iron or other metals.
He was educated in heaven; but Jupiter being offended with him, hurled
him from Olympus. He lighted on the island of Lemnos, and was a cripple
ever after. He fixed his residence there, built himself a palace, and
raised forges to work metals. He forged the thunderbolts of Jupiter,
and the arms of the gods and demi-gods.
(g) _Juno:_ "Juno was the queen of heaven, the sister and wife of
Jupiter, and the daughter of Saturn and of Ops, otherwise called Rhea.
She was born in the isle of Samos, and resided there till her marriage
with Jupiter; her children were Vulcan, Mars, and Hebe. The poets
represent Juno with a majesty well befitting the empress of the skies.
(h) _Minerva:_ "Minerva was the goddess of wisdom, and is said
to have sprung, completely armed and full-grown, from the brain of
Jupiter. She was immediately admitted into the assembly of the gods,
and became Jupiter's faithful counselor; she was the most accomplished
of all the goddesses. The countenance of Minerva, as generally
represented, was more expressive of masculine firmness than of grace or
softness.
(i) _Venus:_ "Venus was the goddess of beauty, the mother of love,
and the queen of laughter, grace and pleasure. She is said to have
risen from the froth of the sea, near the island of Cyprus. The Zephyrs
wafted her to the shore, where she was received by the Seasons, the
daughters of Jupiter and Themis. As she walked, flowers bloomed beneath
her feet, and the rosy Hours dressed her in divine attire.
(j) _Cupid:_ "Cupid, the son of Venus, and god of love, was
represented as a beautiful boy, with wings, a bow and arrows, and
generally with a bandage over his eyes. He had wings, to show his
caprice and desire of change. He is described as blind, because we are
apt to shut our eyes to the faults of those we love.
(k) _Ceres:_ "Ceres was the goddess of corn and harvests, and the
daughter of Saturn and Vesta. The most celebrated festivals in honor of
Ceres were held at Eleusis. They were called the Eleusinian Mysteries,
on account of the secrecy with which they were conducted. Those who
were admitted to these solemn assemblies were called the initiated."
(Burder's History of All Religions, pp. 528-533).
4. _The Greek Pantheon:_ "At the head of the Greek pantheon there
was a council of twelve members, comprising six gods and as many
goddesses. The male deities were Zeus, the father of gods and men;
Poseidon, ruler of the sea; Apollo, or Phoebus, the god of light, of
music, and of prophecy; Ares, the god of war; Hephaestus, the deformed
god of fire, and the forger of the thunderbolts of Zeus; Hermes, the
wing-footed herald of the celestials, the god of invention and commerce.
"The female divinities were Hera, the proud and jealous queen of
Zeus; Athena, or Pallas,--who sprang full-grown from the forehead of
Zeus,--the goddess of wisdom and the patroness of the domestic arts;
Artemis, the goddess of the chase; Aphrodite, the goddess of love and
beauty born of the white sea foam; Hestia, the goddess of the hearth;
Demeter the earth mother, the goddess of grains and harvests.
"These great deities were simply magnified human beings. They surpassed
mortals rather in power than in size of body. Their abode was Mount
Olympus and the airy regions above the earth." (Myers' General History,
p. 86).
5. _The Delphian Oracle:_ "The most precious part, perhaps, of the
religious heritage of the historic Greeks, from the misty Hellenic
foretime, was the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. The Greeks believed that
in the early ages the gods were wont to visit the earth and mingle with
men. But even in Homer's time, this familiar intercourse was a thing of
the past--a tradition of a golden age that had passed away. In historic
times, though the gods often revealed their will and intentions through
signs and portents, still they granted a more special communication of
counsel through what were known as oracles. These communications, it
was believed, were made sometimes by Zeus, but more commonly by Apollo.
Not everywhere, but only in chosen places, did these gods manifest
their presence and communicate the divine will. These favored spots
were called oracles, as were also the responses there received.
"The most renowned of the Greek oracles, as we have intimated, was
that at Delphi, in Phocis. Here, from a deep fissure in the rocks,
arose stupefying vapors, which were thought to be the inspiring
breath of Apollo. Over this spot was erected a temple in honor of the
Revealer. The communication was generally received by the Pythia,
or priestess, seated upon a tripod placed above the orifice. As she
became overpowered by the vapors, she uttered the message of the god.
These mutterings of the Pythia were taken down by attendant priests,
interpreted, and written in hexameter verse. Some of the responses of
the oracle contained plain and wholesome advice; but very many of them,
particularly those that implied a knowledge of the future, were made
obscure and ingeniously ambiguous, so that they might correspond with
the event, however affairs should turn.
"The Oracle of Delphi gained a celebrity wide as the world. It was
often consulted by the monarchs of Asia and the people of Rome in
times of extreme danger and perplexity. Among the Greeks, scarcely
any undertaking was entered upon without the will and sanction of the
Oracle being first sought." (Myers' General History, pp. 86, 87).
6. _Oracles and Divination Among the Romans:_ "There were no true
oracles at Rome. The Romans, therefore, often had recourse to those
among the Greeks. Particularly in great emergencies did they seek
advice from the celebrated Oracle of Apollo at Delphi. From Etruria was
introduced the art of the haruspices, or sooth-sayers, which consisted
in discovering the will of the gods by the appearance of the entrails
of victims slain for the sacrifice." (Myers' General History, p. 204).
7. _Worships and Temples:_ "In the first ages of the world, men had
neither temples nor statues for their gods, but worshipped in the open
air, in the shady grove, or on the summit of the lofty mountains, whose
apparent proximity to the heavens seemed to render them peculiarly
appropriate for religious purposes. Ignorantly transferring to the
works of the Supreme Being that homage which is only due to their
Author, they adored the sun as a god, who, riding on his chariot of
fire, diffused light and heat through the world; the moon, as a mild
and beneficent divinity, who presided over night and silence, consoling
her worshippers for the departure of the more brilliant light of day.
"It is thought that the Greeks received from the Egyptians the custom
of building temples, which were erected, some in valleys, some in
woods, and others by the brink of a river, or fountain, according to
the deity who was destined to inhabit them; for the ancients ascribed
the management of every particular affair to some particular god, and
appropriated to each a peculiar form of building, according to his or
her peculiar character and attributes. But when temples were first
erected, the ancients still continued to worship their gods, without
any statue or visible representation of the divinity.
"It is supposed that the worship of idols was introduced among the
Greeks in the time of Cecrops, the founder of Athens, in the year
1556 B. C. At first these idols were formed of rude blocks of wood or
stone, until, when the art of graving, or carving, was invented, these
rough masses were changed into figures resembling living creatures.
Afterwards, marble, and ivory, or precious stones, were used in their
formation, and lastly, gold, silver, brass, and other metals. At
length, in the refined ages of Greece, all the genius of the sculptor
was employed in the creation of these exquisite statutes, which no
modern workmanship has yet surpassed. Temples, statues, and altars,
were considered sacred, and to many of them was granted the privilege
of protecting offenders." (Burder's History of All Religions, pp.
227-8).
LESSON XVIII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_XIII. The Greek and Roman Religion._ "Outlines of Ecclesiastical
Hist.," (Roberts),
_XIV. Roman and Greek Schools of Sec. ii, pp. 22-25. "The
Philosophy._ World's Worship" (Dobbins),
Chs. viii, ix.
1. Stoics. Notes 1 and 2.
2. Epicureans. "Moral and Metaphysical
Philosophy" (Maurice),
3. Academics. Vol. I, Chs. vi and
vii. Myers' "General
Hist.," Chs. xxiii. Dr. Smith's
"History of
Greece," Ch. xiii. "Mormon
Doctrine of Deity,"
Ch. iv.
"Cicero's Tusculan
Disputations" (Yonge's
Translation), pp. 209-355.
"Intellectual Development
of Europe"
(Draper), Chs. v and vi.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "Behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their
own nation and tongue, to teach His word; yea, in wisdom, all that He
seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth
counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true." (Book of
Alma, Ch. xxix:8.)_
_NOTES._
1. _Religion of the Greeks: General View:_ "The religious system of
the Greeks is the embodiment of beauty. No other worship that has ever
existed so encouraged the taste for art as this. Its literature, its
mythological stories, its idols and its temples still control and, to
a great extent, shape the art ideas of the world. Its devotees have,
above all other people, possessed a perception of beauty of form and a
fondness of representing it.
"The people of Greece appear to have originally come from the
northwestern part of Asia Minor. They were called the Hellenes.
The worship which they brought from Asia was the worship of the
'Heaven-Father,' the unseen one who dwells in ether, whose temple is
the sky, and whose altar is properly placed upon the mountain top. The
Hindus called the same being Dyaus-pitar; the Romans, Diovis-pater or
Jupiter; the Greeks, Zeus-pater. One can readily see the resemblance
between these names, and the evidence they bear to the fact that these
nations all came originally from one common stock. As the primal
Greek race separated into various parts of Greece, different forms
began to arise. As sailors from other lands arrived on their shores,
they brought their own gods with them, and thus many new gods were
introduced into Greece.
"The lively imagination of the Greeks, and the out-door life of their
primitive state, produced a number of tales and legends about the gods.
Some of these were based on the tales with which their forefathers were
familiar in their early home in Asia. The people lived in separate
villages. Wandering minstrels and merchants carried these tales of
gods and heroes from village to village. Poets then caught them up and
adorned them with the touches of a livelier fancy. Thus, soon, a rich
and luxuriant system of legendary lore was in possession of the whole
people.
"Just as is the case with other nations, the beings called gods by
the Greeks are but the personifications of the powers and objects of
nature, and the legends but represent the courses of nature and its
operations. To these primitive notions imagination afterwards added,
and poetry clothed the whole with a warm glow. Thus was formed the
popular Greek faith" (The World's Worship--Dobbins--pp. 150-157).
2. _Religion of the Romans: General View:_ "Long before Rome was
founded, Italy was peopled with an industrious class of farmers. But we
have scarcely any records of those early times. Some of their gigantic
buildings, lakes and canals remain, but these are almost all that is
left. The religious ideas of these early settlers entered into and,
to a great extent, moulded the religion of the Romans. The people of
Italy did not have the same vivid imaginations and lively fancies
as the people of Greece. Their early worship seems to have been of
a more serious character than that of the Greeks. Their gods were
freer from moral taint, and virtue rather than vice was required in
followers of the Roman religions. The poetic art was little cultivated
among them, or for that matter, in Rome of a later day. But Rome soon
began to borrow from Greece, and to appropriate her gods, heroes and
myths. There are no Italian-myths corresponding to those of Greece. In
Virgil and Ovid, a few adventures of the Italian gods are related, but
these are plainly limitations, or slight modifications, of the Greek
stories." (The World's Worship, pp. 173-4).
3. _Zeno:_ "Zeno, founder of the celebrated school of the Stoics,
lived in the third century before our era (about 340--265 B. C.).
He taught at Athens in a public porch (Stoa in Greek), from which
circumstance comes the name applied to his disciples. The Stoics
inculcated virtue for its own sake. They believed--and it would be
difficult to frame a better creed--that 'man's chief business here
is to do his duty.' They schooled themselves to bear with composure
any lot that destiny might appoint. Any sign of emotion on account of
calamity was considered unmanly. Thus a certain Stoic, when told of
the sudden death of his son, is said merely to have remarked, 'Well, I
never imagined that I had given life to an immortal.'
"Stoicism became a favorite system of thought with certain classes of
the Romans, and under its teachings and doctrines were nourished some
of the purest and loftiest characters produced by the pagan world."
(Myers' General History, pp. 185-6).
4. _Epicurus:_ "Epicurus (341--270 B. C.) taught, in opposition to
the Stoics, that pleasure is the highest good. He recommended virtue,
indeed, but only as a means for the attainment of pleasure; whereas the
Stoics made virtue an end in itself. In other words, Epicurus said,
"Be virtuous, because virtue will bring you the greatest amount of
happiness;" Zeno said, "Be virtuous, because you ought to be."
"Epicurus had many followers in Greece, and his doctrines were eagerly
embraced by many among the Romans during the later corrupt period of
the Empire. Many of these disciples carried the doctrines of their
master to an excess that he himself would have been the first to
condemn. Allowing full indulgence to every appetite, their whole
philosophy was expressed in the proverb, 'Let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we die.'" (Myers' General History, p. 186).
5. _The 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 said, "Ennius would not with
universal approbation have said,
'Look up to the refulgent heavens above
Which 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
preconception, than to attribute a mind and divinity to the world, the
most excellent of all beings."
That is to say, the Stoics held the universe to be a deity; and Cicero
represents Zeno as reasoning in the matter in this wise: "That which
reasons is superior to that which does not; nothing is superior to
the world; the world, therefore, reasons." By the same rule the world
may be proved to be wise, happy, and eternal; for the possession of
all these qualities is superior to the want of them; and nothing is
superior to the world; the inevitable consequence of which argument
is, that the world is a deity. He goes on: "No part of anything void
of sense is capable of perception; some parts of the world have
perception; the world, therefore, has sense." He proceeds, and pursues
the argument closely--"Nothing that is destitute itself of life and
reason can generate a being possessed of life and reason; but the world
does generate beings possessed of life and reason; the world therefore,
is not itself destitute of life and reason."
He concludes his argument in his usual manner with a simile: "If
well-tuned pipes should spring out of the olive, would you have the
slightest doubt that there was in the olive-tree itself some kind of
skill and knowledge? Or if the plane-tree could produce harmonious
flutes, surely you would infer, on the same principle, that music was
contained in the plane-tree. Why, then, should we not believe the world
is a living and wise being, since it produces living and wise beings
out of itself?"
Again, reverting to this subject, Cicero in representing the doctrines
of the Stoics, says: "Now, we see that there is nothing in being that
is not a part of the universe; and as there are sense and reasons in
the parts of it, there must therefore be these qualities, and these
too, in a more, energetic and powerful degree, in that part in which
the predominant quality of the world is found. The world, therefore,
must necessarily be possessed of wisdom; and that element, which
embraces all things, must excel in perfection of reason. The world,
therefore, is a God, and the whole power of the world is contained in
that divine element."
"Besides these (i. e., the universe and the stars, as part of that
universe of course), there are many other natures," Cicero goes on to
say, "which have, with reason, been deified by the wisest Grecians, and
by our ancestors, in consideration of the benefits derived from them;
for they were persuaded that whatever was of great utility to human
kind must proceed from divine goodness, and the name of the Deity was
applied to that which the Deity produced, as when we call corn Ceres,
and wine Bacchus; whence that saying of Terence,
'Without Ceres and Bacchus, Venus starves.'
And any quality, also, in which there was any singular virtue was
nominated a Deity, such as Faith and Wisdom, which are placed among
the divinities in the Capitol; the last by Aemilius Scaurus, but Faith
was consecrated before by Atilius Caltatinus. You see the temple of
Virtue and that of Honor repaired by M. Marcellus, erected formerly,
in the Ligurian war, by Q. Maximus. Need I mention those dedicated to
Help, Safety, Concord, Liberty, and Victory, which have been called
Deities, because their efficacy has been so great that it could not
have proceeded from any but from some divine power? In like manner
are the names of Cupid, Voluptas, and of Lubentine Venus consecrated,
though they were things vicious and not natural. * * * * Everything,
then, from which any great utility proceeded was deified; and, indeed,
the names I have just now mentioned are declaratory of the particular
virtue of each Diety."
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.
6. _The Epicureans:_ 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?" Yet 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 worshipping 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 Epicureans
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."
7. _The Sensualism of Epicureanism:_ Whatever apologists may say,
it is very clear that the "pleasure" of the Epicurean philosophy,
hailed as "the supreme good and chief end in life," was to arise from
agreeable sensations, or whatever gratified the senses, and hence
was, in the last analysis of it--in its roots and branches--in its
theory and in its practice--"sensualism." It was to result in physical
ease and comfort, and mental inactivity--other than a conscious,
self-complacence--being regarded as "The supreme good and chief end of
life." I judge this to be the net result of this philosophy since these
are the very conditions in which Epicurus describe even the gods to
exist; and surely men could not hope for more "pleasure," or greater
happiness than that possessed by their gods. Cicero even charges
that the sensualism of Epicurus was so gross that he represents him
as blaming his brother, Timocrates, "because he would not allow that
everything which had any reference to a happy life was to be measured
by the belly; nor has he," continues Cicero, "said this once only, but
often."
In Cicero's description of the Epicurean conception of the gods,
he says: "That which is truly 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 failings must be weak and frail. * * * Their life [i. e., of the
gods] is most happy and the most abounding with all kinds of blessings
which can be conceived. They do nothing. They are embarrassed with no
business; nor do they perform any work. They rejoice in the possession
of their own wisdom and virtue. They are satisfied that they shall ever
enjoy the fulness of eternal pleasure. * * Nothing can be happy that
is not at ease." (Tusculan Disputations, The Nature of the Gods, pp.
266-268).
8. _The Academicians:_ The Academicians can scarcely be regarded
as a school of philosophy, though they refer their origin to Plato
(Smith's Student's History of Greece, p. 596.). Their name stands for
a method of thought rather than for a system of truth. They had no
philosophy, but rather speculated about 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. The academy is said to have exactly corresponded to
the moral and political wants of Rome in the days of Cicero. "With no
genius for speculation, the better Romans of that day were content to
embrace a system which, though resting on no philosophical basis, and
compounded of heterogeneous dogmas, offered notwithstanding, a secure
retreat from religious scepticism and political troubles." "My words,"
says Cicero, speaking as a true Academician, "do not proclaim the
truth, like a Pythian priestess; but I conjecture what is probable,
like a plain man." And again: "The characteristic of the Academy is
never to interpose one's judgment to approve what seems most probable,
to compare together different opinions, to see what may be advanced
on either side, and to leave one's listeners free to judge without
pretending to dogmatize." (Ency. Brit. Art. Academy.) I believe this
description warrants what was said at the beginning of this note, viz;
that the name Academician stood for a method of thought rather than for
a school of philosophy.
LESSON XIX.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_XV. Religions of Northern Europe--_ Draper's "Intellectual
Development of Europe,"
1. The Scythians; Ch. viii, pp. 240 et seq.
"The World's Worship,"
2. The Scandinavians; (Dobbins), Ch. x.
Burder's "History of
3. The Druids; All Religions," Part VI,
Sec. vii, p. 524 et seq.
"Mormon Doctrine of
Deity," Ch. iv.
Crabb's "Mythology of
All Nations," Chs. lxii,
lxiii, lxiv, lxv.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "I will sanctify My great name, which was profaned among
the heathen; which ye [Israel] have profaned in the midst of them;
and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord God, when I shall be
sanctified in you before their eyes." Ezekiel xxvi:23._
_NOTES._
1. _The Scythians:_ "The Scythians inhabited a large tract of
country to the north of Europe and Asia. In early times their religion
was very simple; it taught the belief of a Supreme God, to whom were
attributed infinite power, knowledge, and wisdom; it forbade any
representation of this being under a corporeal form, and enjoined the
celebration of his worship in consecrated woods. Under him, a number
of inferior divinities were supposed to govern the world, and preside
over the celestial bodies. The doctrine of a future state formed an
important part of the mythology of these people; and their fundamental
maxims were, to serve the Deity with sacrifice and prayer, to do no
wrong to others, and to be brave and intrepid. But in the course of
time, the religion of the Scythians degenerated, a multitude of other
divinities were introduced amongst them, and as they were a warlike
people, they made the god of battles their favorite deity; to him they
consecrated groves of oak, which were held so sacred that whoever
injured them was punished with death. A Scimitar raised upon the summit
of an immense wooden altar was the emblem of this God, to whom they
sacrificed horses, and every hundredth man taken in battle; the first
fruits of the earth, and a portion of the spoils gained in war, were
the offerings made to the other divinities. The principal Scythian
deities were: Tabite, the Vesta of later times; Papius, the Jupiter;
Apia, or the Earth, the consort of Papius; Stripassa, the Venus;
Oestasynes, the Apollo; Thamimasides, the Neptune.
"The Scythians venerated fire, as the principle of all things; and the
wind and the sword, as the cause of life and death; a being called
Zamolxis, was supposed to have the charge of conducting departed
spirits to their respective abodes; and sacrifices were made to him by
the friends of deceased persons on their behalf." (Burder's History of
All Religions, pp. 524-5).
2. _The Scandinavian Mythology:_ "The Gothic Mythology is so called
from the Getae; or Goths, a tribe of Scythians, who, at an early period
passed over into Scandinavia, whence they over-spread all Sweden,
Denmark the islands of the Baltic, and the neighboring parts. Their
mythological scheme is explained in a work called the 'Edda,' which was
compiled by Snorro Sturleson, in the thirteenth century, from the poems
of the Scalds or bards particularly one bearing the same name, and a
still older one, called the 'Voluspa.' The Goths, like the Indians
[American] believed in a supreme being, to whom they ascribed many of
the divine attributes, but offered him no worship, which they paid only
to the subordinate deities. This being they designated by the name of
'Alfader,' that is 'Father of all.' They believed that giants existed
before the gods, the chief of whom, named Odin, was the offspring of
one of them. After this, according to their fables, which agree with
that of the Greeks, a war ensued between the gods and the giants, which
terminated in the destruction of the latter. The gods then proceeded to
the work of creation, and fashioned the globe out of the body of one
of the giants, named Ymir. Before all this, however, we find from the
Voluspa, that in accordance with the Mosaic account, 'In the beginning,
there was neither shore nor sea; the earth was not to be found below,
nor the heavens above.' Besides Odin, before mentioned, who was the
god of war, and is supposed to be the Buddha, or Bood, of the Hindoos,
the gods of the Gothic mythology were Frigga, the wife of Odin, and
Thor, their son, who, from the legends told of them, correspond to the
Osiris, Isis, and Orus, of the Egyptians. Among the other children
of Odin, were Balder, a powerful god; Boder, the blind; Vidar, the
god of silence, who walked on the waters and in the air; Vali, the
archer; Uller, who presided over trial by the duel; Forsette, the
arbiter between gods and men; Iduna, the queen of truth, who presided
over witnesses and oaths; Lofen, the guardian of friendship; Synia
and Snootra, who presided over wisdom and discretion. To these may be
added, Heimdall, the son of nine virgins, and sentinel of the gods;
Braga, the god of poetry; Niord, the god of winds and the sea; Tyr,
the god of might; Eica, the goddess of medicine; Freya, the wife of
Holder, and goddess of love; Gna, the messenger of Frigga; Tylia, the
goddess of beauty, secrecy, and chastity; Siona and Soona, presiding
over marriage; and the Valkyries, virgins, who always attended Odin
in battle. Among their evil spirits was Loke, the spirit of evil and
contradiction who was always opposing the gods. Besides the giants and
gods, the Goths, like the Greeks and Romans, had their Genii; like
the Arabians, their fairies; and, like the Indians, their dwarfs or
pigmies. The genii presided over the destinies of man, of whom there
were three principal--Urda, Verdandi and Skulda, answering to the
Parcae. [I. e., the Fates of Roman Mythology.] They had their evil as
well as good genii, of whom Surtur was the prince.
"That they worshipped the sun and moon may be inferred from two days
in the week being sacred to them, namely, Sonndag and Mondag, that is,
Sunday and Monday. The heaven of the Goths was in the highest regions
of the earth, and consisted of two abodes, namely, the Valhalla, or
hall of Odin, where warriors only were admitted; and a higher abode,
called Gimle, where the good and virtuous, in general, were to be
admitted. They had also two abodes for the wicked, namely, Nifleheim,
or Evil home, and Nastrond, or the shore of the Dead. Nifleheim
consisted of nine regions, over whom Hela, or Death, held absolute
sway. Mention is also made of two gods of this hell, instead of the
single Cerberus among the Greeks and Romans.
"The Goths also held that Valhalla and Nifleheim were both perishable
abodes; and that at the last day, the respective inhabitants of these
two places were to be consigned by Alfader, either to Gimle or to
Nastrond, both of which would be eternal; a fable evidently borrowed
from the Scripture account of the day of judgment. They denominated
this the Twilight of the Gods." (Crabb's Mythology, pp. 165-167).
3. _Religion of the Old Europeans:_ "The religion of the barbarian
Europeans was in many respects like that of the American Indians. They
recognized a 'Great Spirit'--omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. In
the earliest times they made no representation of him under the human
form, nor had they temples; but they propitiated him by sacrifices,
offering animals, as the horse, and even men, upon rude altars. Though
it was believed that this 'Great Spirit' might sometimes be heard in
the sounds of the Forests at night, yet, for the most part, he was
too far removed from human supplication, and hence arose, from the
mere sorcerous ideas of a terrified fancy, as has been the case in so
many other countries, star worship--the second stage of comparative
theology. The gloom and shade of dense forests, a solitude that
offers an air of sanctity, and seems a fitting resort for mysterious
spirits, suggested the establishment of sacred groves and holy trees.
Throughout Europe there was a confused idea that the soul exists after
the death of the body; as to its particular state there was a diversity
of belief. As among other people, also, the offices of religion were
not only directed to the present benefit of individuals, but also to
the discovery of future events by various processes of divination and
augury practiced among the priests." (Intellectual Development of
Europe, Draper, p. 240).
4. _Chief Divinities of the Scandinavians:_ "The Scandinavians
sacrificed human victims, and sometimes offered up even their kings, to
appease the gods in times of public calamity. Their chief divinities
were Odin or Wodin, Frea or Friga, and Thor. Odin or Wodin is generally
supposed to have been a deified war-like prince; he was the god and
father of war, and was thought to adopt as his children all who died in
battle; he was also worshipped as the god of arts and sciences, from
his having in some degree civilized the countries which he subdued. The
fourth day of the week was consecrated to him, and was called 'Odin's
day,' which now is corrupted into our 'Wednesday.'
"Frea or Friga, the consort of Odin, was the most amiable of all
the Scandinavian goddesses. She was also called Vanadis, or the
goddess of Hope; and under the name of Hertha she was considered as a
personification of earth. Virgins of high birth devoted themselves to
her service; and Friday, the sixth day of the week, was named after her.
"Thor, the eldest and bravest of the sons of Odin and Frea, was the
god of the aerial regions; prayers were addressed to him for favorable
winds and refreshing showers; and Thursday, the fifth day of the week,
was dedicated to him.
"In the earliest times, the Scandinavians performed their rites in
groves; but they afterwards raised temples to their gods, the most
magnificent of which were at Upsal and Drontheim.
"The inferior deities of the Scandinavians were: Niorder, who presided
over the seas, navigation, hunting and fishing; Isminsul, or the column
of the universe; Surtar, prince of the genii of fire; Balder, son of
Odin; Tur, the dispenser of victory; Heimdal, the guardian of the
heavens; Norder, the blind, a son of Odin; Vidar, the god of silence,
a son of Odin; Braga, the god of poetry; Vati, the formidable archer;
Uller, presiding over trials by duel; Hela, the dreadful goddess of
death; Torset, decided the differences of gods and men; the Valkyries
were goddesses of slaughter; Iduna, the queen of youth; Saga, the
goddess of waterfalls; Vara, the witness of oaths; Lofen, the guardian
of friendship; Synia, the avenger of broken faith." (Burder's History
of All Religions, pp. 525-6).
5. _Scandinavian Notions of Hell:_ "The notions the Scandinavians
entertained of hell were very remarkable; it was called Niflheim, and
consisted of nine vast regions of ice, situated under the North Pole,
the entrance to which was guarded by the dog of darkness, similar to
the Grecian Cerberus. Loke, the evil genius, who was the cruel enemy
of gods and men, with his daughter Hela, the goddess of death; the
giantess Angherbode, the messenger of evil; the wolf Femis, a monster,
dreaded by the gods, as destined to be their destruction, and the
equally formidable serpent, resided in this gloomy abode; which has
been described by Gray, in his 'Descent of Odin.'
"The Scandinavians believed that what formed their highest enjoyments
in this world, would likewise constitute their happiness in the next.
They imagined that the souls of heroes who had fallen in battle would
pass their days in hunting shadowy forms of wild beasts, or in combats
with warriors; and at night would assemble in the hall of Odin, to
feast, and drink mead or ale out of the skulls of their enemies whom
they had slain in their mortal life. This view of happiness in a future
state of existence has prevailed amongst all nations." (Burder's
History of All Religions, pp. 525-6).
6. _The Druids:_ "We have reason to believe that the Britons
inhabited England not long after the days of Noah. We might therefore
expect to find resemblances between their religion and the religion of
other ancient peoples; and we are not disappointed. There is a striking
correspondence between the system of the ancient Britons and those
of the Hebrew patriarchs, the Brahmins of India, the Magi of Persia,
and the Greek priests. It was one system that was finally conveyed
to these different parts of the globe. Take, as a single instance of
the many points of comparison, their idea of God. Among their names
for the supreme God which they had in use before the introduction of
Christianity, were terms which have been literally translated, "God,"
"Distributor," "Governor," the "Mysterious One," the "Eternal," "He
that pervadeth all things," "the Author of Existence," "the Ancient
of Days." These expressive appellations sufficiently indicate their
views of the moral character and attributes of God." (The World's
Worship--Dobbins--p. 188).
7. _Druid Priesthood:_ "The Celtic priests were called Druids.
All the Celtic nations, like the early Scythians, performed their
religious ceremonies in sacred groves; and they regarded the oak, and
the mistletoe growing upon it, with peculiar reverence. Their principal
deities were: Teulates, the god of war; Dis, the god of the infernal
regions, and the Pluto of after times; and Andate, the goddess of
victory. The god of war was the divinity of the greatest importance;
upon his altars human victims were sacrificed; and though criminals
were deemed the most acceptable offerings, innocent persons were
frequently immolated.
"Druid is derived from the word deru, which in the Celtic language
signified an oak; because their usual abode was in woods. These priests
were most highly reversed; they were referred to in all civil, as well
as religious matters; and so great was their influence in the state,
that even kings could not ascend the throne without their approbation.
They were divided into four classes,--druids, bards, sarronides, and
vates or eubages; the first were the supreme chiefs, and so highly
reverenced, that the inferior orders could not remain in their presence
without permission to do so. The bards, whose Celtic name signifies a
singer, celebrated the actions of heroes in verse which they sang, and
accompanied on the harp. The sarronides had the charge of instructing
youth whom they were enjoined to inspire with virtuous sentiments;
and the vates or eubages had the care of the sacrifices, and applied
themselves particularly to the study of nature. The Druids enjoyed
great privileges; they were exempted from serving in war and paying
taxes.
"Numbers aspired to gain admission into this order of society, for
it was open to all ranks; but this was rather difficult, as the
candidates were obliged to learn the verses which contained the maxims
of their religion and political government. It was unlawful to commit
the Druidical doctrine to writing; and therefore they were taught,
and transmitted from generation to generation, entirely by the poems
recited by the Druids, who required a period of fifteen, or even twenty
years, to acquire an adequate knowledge on that subject. The Druids
considered the mistletoe as a special gift from the divinity to the
oak, and the gathering of this plant was the most sacred of their
ceremonies." (Burder's History of All Religions, pp. 526-7).
8. _Druid Worship:_ "They worshipped in the open air; it being a
maxim with them, that it was unlawful to build temples to the gods, or
to worship them within walls and under roofs. Their favorite place was
a grove of oaks, or the shelter of a majestic tree of this kind. Here
they would erect stone pillars in one or two circular rows; and in some
of their principal temples, as particularly that of Stonehenge, they
laid stones of prodigious weight on the tops of these perpendicular
pillars, which formed a kind of circle aloft in the air. Near to these
temples they constructed their sacred mounts, their cromlechs or stone
tables for their sacrifices, and every other necessary provision for
their worship. These sacred places were generally situated in the
center of some thick grove or wood, watered by a consecrated river or
fountain, and surrounded by a ditch or mound, to prevent intrusion."
(The World's Worship, p. 190).
LESSON XX.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_XVI. Beliefs of India:_ Chips from a German
Workshop (Max Muller),
1. The Vedas. 2 Vols. Science of
Religions (Max Muller),
2. Doctrines of the Vedas. 1 vol. Chiefly deals with
Buddhism.
3. Chief Gods of Hinduism.
Article in Encyclopaedia
Britannica--"Buddhism."
"Vedanta Philosophy"
(1899), by Swami Vivekananda.
Dobbins' "World's
Worship," Chs. xi-xiii.
Draper's "Intellectual
Development of Europe,"
Vol. I, Ch. iii, and
Notes of this lesson.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "Their idols are silver and gold; the work of men's
hands. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they
see not; they have ears, but they hear not; . . . . they that make them
are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." Ps. cxv._
_NOTES._
1. _The Vedas:_ "Vedas means, originally, knowing or knowledge,
and this name is given by the Brahmans not to one work, but to the
whole body of their most ancient sacred literature. Veda is the same
word which appears in the Greek, 'I know,' and in the English, 'wise,'
'wisdom.' The name of Veda is commonly given to four collections
of hymns, which are respectively known by the names of 'Rig-veda,'
'Yagur-veda,' 'Sama-veda,' and 'Atharva-veda;' but for our own
purposes, namely, for tracing the earliest growth of religious ideas
in India, the only important, the only real Veda, is the Rig-veda. The
other so-called Vedas, which deserve the name of Veda no more than the
Talmud deserves the name of Bible, contain chiefly extracts from the
Rig-veda, together with sacrificial formulas, charms, and incantations,
many of them, no doubt, extremely curious, but never likely to interest
any one except the Sanscrit scholar by profession." ("Chips from a
German Workshop" (Muller), Vol. I, p. 8).
2. _Doctrine of the Vedas:_ "The Vedas, which are the Hindo
Scriptures, and of which there are four, the Rig, Yagust, Saman and
Atharvan, are asserted to have been revealed by Brahma. The fourth
is, however, rejected by some authorities and bears internal evidence
of a later composition, at a time when hierarchical power had become
greatly consolidated. These works are written in an obsolete Sanscrit,
the parent of the more recent idiom. They constitute the basis of an
extensive literature.
"The Vedas are based upon an acknowledgement of a universal Spirit
pervading all things. Of this God they therefore necessarily
acknowledge the unity; 'There is in truth, but one Deity, the Supreme
Spirit; the Lord of the universe, whose work is the universe.' 'The
God above all gods, who created the earth, the heavens, the waters.'
The world, thus considered as an emanation of God, is therefore a
part of him; it is kept in a visible state by his energy, and would
instantly disappear if that energy were for a moment withdrawn. Even
as it is, it is undergoing unceasing transformations, everything being
in a transitory condition. The moment a given phase is reached, it is
departed from, or ceases. In these perpetual movements the present can
scarcely be said to have any existence, for as the Past is ending, the
Future has begun.
"In such a never-ceasing career, all material things are urged,
their forms continually changing, and returning, as it were, through
revolving cycles to similar states. For this reason it is that we may
regard our earth, and the various celestial bodies, as having had
a moment of birth, as having a time of continuance, in which they
are passing onward to an inevitable destruction, and that after the
lapse of countless ages similar progresses will be made, and similar
series of events will occur again and again." (Draper, Intellectual
Development of Europe, Vol. I, pp. 58-60).
3. _The Hindu Pantheism:_ "But in this doctrine of universal
transformation there is something more than appears at first. The
theology of India is underlaid with Pantheism. "God is one because he
is All." The Vedas, in speaking of the relation of nature to God, make
use of the expression that he is the 'Material as well as the Cause
of the universe,' 'the Clay as well as the Potter.' They convey the
idea that while there is a prevading spirit existing everywhere of the
same nature as the soul of man, though differing from it infinitely
in degree, visible nature is essentially and inseparably connected
therewith; that as in man the body is perpetually undergoing changes,
perpetually decaying and being renewed, or, as in the case of the whole
human species, nations come into existence and pass away, yet still
there continues to exist what may be termed the universal human mind,
so forever associated and forever connected are the material and the
spiritual. And under this aspect we must contemplate the Supreme Being,
not merely as a presiding intellect, but as illustrated by the parallel
case of man, whose mental principle shows no tokens except through
its connection with the body; so matter, or nature, or the visible
universe, is to be looked upon as the corporeal manifestation of God."
(Draper, Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. I, pp. 58-60).
4. _The Two Aspects of Pantheism:_ "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 of existence; 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.
"Second, the Pantheism which expands the one substance into all the
variety of objects that we see in nature, and regards those various
parts as God, or God expanded into nature, is the second kind of
Pantheism referred to a moment since. 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 worshipped various objects in
nature; the sun, moon, stars; in fact, anything and everything that
bodies 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." (From "Mormon Doctrine of
Deity,"--Roberts--pp. 173-4).
5. _Chief God--The Hindoo Trinity:_ "The three idols sculptured on
the walls of Elephanta Cave are found all over India, and constitute
the chief gods which are worshipped by the Hindus. All the human race
is said to have come from the highlands of Central Asia, and the
worship of these, our Aryan forefathers, was at first exceedingly
simple. Their manner of life brought them into close contact with
nature, and we learn from the hymns then written, many of which are
still preserved in the Vedas (the sacred book of the Hindus), that
they regarded the powers of nature as manifestations of gods. In the
storms, they supposed these rival gods were quarreling. In the Vedic
hymns, frequent mention is made of the chief god, called Dyaus, the
'Heavenly Father.' Also Aditi, the 'Infinite Expanse,' is called the
mother of all gods. Next comes Varuna, the 'Sky in its Brightness,'
then Indra, the God of the 'Atmosphere;' so running through the whole
list. After a time, the names of the gods are somewhat altered, and a
sort of trinity is formed. Agni, god of fire, becomes Brahma; Surya,
the sun-god, becomes Vishnu, and Indra, the atmosphere-god, becomes
Siva. These constitute what is called the Tri-murti, and are generally
said to represent one god as Creator, Preserver or Destroyer. Hindus
often write in their honor verses like the following:
'In those three persons the one God was shown--
Each first in place, each last--not one alone;
Of Siva, Vishnu, Brahma, each may be
First, second, third, among the Blessed Three.'
"As to which of the three gods is to be called the Supreme Being,
opinions differ." (Dobbins' "The World's Worship," pp. 215-216).
LESSON XXI.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_XVI. Beliefs of India--(Continued):_ Chips from a German
Workshop (Max Muller),
1. Brahaminism--General View. 2 vols. Science of
Religions (Max Muller),
2. Buddha--Gautama. 1 Vol. Chiefly deals with
Buddhism.
3. Buddhism.
Article in Encyclopaedia
Britannica--"Buddhism."
Dobbins' "World's
Worship," Chs. xi-xiii.
Burder's "History of
All Religions," pp. 634-672.
Vendanta Philosophy
(1899), by Swami Vivekananda.
Draper's "Intellectual
Development of Europe,"
Vol. I, Ch. iii; and
notes of this lesson.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "All the gods of the nations are idols; but the Lord
made the heavens. Honor and majesty are before Him; strength and beauty
are in His sanctuary." Ps. xcvi:5._
_NOTES._
1. _Brahminism: General View:_ "Brahminism grew out of what is
called the Vedic religion. Before Abraham's day, the people living
in Central Asia, being a simple race, addressed their prayers to the
powers of nature, as, for example, to the storms, the clouds and the
sun, seeing the Deity in each of these. Hymns were written to these
gods, and this forms the earliest of all sacred books, only excepting
those from which Moses wrote his account of the early history of the
world in Genesis. This people moved south into India. The priesthood
arose, and the other Vedic books of ceremonies, sacrifices and
liturgical forms were prepared. Great commentaries were written on
these books, and all were declared to be inspired.
"The priests quarreled with the civil chiefs, but their sacred
character was increased by the conflict, and caste is the result. The
priests are the highest caste (or class); next come the warriors, then
the merchant, the farmer, etc; last of all the tanners, buriers of
the dead, etc. These classes never intermarry or intermingle in any
way; it is contaminating to sit together even. About this time idols
appear, and Gods multiply until they reach the number of 330,000,000.
Men groaned under this stupendous system of oppressive idolatry.
Buddha tried in the seventh century before Christ, to reform it, but
he failed, though he succeeded in establishing a new faith which has
numbered its converts by the hundreds of millions. But Brahminism
continues to be the religion of India, even until today. Starting from
the Veda, Hinduism has ended in embracing something from all religions,
and in presenting phases suited to all minds. It is all-tolerant,
all-compliant, all-comprehensive, all-absorbing. It has its spiritual
and its material aspect, its esoteric and exoteric, its subjective and
objective, its rational and irrational, its pure and impure. It has one
side for the practical, another for the severely moral, another for
the devotional and imaginative, another for the sensuous and sensual,
and another for the philosophical and speculative. Those who rest in
ceremonial observances find it all-sufficient; those who deny the
efficacy of works and make faith the one requisite, need not wander
from its pale; those who are addicted to sensuality may have their
tastes fully gratified; those whose delight is in meditating upon the
nature of God and of man, or the relations of matter and of spirit,
the mystery of separate existence, or upon the origin of evil, may
here indulge their love of speculation. And this capacity for almost
limitless expansion causes almost numberless sectarian divisions even
among the followers of any given particular line of doctrine. Yet there
remains much of the old nature-worship, or more correctly speaking,
of the old devil-worship, among the Hindus even at this late day."
(Dobbins' "World's Worship," pp. 211-213).
2. _Buddha:_ "The Enlightened," the title of Siddhartha, or
Gautama, the founder of Buddhism. "He was born between 562 and 552
B. C. The Buddhist narratives of his life are overgrown with legend
and myth. Senart seeks to trace in them the history of the sun-hero.
Oldenberg finds in the most ancient traditions--those of Ceylon--at
least definite historical outlines. Siddhartha, as Buddha was called
before entering upon his great mission, was born in the country and
tribe of Sakhyas, at the foot of the Nepalese Himalayas. His father,
Suddhodana, was rather a great and wealthy land owner than a king. He
passed his youth in opulence at Kapilavastu, the Sakhya capital. He
was married and had a son Rahula, who became a member of his order.
At the age of twenty-nine he left parents, wife, and only son, for
the spiritual struggle of a recluse. After seven years he believed
himself possessed of perfect truth, and assumed the title of Buddha,
'the enlightened.' He is represented as having received a sudden
illumination as he sat under the Botree, or 'tree of knowledge,' at
Bodhgaya or Buddha-Gaya. For twenty-eight or, as later narratives
give it, forty-nine days, he was variously tempted by Mara. One of
his doubts was whether to keep for himself the knowledge won, or
to share it. Love triumphed, and he began to preach, at first at
Benares. For forty-four years he preached in the region of Benares and
Behar. Primitive Buddhism is only to be gathered by inference from
the literature of a later time. Buddha did not array himself against
the old religion. The doctrines were rather the outgrowth of those
of certain Brahmanical schools. His especial concern was salvation
from sorrow, and so from existence. There are 'four noble truths':
(1) existence is suffering; (2) the cause of pain is desire; (3)
cessation of pain is possible through the suppression of desire; (4)
the way to this is the knowledge and observance of the 'good law' of
Buddha. The end is Nirvana, the cessation of existence. Buddhism was
preached in the vulgar tongue, and had a popular literature and an
elaborately organized monastic and missionary system. It made its way
into Afghanistan, Bactriana, Tibet, and China. It passed away in India
not from Brahman persecution, but rather from internal causes, such as
its too abstract nature, too morbid view of life, relaxed discipline,
and overgrowth of monasticism, and also because Shivaism and Vishnuism
employed many of its own weapons more effectively. The system has been
variously modified in dogma and rites in the many countries to which it
has spread. It is supposed to number about 350,000,000 of adherents,
who are principally in Ceylon, Tibet, China, and Japan." (Century
Dictionary, Art. Buddha).
3. _The Original Elements in Buddhism:_ "What was original and new
in Buddha was his changing a philosophical system into a practical
doctrine; his taking the wisdom of the few, and coining as much of it
as he thought genuine for the benefit of the many; his breaking with
the traditional formalities of the past, and proclaiming for the first
time, in spite of caste and creeds, the equality of the rich and the
poor, the foolish and the wise, the 'twice-born' and the outcast.
Buddhism, as a religion and as a political fact, was a reaction against
Brahmanism, though it retained much of that more primitive form of
faith and worship. Buddhism, in its historical growth, presupposes
Brahmanism, and, however hostile the mutual relation of these two
religions may have been at different periods of Indian history, it can
be shown, without much difficulty, that the latter was but a natural
consequence of the former." "Chips from a German Workshop" (Muller),
Vol. I, p. 234.
4. _Absence of God in Buddhism:_ "Buddhism has no God; it has not
even the confused and vague notion of a Universal Spirit in which the
human soul, according to the orthodox doctrine of Brahmanism, and the
Sankhya philosophy, may be absorbed. Nor does it admit nature, in
the proper sense of the word, and it ignores that profound division
between spirit and matter which forms the system and glory of Kapila.
It confounds man with all that surrounds him, all the while preaching
to him the laws of virtue. Buddhism, therefore cannot unite the human
soul, which it does not even mention, with a God, whom it ignores; nor
with nature, which it does not know better. Nothing remained but to
annihilate the soul; and in order to be quite sure that the soul may
not reappear under some new form in this world, which has been cursed
as the abode of illusion and misery, Buddhism destroys its elements,
and never gets tired of glorying in this achievement. What more is
wanted? If this is not the absolute nothing, what is Nirvana?
"Such religion, we should say, was made for a madhouse. But Buddhism
was an advance, if compared with Brahmanism; it has stood its ground
for centuries, and if truth could be decided by majorities, the show
of hands, even at the present day, would be in favor of Buddha. The
metaphysics of Buddhism, like the metaphysics of most religions, not
excluding our own Gnosticism and Mysticism, were beyond the reach of
all except a few hardened philosophers or ecstatic dreamers. Human
nature could not be changed. Out of the very 'nothing' it made a new
paradise; and he who had left no place in the whole universe for a
Divine Being, was deified himself by the multitudes who wanted a
person whom they could worship, a king whose help they might invoke,
a friend before whom they could pour out their most secret griefs.
And there remained the code of a pure morality, proclaimed by Buddha.
There remained the spirit of charity, kindness, and universal pity with
which he had inspired his disciples. There remained the simplicity of
the ceremonial he had taught, the equality of all men which he had
declared, the religious toleration which he had preached from the
beginning. There remained much, therefore, to account for the rapid
strides which his doctrine made from the mountain peaks of Ceylon to
the Tundras of the Samoyedes." (Ibid, pp. 250-1).
LESSON XXII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_XVII. Beliefs of China:_ Myers' "General History,"
Ch. ix.
1. The Empire.
Dobbins' "World's
2. Religious Teachers and Literature. Worship," Ch. xxxiii.
3. General Character of Chinese Burder's "History of
Religious Faiths. All Religions," Part VI,
Sec. viii.
4. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism.
Science of Religion
(Muller).
Chips from a German
Workshop, Vol. I,
Chs. x-xiii.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "Do not to another what you would not have him do unto
you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the
rest." Confucius.[1]_
_NOTES._
1. _China:_ "China was the cradle of a very old civilization, older
perhaps than that of any other lands save Egypt and Babylonia; yet
Chinese affairs have not until recently exercised any direct influence
upon the general current of history. All through the later ancient and
mediaeval times the country lay, vague and mysterious, in the haze
of the world's horizon. During the Middle Ages the land was known to
Europe under the name of Cathay.
"The government of China from a remote period has been a parental
monarchy. The emperor is the father of his people. But though an
absolute prince, he dare not rule tyrannically; he must rule justly and
in accordance with the ancient customs." (Myers' General History, p.
67.)
2. _The Teachers Confucius and Mencius:_ "The great teacher of
the Chinese was Confucius (551-478 B. C.). He was not a prophet or
revealer; he laid no claims to a supernatural knowledge of God or of
the hereafter; he said nothing of an Infinite Spirit, and but little
of a future life. His cardinal precepts were obedience to parents
and superiors, and reverence for the ancients and imitation of their
virtues. He himself walked in the old paths, and thus added the force
of example to that of precept. He gave the Chinese the Golden Rule,
stated negatively: "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to
others." The influence of Confucius has been greater than that of any
other teacher excepting Christ, and perhaps Buddha.
"Another great teacher of the Chinese was Mencius (372-288 B. C.). He
was a disciple of Confucius and a scarcely less revered philosopher and
moral teacher." (Myers' General History, p. 68).
3. _Chinese Literature:_ "The most highly-prized portion of Chinese
literature is embraced in what is known as the Five Classics and the
Four Books, called collectively the Nine Classics. A considerable
part of the material of the Five Classics was collected and edited by
Confucius. The Four Books, though not written by Confucius, yet bear
the impress of his mind and thought, just as the Gospels teach the mind
of Christ. The cardinal virtue inculcated by all the sacred writings is
filial piety.
"It would be difficult to exaggerate the influence which the Nine
Classics have had upon the Chinese nation. For more than two
thousand years these writings have been the Chinese Bible. But their
influence has not been wholly good. The Chinese, in strictly obeying
the injunction to walk in the old ways, to conform to the customs
of the ancients, have failed to mark out any new footpaths for
themselves; hence one cause of the unprogressive character of Chinese
civilization." (Myers' General History, p. 69).
4. _The Religion of China:_ 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.
"It is true that we know the ancient popular religion of China from
the works of Confucius only, or from even more modern sources. But
Confucius, though he is called the founder of a new religion, was
really but the new preacher of an old religion. He was emphatically a
transmitter, not a maker. He says himself: 'I only hand on; I cannot
create new things. I believe in the ancients, and therefore I love
them.'" (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."
5. _Buddhism in China:_ "Buddhism spread in the south to Ceylon; in
the north to Kashmir, the Himalayan countries, Thibet, and China. One
Buddhist missionary is mentioned in the Chinese annals as early as 217
B. C.; and about the year 120 B. C. a Chinese general, after defeating
the barbarous tribes north of the Desert of Gobi, brought back as a
trophy a golden statute, the statute of Buddha. It was not, however,
till the year 66 A. D. that Buddhism was officially recognized by the
Emperor Ming-ti as a third state religion in China. Ever since, it has
shared equal honors with the doctrines of Confucius and Lao-tse, in the
celestial empire." (Chips from a German Workshop--Muller--Vol. I, pp.
253-4).
6. _The Three Chinese National Religions:_ "A Chinaman may at the
same time be an adherent of all three of the national religions. The
mass of the Chinese people accept the three, and see no inconsistency
in so doing. It is somewhat as if we Americans were at the same time
Protestant, Romanist and skeptic. The Chinese support the priests of
all religions, worship in all their temples, and believe in the gods of
each and all. These three religions differ from each other, however,
Dr. Edkins has so well defined this difference that we give his words:
'_Confucianism_ speaks to the moral nature. It discourses on
virtue and vice, and the duty of compliance with the law and the
dictates of conscience. Its worship rests on this basis. The religious
veneration paid to ancestors--for that is the worship of this
system--is founded on the duty of filial piety. The moral sense of the
Chinese is offended if they are called on to resign this custom.
'_Taoism_ is materialistic. Its notion of the soul is of something
physical, a purer form of matter. The soul it supposes to gain
immortality by a physical discipline, a sort of chemical process, which
transmutes it into a more ethereal essence, and prepares it for being
transferred to the regions of immortality. The gods of Taoism are also
very much what might be expected in a system which has such notions
as these of the soul. It looks upon the stars as divine. It deifies
hermits and physicians, magicians and seekers after the philosopher's
stone and the plant of immortality.
'_Buddhism_ is different from both. It is metaphysical. It appeals
to the imagination, and deals in subtle argument. It says that the
world of the senses is altogether unreal, and upholds this proposition
by the most elaborate proofs. Its gods are personified ideas. It
denies matter entirely, and concerns itself only with ideas. Most of
the personages adored by the Buddhists are known to be nothing but
fictitious impersonations of some of these ideas. The Buddhist worship
is not reverence paid to beings believed to be actually existing; it
is a homage rendered to ideas, and it is only supposed to be reflex in
its effects. Their worship is useful as a discipline, but not effectual
as prayer. The Buddhist, if he can obtain abstraction of mind from the
world in any other mode, need not pray or worship at all.'
"These three systems, occupying the three corners of a triangle--the
moral, the metaphysical and the material--are supplemental to each
other, and are able to co-exist without being mutually destructive.
They rest each on a basis of its own, and address themselves each to
different parts of man's nature. It was because Confucianism 'knew
God, but did not honor Him as God,' that the way was left open for a
polytheism like that of the Buddhists. In the old books of China, God
is spoken of as the 'Supreme Ruler.' He is represented as exercising
over mankind an infinitely just and beneficent providence. But the
duty of prayer is not enjoined. No worship of God by the people is
permitted. It was only by the emperor acting vicariously for the people
that the Deity was adored in that country. The system of Confucius,
wanting this, was more a morality than a religion.
"Buddhism came to fill this vacancy. Individual faith in God, with
a rational mode of worship to accompany it, could not be a result
of the religious teaching which preceded it in China, nor were they
inculcated by it. In Buddhism, the Chinese found objects to adore of
mysterious grandeur, and richly endowed with the attributes of wisdom
and benevolence. The appeal thus made to their religious faith was
strengthened by a pompous form of worship. Processions and the ringing
of bells, fumes of sweet-smelling incense, prayers, chanting and
musical instruments were their aids to devotion. No wonder that these
additions should prove welcome to the religious susceptibilities of a
nation which had hitherto been restricted within the bounds of a system
almost exclusively moral, and which discouraged the worship of God by
the mass of the people." (Dobbins' World's Worship, pp. 419-421).
Footnotes
1. Cf. Matt. vii;12. also II Nephi, xxix;11-14; and Alma xxix; 8.
LESSON XXIII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(CONTINUED.)
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_XVIII. Belief of Mohammedans._ The Koran[1] of Mohammed
(Sales's Translation),
1. Arabia and Its People. Preliminary Discourse,
pp. 1-132, and
2. Mohammed--Birth; Appearance; Koran, Chs. iii and xxx.
Character; Mission.
Gibbon's "Decline and
3. Mohammedanism-The Creed. Fall of Rome," Vol. VI,
Ch. 50.
Draper's "Intellectual
Development of Europe,"
Vol. I, Ch. xi.
Hero and Hero Worship
(Carlyle), Lecture II.
Dobbins' "World's
Worship," Ch. xxxv,
xxxvi and the notes of
this lesson.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "O Lord our Lord, how Excellent is Thy Name, in all the
earth!" Ps. viii_.
_NOTES._
1. _Arabia--The Land:_ "The Arabs, and the country they inhabit,
which themselves call Jexirat al Arab, or the Peninsula of the
Arabians, but we Arabia, were so named from Araba, a small territory in
the province of Tehama; to which Yarab the son of Kahtan, the father
of the ancient Arabs, gave his name, and where, some ages after, dwelt
Ishmael the son of Abraham by Hagar. The Christian writers for several
centuries speak of them under the appellation of Saxons; the most
certain derivation of which word is from 'shark,' the east, where the
descendants of Joctan, the Kahtan of the Arabs, are placed by Moses,
and in which quarter they dwelt in respect to the Jews.
"The name of Arabia (used in a more extensive sense) sometimes
comprehends all that large tract of land bounded by the river
Euphrates, the Persian Gulf, the Sindian, Indian, and Red Seas, and
part of the Mediterranean; above two-thirds of which country, that
is, Arabia properly so-called, the Arabs have possessed almost from
the flood; and have made themselves masters of the rest, either by
settlements, or continual incursions; for which reason the Turks and
Persians at this day call the whole Arabistan, or the country of the
Arabs.
"But the limits of Arabia, in its more usual and proper sense, are much
narrower, as reaching no farther northward than the Isthmus, which
runs from Aila to the head of the Persian Gulf, and the borders of the
territory of Cufa; which tract of land the Greeks nearly comprehended
under the name of Arabia the Happy. The eastern geographers make Arabia
Petraea to belong partly to Egypt, and partly to Sham or Syria, and the
Desert Arabia they call the deserts of Syria. * * * *
"This country has been famous from all antiquity for the happiness of
its climate, its fertility and riches, which induced Alexander the
Great, after his return from his Indian expedition, to form a design
of conquering it, and fixing there his royal seat; but his death,
which happened soon after, prevented the execution of this project."
(Koran--Sales--Preliminary Discourse, pp. 1, 2).
2. _The Arabians:_ "The Arabians, the inhabitants of this spacious
country, which they have possessed from the most remote antiquity, are
distinguished by their own writers into two classes, viz., the old lost
Arabians, and the present.
"The former were very numerous, and divided into several tribes, which
are now all destroyed, or else lost and swallowed up among the other
tribes, nor are any certain memoirs or records extant concerning them;
though the memory of some very remarkable events and the catastrophe
of some tribes have been preserved by tradition, and since confirmed by
the authority of the Koran. * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The present Arabians, according to their own historians, are sprung
from two stocks, Kahtan, the same with Joctan the son of Eber, and
Adnan descended in a direct line from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and
Hagar; the posterity of the former they call al Arab al Ariba, i.
e. naturalized or insititious Arabs, though some reckon the ancient
lost tribes to have been the only pure Arabians, and therefore call
the posterity of Kahtan also Motanreba, which word likewise signifies
insititious Arabs, though in a nearer degree than Mostareba; the
descendants of Ishmael being the more distant graft. * * * * *
"The posterity of Ishmael have no claim to be admitted as pure Arabs;
their ancestor being by origin and language an Hebrew, but having
made alliance with the Jorhamites, by marrying a daughter of Modad,
and accustomed himself to their manner of living and language, his
descendants became blended with them into one nation. The uncertainty
of the descents between Ismael and Adnan, is the reason why they seldom
trace their genealogies higher than the latter, whom they acknowledge
as father of their tribes; the descents from him downwards being pretty
certain and uncontroverted." (Ibid, pp. 4, 6, 7).
3. _Mohammed, Birth and Ancestry:_ "Mahomet, or more properly
Mohammed, the only son of Abdallah and Amina, was born at Mecca, four
years after the death of Justinian, and two months after the defeat of
the Abyssinians, (A. D. 569) whose victory would have introduced into
the Caaba the religion of the Christians. In his early infancy he was
deprived of his father, his mother, and his grandfather; his uncles
were strong and numerous; and, in the division of the inheritance,
the orphan's share was reduced to five camels and an Ethiopian
maid-servant. At home and abroad, in peace and war, Abu Taleb, the most
respectable of his uncles, was the guide and guardian of his youth; in
his twenty-fifth year he entered into the service of Cadijah, a rich
and noble widow of Mecca, who soon rewarded his fidelity with the gift
of her hand and fortune. The marriage contract, in the simple style of
antiquity, recites the mutual love of Mahomet and Cadijah; describes
him as the most accomplished of the tribe of Koeish; and stipulates a
dowry of twelve ounces of gold and twenty camels, which was supplied by
the liberality of his uncle. By this alliance the son of Abdallah was
restored to the station of his ancestors; and the judicious matron was
content with his domestic virtues, till, in the fortieth year of his
age, he assumed the title of prophet, and proclaimed the religion of
the Koran." (Gibbon's "Decline and Fall," Vol. VI, pp. 218-219.)
4. _Mohammed's Personal Appearance:_ "According to the tradition
of his companions, Mohammed was distinguished by the beauty of his
person, an outward gift which is seldom despised, except by those to
whom it has been refused. Before he spoke, the orator engaged on his
side the affections of a public or private audience. They applauded
his commanding presence, his majestic aspect, his piercing eye, his
gracious smile, his flowing beard, his countenance that painted every
sensation of the soul, and his gestures that enforced each expression
of the tongue. In the familiar offices of life he scrupulously
adhered to the grave and ceremonious politeness of his country; his
respectful attention to the rich and powerful was dignified by his
condescension and affability to the poorest citizens of Mecca; the
frankness of his manner concealed the artifice of his views; and the
habits of courtesy were imputed to personal friendship or universal
benevolence. His memory was capacious and retentive; his wit easy
and social; his imagination sublime; his judgment clear, rapid, and
decisive. He possessed the courage both of thought and action; and,
although his designs might gradually expand with his success, the
first idea which he entertained of his divine mission bears the stamp
of an original and superior genius. The son of Abdallah was educated
in the bosom of the noblest race, in the use of the purest dialect of
Arabia, and the fluency of his speech was corrected and enhanced by
the practice of discreet and seasonable silence. With these powers
of eloquence, Mahomet was an illiterate barbarian; his youth had
never been instructed in the arts of reading and writing; the common
ignorance exempted him from shame or reproach, but he was reduced to
a narrow circle of existence, and deprived of those faithful mirrors
which reflect to our mind the minds of sages and heroes. Yet the book
of nature and of man was open to his view; and some fancy has been
indulged in the political and philosophical observations which are
ascribed to the Arabian traveler. He compares the nations and the
religions of the earth; discovers the weakness of the Persian and Roman
monarchies; beholds with pity and indignation the degeneracy of the
times; and resolves to unite under one God and one king the invincible
spirit and primitive virtues of the Arabs." (Ibid, pp. 219-221.)
5. _The Character of Mohammed:_ "Mohammed possessed that
combination of qualities which more than once has decided the fate of
empires. A preaching soldier, he was eloquent in the pulpit, valiant
in the field. His theology was simple: "There is but one God." The
effeminate Syrian, lost in Monothelite and Monophysite mysteries; the
Athanasian and Arian, destined to disappear before his breath, might
readily anticipate what he meant. Asserting that everlasting truth, he
did not engage in vain metaphysics, but applied himself to improving
the social condition of his people by regulations respecting personal
cleanliness, sobriety, fasting, prayer. Above all other works he
esteemed almsgiving and charity. With a liberality to which the world
had of late become a stranger, he admitted the salvation of men of any
form of faith provided they were virtuous. To the declaration that
there is but one God, he added, "and Mohammed is his Prophet." Whoever
desires to know whether the event of things answered to the boldness
of such an announcement, will do well to examine a map of the world
in our own times. He will find the marks of something more than an
imposture. To be the religious head of many empires, to guide the daily
life of one-third of the human race, may perhaps justify the title of
a messenger of God." (Draper: "Intellectual Development," Vol. I, pp.
330.)
6. _Mohammed and Supernatural Appearances:_ "Like many of the
Christian monks, Mohammed retired to the solitude of the desert, and,
devoting himself to meditation, fasting, and prayer, became the victim
of cerebral disorder. He was visited by supernatural appearances,
mysterious voices accosting him as the Prophet of God; even the stones
and trees joined in the whispering. He himself suspected the true
nature of his malady, and to his wife Cadijah he expressed a dread that
he was becoming insane. It is related that as they sat alone, a shadow
entered the room. "Dost thou see aught?" said Cadijah, who, after the
manner of Arabian matrons, wore her veil. "I do," said the prophet.
Whereupon she uncovered her face and said: "Dost thou see it now?" "I
do not." "Glad tidings to thee, O Mohammed!" exclaimed Cadijah; "it is
an angel, for he has respected my unveiled face; an evil spirit would
not." As his disease advanced, these spectral illusions became more
frequent; from one of them he received the divine commission. "I," said
his wife, "will be thy first believer"; and they knelt down in prayer
together. Since that day nine thousand millions of human beings have
acknowledged him to be a prophet of God." (Ibid, pp. 330-1.)
7. _Mohammedan Creed:_ "There is no God but God, the living, the
self subsisting; he hath sent down unto thee the book of the Koran
with truth, confirming that which was revealed before it; for he had
formerly sent down the law, and the gospel, a direction unto men;
and he had also sent down the distinction between good and evil.
Verily those who believe not the signs of God shall suffer a grievous
punishment; for God is mighty, able to revenge. Surely nothing is
hidden from God, of that which is on earth, or in heaven; it is He who
formeth you in the wombs, as he pleaseth; there is no God but he, the
mighty, the wise. * * * * * * * * * * It is God who hath created you,
and hath provided food for you; hereafter will he cause you to die;
and after that will he raise you again to life. Is there any of your
false gods, who is able to do the least of these things? * * * * * *
It is God who sendeth the winds, and raiseth the clouds, and spreadeth
the same in the heaven, as he pleaseth; and afterwards disperseth the
same; and thou mayest see the rain issuing from the midst thereof; and
when he poureth the same down on such of his servants as he pleaseth,
behold, they are filled with joy. * * * * * *
"It is God who created you in weakness, and after weakness hath given
you strength; and after strength, he will again reduce you to weakness
and grey hairs; he createth that which he pleaseth; and he is the wise,
the powerful." (Al Koran, Chs. iii and xxx.)
8. _Comment on the Creed of Mohammed:_ "The faith which under the
name of Islam, he preached to his family and nation, is compounded of
an eternal truth and necessary fiction. That there is only one God,
and that Mahomet is the Apostle of God. It is the boast of the Jewish
apologists, that, while the learned nations of antiquity were deluded
by the fables of polytheism, their simple ancestors of Palestine
preserved the knowledge and worship of the true God. The moral
attributes of Jehovah may not easily be reconciled with the standard of
human virtue; his metaphysical qualities are darkly expressed; but each
page of the Pentateuch and the Prophets is an evidence of his power;
the unity of his name is inscribed on the first table of the law; and
his sanctuary was never defiled by any visible image of the invisible
essence. After the ruin of the temple, the faith of the Hebrew exiles
was purified, fixed and enlightened by the spiritual devotion of the
synagogue; and the authority of Mahomet will not justify his perpetual
reproach that the Jews of Mecca or Mediana adored Ezra as the son
of God. But the children of Israel had ceased to be a people; and
the religions of the world were guilty, at least in the eyes of the
prophet, of giving sons, or daughters or companions to the Supreme God.
* * * * * * * *
"The creed of Mahomet is free from suspicion or ambiguity; and the
Koran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God. The prophet of Mecca
rejected the worship of idols and men, of stars and planets, on the
rational principle that whatever rises must set, that whatever is born
must die, that whatever is corruptible must decay and perish. In the
author of the universe his rational enthusiasm confessed and adored
an infinite and Eternal Being, without form or place, without issue
or similitude, present to our most secret thoughts, existing by the
necessity of his own nature, and deriving from himself all moral and
intellectual perfection. These sublime truths, thus announced in the
language of the prophet, are firmly held by his disciples, and defined
with metaphysical precision by the interpreters of the Koran." (Gibbon:
"Decline and Fall," Vol. VI, pp. 222-3).
"A philosophic theist might subscribe the popular creed of the
Mahometans; a creed too sublime perhaps for our present faculties. What
object remains for the fancy, or even the understanding, when we have
abstracted from the unknown substance all ideas of time and space, of
motion and matter, of sensation and reflection? The first principle
of reason and revelation was confirmed by the voice of Mahomet; his
proselytes, from India to Morocco, are distinguished by the name of
Unitarians; and the danger of idolatry has been prevented by the
interdiction of images. The doctrine of eternal decrees and absolute
predestination is strictly embraced by the Mahometans; and they
struggle with the common difficulties how to reconcile the prescience
of God with the freedom and responsibility of man; how to explain the
permission of evil under the reign of infinite power and infinite
goodness.
"The God of nature has written his existence on all of his works, and
his law in the heart of man. To restore the knowledge of the one,
and the practice of the other, has been the real or pretended aim
of the prophets of every age; the liberality of Mahomet allowed to
his predecessors the same credit which he claimed for himself; and
the chain of inspiration was prolonged from the fall of Adam to the
promulgation of the Koran. During that period some rays of prophetic
light had been imparted to one hundred and twenty-four thousand of the
elect, discriminated by their respective measure of virtue and grace;
three hundred and thirteen apostles were sent with a special commission
to recall their country from idolatry and vice; one hundred and four
volumes have been dictated by the Holy Spirit; and six legislators of
transcendent brightness have announced to mankind the six successive
revelations of various rites, but of one immutable religion. The
authority and station of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, and
Mahomet, rise in just gradation above each other; but whosoever hates
or rejects any one of the prophets is numbered with the infidels. The
writings of the patriarchs were extant only in the apocryphal copies
of the Greeks and Syrians; the conduct of Adam had not entitled him to
the gratitude or respect of his children; the seven precepts of Noah
were observed by an inferior and imperfect class of the proselytes of
the synagogue; and the memory of Abraham was obscurely revered by the
Sabians in his native land of Chaldea; of the myriads of prophets,
Moses and Christ alone lived and reigned; and the remnant of the
inspired writings was comprised in the books of the Old and the New
Testament. The miraculous story of Moses is consecrated and embellished
in the Koran, and the captive Jews enjoy the secret revenge of imposing
their own belief on the nations whose recent creeds they deride. For
the author of Christianity, the Mahometans are taught by the prophet
to entertain a high and mysterious reverence. "Verily, Christ Jesus,
the son of Mary, is the apostle of God, and his word, which he conveyed
unto Mary, and a spirit proceeding from him; honorable in this world,
and in the world to come; and one of those who approached near to the
presence of God."[2] (Gibbon: "Decline and Fall," Vol. I, VI, pp.
223-226.)
9. _Islam:_ "Mahomet had been wont to retire yearly, during the
month of Ramadhan, into solitude and silence; as indeed was the Arab
custom, a praiseworthy custom, which such a man, above all, would find
natural and useful. Communing with his own heart, in the silence of the
mountains; himself silent; open to the 'small still voices'; it was a
right natural custom! Mahomet was in his fortieth year, when having
withdrawn to a cavern in Mount Hara, near Mecca, during his Ramadhan,
to pass the month in prayer and meditation on those great questions,
he one day told his wife Kadijah, who with his household was with him
or near him this year, that by the unspeakable special favor of Heaven
he had now found it all out; was in doubt and darkness no longer, but
saw it all. That all these Idols and Formulas were nothing, miserable
bits of wood; that there was one God in and over all; and we must
leave all idols, and look to Him. That God is great; and that there is
nothing else great! He is the Reality. Wooden idols are not real; He is
real. He made us at first, sustains us yet; we and all things are but
the shadow of Him; a transitory garment veiling the Eternal Splendor.
'Allah Akbar, God is Great;' and then also 'Islam,' that we must submit
to God. That our whole strength lies in resigned submission to Him,
whatsoever He do to us. For this world, and for the other! The thing He
sends to us, were it death and worse than death, shall be good, shall
be best; we resign ourselves to God." (Hero Worship, Lecture II).
Footnotes
1. "The syllable 'Al' in the word 'Alkoran' (sometimes also written
'Alcoran') is only the Arabic article signifying _'the'_;
and therefore ought to be omitted when the English article is
prefixed."--Sale, Alkoran, p. 40.
2. Koran, Ch. iii.
LESSON XXIV.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
SPECIAL LESSON.
_THE CALLING OF ISRAEL AS A WITNESS OF THE TRUE GOD--WAS ISRAEL TRUE
TO HIS MISSION?_
(AN ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE.)
_NOTES._
1. _Judaism and Ancient Conceptions of God:_ It may be thought
strange that I have not devoted one lesson at least to Judaism among
the lessons on the "Ancient Conceptions of God." My reason for omitting
consideration of it here, where it would so fittingly take rank among
the ancient faiths, is that when the ancient and modern conceptions
of God shall have been considered, we then take up "True Conceptions
of Deity," and in doing so it is desirable that the whole range of
revelation to sustain the true doctrine and argument--including the
revelation which God gave of himself first to Abraham, and afterwards
to his descendants, Israel--both for the existence and the nature of
God, be available under one heading. To introduce the doctrine of
Deity as made known to ancient Israel would be to deal now with "True
Conceptions of God," and thus precipitate before its time the main
question of our treatise. And so we give Judaism place at this point
only by inviting the student's attention to it through this special
lesson.
2. _An Argumentative Discourse:_ I have suggested in the title
of this lesson that it be considered as an argumentative discourse;
and in the main this is inevitable; but it can be made to combine
both expository and argumentative discourse. The first part of the
title--"The Special Calling of Israel as a Witness of the True God,"
necessarily calls for exposition--the fact must be established that
Israel received such a mission. The second part of the title makes
necessary the argumentative form of treatment. An explanation of
Expository discourse will be found in Lesson X, Note 1 of this Year
Book. Argumentative discourse is treated in Seventy's Year Book No. II,
pp. 68-72. For treatise on "thought gathering," see Year Book No. I,
pp. 147-150; on "Constructing a plan," etc. See Year Book No. II, pp.
113-115, also pp. 149-151.
3. _Sources of Information:_ Trace the subject through the Bible
by means of a concordance, beginning with Deuteronomy XXVI, especially
verses 16-19. Also Deuteronomy XXVIII and XXIX, and trace out the
prophecies to their fulfillment. See on these chapters the Commentary
of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. Also "The Gospel" p. 85, footnote
(third Ed.). Josephus of course; and where it can be had Leslie's
"Short and Easy Method with the Jews," sub-division XI. It is published
in "Christian Evidences" (1853). Edersheim's Life and Times of Messiah,
Vol. I, Chs. i-iv inclusive. Conybeare & Howson's Life of St. Paul, Ch.
I. Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy, Vol. I, Ch. i. Mormon Doctrine
of Deity, pp. 179-185. Also History of Christianity in the First Three
Centuries (Mosheim) Vol. I, pp. 52-55.
4. _Suggestions to the Speaker:_ In the last Special Lesson (Lesson
XV), under the title of this note we said the last word on the "First
Moments of Speech," we brought the speaker upon his feet facing his
audience. It now remains to carry him through the speech beginning with
the _Introduction_; and I shall follow the same master who has
before instructed us, Mr. Pittenger; and here let me say that we may
keep in mind the old formula of a well conducted speech: Introduction,
Discussion and Conclusion.
_The Introduction:_ "A good introduction is exceedingly
valuable, and is to be sought for with great solicitude, if it does
not spontaneously present itself. Some kind of an introduction is
inevitable, for there will always be a first moment when silence is
broken, and our thoughts introduced. The subsiding murmur of the
audience tells the speaker that the time of his trial has come. If he
is very sensitive, or if he has seldom, if ever, spoken before, his
pulse beats fast, his face flushes, and an indescribable feeling of
faintness and fear thrills every nerve. He may wish himself anywhere
else, but there is now no help for him. He must arise, and for the time
stand as the mark for all eyes and the subject of all thoughts.
"There is a vast difference between reciting and extemporizing in these
opening moments, and the advantage seems to be altogether on the side
of recitation. Every word is in its proper place and the speaker may be
perfectly calm and self-collected. He is sure that his memory will not
fail him in the opening, and encouraged by that assurance, will usually
throw his whole power into his first sentences, causing his voice to
ring clear and loud over the house.
"The extemporizer is in a far more difficult position. He is sure of
nothing. The weight of the whole speech rests heavily upon his mind.
He is glancing ahead, striving to forecast the coming sentences, as
well as carrying forward those gliding over the tongue, and, distracted
by this double labor, his first expressions may be feeble and
ungraceful. Yet this modesty and timidity is no real loss; it goes far
to conciliate an audience and secure their good-will. We can scarcely
fail to distinguish memorized from extemporized discourses by the
introduction alone.
"To avoid the pain and hesitancy of an unelaborated beginning, some
speakers write and memorize the opening passage. This may accomplish
the immediate object, but it is apt to be at the expense of all the
remainder of the discourse. The mind cannot pass easily from reciting
to spontaneous origination; and the voice, being too freely used at
first, loses its power. The hearers, having listened to highly polished
language, are less disposed to relish the plain words that follow, and
the whole speech, which, like the Alpine condor, may have pitched from
the loftiest summits, falls fast and far, until the lowest level is
reached. A written introduction may be modest and unpretending, but
unless it very closely imitates unstudied speech, painful contrasts and
disappointments are inevitable. * * * * * * *
"It is only the substance and not the words of the introduction that
should be prepared. A single sentence may be mentally forecast, but
much beyond would be harmful; and even this sentence should be simple
and easily understood. Anything that needs explanation is very much
out of place. Neither should the introduction be so striking as to be
the part of the discourse longest remembered. Rather than permit the
attention to be distracted in that manner, it would be better to have
no introduction."
_As to Apologies:_ "A speaker gains much if he can at the outset
arrest the attention and win the sympathy of his hearers and then carry
these over to his proper subject. But it may be assumed as certain,
that no kind of an apology will accomplish this object--unless, indeed,
the speaker is such a favorite that everything in regard to his health
or position is an object of deep solicitude to his audience. A popular
speaker who happens to be late and apologizes for it by explaining
that he had just escaped from a terrible railroad accident would make
a good introduction. A loved pastor, in his first sermon after serious
illness, might properly begin by talking of his amendment and his joy
at addressing his flock again. But these are rare exceptions. The
speaker about to make any kind of an apology or personal reference as
an introduction, may well heed Punch's advice to persons about to be
married: _'Don't!'"_ * * * * * *
_The Mortification of Inattention:_ "Some inattention may be
expected and patiently borne with [by the speaker] at first. Part of
the opening words may be lost by an additional reason for not making
them of capital importance to the address. It is useless to try by
loud tones and violent manner to dispel indifference. If the speaker's
words have real weight, and if his manner indicates confidence, one by
one the audience will listen, until that electric thrill of sympathy,
impossible to describe, but which is as evident to the practiced
speaker as an accord in music, tells him that every ear is open to his
words, and that his thoughts are occupying every mind." * * * *
_Subjects for Introductions:_ "There are two or three general
subjects available for introduction which every speaker would do well
to study carefully, and which will do much to furnish him with the
means of properly approaching his theme. We will mention the most
useful of these, premising that no one mode should be depended upon to
the exclusion of others.
"A good mode of introduction consists in a compliment to an audience.
When a truthful and manly compliment can be given it is a most
agreeable step toward the good-will of those we address; but if used
on all occasions indiscriminately, it is meaningless; if transparently
false, it is repulsive and disgusting; but when true, there is no
reason why it should not be employed." * * * * * * (For example of such
introductions see Acts, Ch. xxiv and xxvi).
"Effective introductions can also be constructed from those topics of
the day which may be supposed to fill all minds. A few words on such
subjects, falling in with the general current of thought, may easily
lead up to the speaker's special topic. The newspapers may thus furnish
us, especially while some striking event is yet recent, with the means
of arresting the attention of newspaper readers at our first words.
"Another good mode of introduction is that of locality. The people
of any town may be presumed familiar with the objects or events
of interest for which their own place is celebrated;" and a happy
reference to one or more of these can scarcely fail to be of interest.
"Another mode of introduction which may be very useful under proper
restrictions is that of citing some relevant remark made by an author
whose name carries great weight, or so pointed in itself as to at once
arrest attention. A great picture, some feature of a landscape, a great
historical event, may be cited in the same way. This method of citation
is capable of very wide application. If the sentiment or impression
made by the citation is directly opposite to that which the speaker
wishes to produce this will increase rather than diminish interest, as
the enjoyment of contrast and controversy is very keen; but the speaker
should feel confident of his ability to overcome the influence of the
citation when thus hostile." * * * * * *
_Calamity From a Bad Introduction:_ "A great calamity may come to a
speaker from a bad introduction. Speakers who are great in everything
else often fail at this point. Some make their introductions too
complicated, and thus defeat their own end, as surely as the engineer
who gives his railroad such steep grades that no train can pass over
it. Others deliver a string of mere platitudes and weary their audience
from the beginning.
"When from these or other causes an address is mis-begun, the
consequences may be serious. The thought settles upon the speaker
with icy weight that he is failing. This conviction paralyzes all his
faculties. He talks on, but grows more and more embarrassed. Incoherent
sentences are stammered out which require painful explanation to
prevent them from degenerating into perfect nonsense. The outline of
his plan dissolves into mist. The points he intended to make which
seemed strong and important now look trivial. With little hope ahead
he blunders on. The room grows dark before him, and in the excess of
his misery he longs for the time when he can close without absolute
disgrace. But alas! the end seems far off, and he searches in vain
for some avenue of escape. There is none. His throat becomes dry and
parched, and command of voice is lost. The audience grow restive, for
they are tortured as well as the speaker, and if he were malicious and
had time to think about it, he might find some alleviation in that.
No one can help him. At length, in sheer desperation, he does what he
ought to have done long before--simply stops and sits down--perhaps
hurling some swelling morsel of common-place, as a parting volley,
at the audience--bathed in sweat, and feeling that he is disgraced
forever! If he is very weak or foolish, he resolves never to speak
again without having every word written out before him; if wiser, he
only resolves, not only to understand his speech, but how to begin it."
("Extempore Speech"--Pittenger--Ch. vii).
This treatise upon the Introduction to a speech has trespassed somewhat
upon the space of this lesson, but one can see no suggestion here set
down that could well be eliminated, so instructive is it. Especially
could not the concluding topic "Calamity from a Bad Introduction," be
sacrificed. But the wisdom underlying the elaborate discussion of this
topic by Mr. Pittenger was forcefully and tersely expressed in one of
the early revelations to the Ministry of the Church--1831--when the
Lord in reference to preaching, said that the Elders should teach as
directed by the Spirit; "and the Spirit shall be given unto you by
the prayer of faith, _and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not
teach!"_ (Doc. & Cov. Sec. 42; 12-14).
5. _Strength:_ Still another word on strength of expression. We
have already noted two means of promoting strength of expression--(1)
by the rejection of superfluous words (Lesson X); and (2) a careful use
of words of connection. And now Quackenbos:
"A third means of promoting the Strength of a sentence is to dispose
of the important word or words in that place where they will make the
greatest impression. What this place is, depends on the nature and
length of the sentence. Sometimes, it is at the commencement, as in
the following from Addison: '_The pleasures of the imagination_,
taken in their full extent, are not so gross as those of sense, nor
so refined as those of the understanding.' In other cases, it will
be found of advantage to suspend the sense for a time, and bring
the important term at the close of the period. 'On whatever side,'
says Pope, 'we contemplate Homer, what principally strikes us is his
_wonderful invention_.' No rule can be given on this subject; a
comparison of different arrangements is the only means of ascertaining,
in any particular case, which is the best." (Rhetoric, Art. "Strength.")
The following suggestion is given by Lockwood:
"The mind naturally dwells upon the last part of a sentence. Care
should, therefore, be taken to have the last word a forcible one.
Avoid closing a sentence with an insignificant word or phrase, as, for
example, an adverb or a preposition or such a phrase as _to it, by
it_, etc."
"Example: 'That is a danger which young children are exposed to.' The
sentence should read, That is a danger to which young children are
exposed.
"Example: 'None but capital letters were used _formerly_.'
"The idea is more forcibly presented if we say, Formerly, none but
capital letters were used."
LESSON XXV.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_PATRISTIC[1] DOCTRINES OF GOD._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. The Patristic Period._ "Library of the Christian
Fathers Anterior to
_II. The Prevailing Philosophers._ the Division of the East
and West," Oxford Edition
_III. The Christian Doctrine of Deity--The (42 Vols.).
Trinity._
Early Christian Literature
_IV. Patristic Arguments for the Divine Primers, Edited
Existence and the Trinity._ by Geo. P. Fisher;
Apostolic Fathers; Fathers
_V. The Apostles' Creed._ of the Third Century;
Post-Nicene Latin
Fathers; Post-Nicene
Greek Fathers.
Mosheim's and Neander's
Church Histories;
also Smith's Student's
Ecclesiastical History,
Vol. I.
History of Christian
Doctrine (Shedd), 2 Vols.
"Intellectual Development
of Europe" (Draper),
Vol. I, chapter
on Greek Age of
Faith.
Gibbon's "Decline and
Fall," Vol. III, Ch. xxi.
Mormon Doctrine of
Deity (Roberts), Chs. ii
and iii, and Notes of
this Lesson.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust,
avoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposition of science falsely
so called." I Tim. vi,20_.
_NOTES._
1. _The Patristic Period:_ The patristic period is usually
recognized as extending from the close of the Apostolic period and
ending with the death of the last of the Apostles, supposed to have
occurred about 95 or 96 A. D.--to A. D. 750. The Patristic period of
the Church is followed by what is called the Mediaeval period. "The
line between these two Christian ages," says George A. Jackson in his
Introduction to "The Apostolic Fathers," "cannot be sharply drawn;
but, speaking in a general way, the epoch of the Fathers was, in the
Western Church, the first six centuries. In the Eastern Church, the
patristic age may be extended to embrace John of Damascus (A. D. 750).
The writers may be arranged, not unnaturally, in four groups. 1. (A.
D. 95--180). The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists, or writers
contemporary with the formation of the New Testament canon. These all
wrote in Greek. 2. (A. D. 180--325). The Fathers of the third century;
or writers from Irenaeus to the Nicene Council; partly Greek, partly
Latin. 3. (A. D. 325--590). The Post-Nicene Latin Fathers. 4. (A. D.
325-750). The Post-Nicene Greek Fathers." (Apostolic Fathers, Jackson,
p. 11).
Our notice of the conceptions of the Fathers respecting God, can
only be very brief, and consequently it will be imperfect. Only such
passages from them will be quoted as are most largely representative;
and from such Fathers as most influenced the thought of their times.
2. _Philosophy Which Most Affected Christian Doctrine:_ The secular
philosophies which exerted most influence upon Christian doctrine,
were Platonism and Aristotelianism. It is said of them that "they have
exerted more influence upon the intellectual methods of men, taking in
the whole time since their appearance, than all other systems combined"
(History Christian Doctrine--Shedd--Vol. I, p. 52); and further, that
they contain more of truth than all other systems that do not draw
from them, or are opposed to them" (Ibid, p. 53). It is conceded that
neither of these philosophers is free from error; but it is claimed by
Christian writers that the "Greek theism as represented in these two
systems, notwithstanding its defects, affirmed the existence of God,
and of one supreme God, and taught a spiritual theory of man and human
life." (Ibid, p. 55-56). It is also held that upon this point of the
Divine Existence, or "Being," however much the two philosophers differ
in their methods of thought and explanation, there is really no great
difference between them (Ibid, pp. 56-58; and foot notes where a number
of authorities are quoted to the same effect with Shedd). It should
be remembered, that for myself, I limit the practical concurrence of
the two simply to the existence of the Supreme Being; and in this
conclusion I find the support of Maurice, who, in describing the
efforts of Pico (15th century) to reconcile the Metaphysics of Plato
and Aristotle, says:
"Those who professed themselves Platonists pure and simple, insisted
that Unity [Oneness] had been distinguished from Being by Plato, and
had been exalted above Being; that on the contrary Being, according
to Aristotle, is identical with Unity. This was the point on which
the philosophers were supposed to disagree. . . . . . Dealing only
with the ontological, or as we call them, the metaphysical treatise,
of the great master [Aristotle], he [Pico] has little difficulty in
showing that he was no disparager of Unity, any more than Plato was a
disparager of Being . . . . . . . . . . He is able to maintain with
great plausibility and force, that Aristotle, no less than Plato,
regarded Being and Unity as meeting in God, and as vital objects
for human search because they meet in him." (Moral and Metaphysical
Philosophy--Maurice--Vol. II, pp. 80-81).
3. _The Christian Doctrine of God:_ In order to understand the
Patristic conceptions of God, I find it necessary to state, even if
ever so briefly, the doctrine of God as taught by the Messiah and the
Apostles; and for this purpose I use a statement of that doctrine from
Year Book II; Lesson XXXVI.
"The existence of God both Jesus and the Apostles accepted as a fact.
In all the teachings of the former He nowhere seeks to prove God's
existence. He assumes that, and proceeds from that basis with His
doctrine. He declares the fact that God was His Father, and frequently
calls Himself the Son of God.[2] After His resurrection and departure
into heaven, the Apostles taught that He, the Son of God, was with
God the Father in the beginning; that He, as well as the Father, was
God; that under the direction of the Father He was the Creator of the
world; that without Him was not anything made that was made.[3] That
in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;[4] and that He was
the express image of the Father's person.[5] Jesus Himself taught that
He and the Father were one;[6] that whosoever had seen Him had seen
the Father also;[7] that it was part of His mission to reveal God, the
Father, through His own personality; for as was the Son, so too was the
Father.[8] Hence Jesus was God manifested in flesh--a revelation of God
to the world.[9] That is, a revelation not only of the being of God,
but of the kind of being God is.
"Jesus also taught (and in doing so showed in what the 'oneness' of
Himself and His Father consisted) that the disciples might be one
with Him, and also one with each other, as He and the Father were
one.[10] Not one in person--not all merged into one individual, and
all distinctions of personality lost; but one in mind, in knowledge,
in love, in will--one by reason of the indwelling in all of the one
spirit, even as the mind and will of God the Father was also in Jesus
Christ.[11]
"The Holy Ghost, too, was upheld by the Christian religion to be
God.[12] Jesus ascribed to Him a distinct personality; as proceeding
from the Father; as sent forth in the name of the Son, as weeling love;
experiencing grief; as forbidding; as abiding; as teaching; as bearing
witness; as appointing to work; and as interceding for men. All of
which clearly establishes for Him a personality." (Mormon Doctrine of
Deity--Roberts--Ch. iv.).
4. _The Trinity of the Christian Doctrine:_ "The distinct
personality of these three individual Gods (united however into one
Godhead or Divine Council), was made apparent at the baptism of Jesus;
for as He, God the Son, came up out of the water from His baptism at
the hands of John, a manifestation of the presence of the Holy Ghost
was given in the sign of the dove which rested upon Jesus, while out
of the glory of heaven the voice of God the Father was heard saying,
'This,' referring to Jesus, 'is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased.' The distinctness of the personality of each member of the
Godhead is also shown by the commandment to baptize those who believe
in the Gospel equally in the name of each person of the Holy Trinity.
That is, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. (Matt. xxviii, 19-20.) And again, also in the Apostolic
benediction, viz., 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of
God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.' (II Cor.
xiii, 14.)
"These three Personages constitute the Christian Godhead, the Holy
Trinity. In early Christian theology they were regarded as the Supreme
Governing and Creating Power in heaven and in earth. Of which Trinity
the Father was worshipped in the name of the Son, while the Holy Ghost
bore record of both the Father and the Son. And though the Holy Trinity
was made up of three distinct persons, yet did they constitute but one
Godhead, or Supreme Governing Power.
"The foregoing doctrine of God, taught to the Christians in Apostolic
times, awakened their pious reverence without exciting their curiosity.
They dealt with no metaphysical abstractions, but were contented to
accept the teachings of the Apostles in humble faith, and believed that
Jesus Christ was the complete manifestation of Deity, and the express
image of God His Father; and hence a revelation to them of God; while
the Holy Ghost they accepted as God's witness and messenger to them."
(Ibid, Ch. iv.).
5. _Patristic Arguments for the Divine Existence:_ The main
argument of the Christian Fathers for the Divine Existence, as already
stated (Lesson 3, note 11), rested upon the innate consciousness of the
human mind. "But," says Shedd, in his History of Christian Doctrine
(Vol. I, p. 230):
"But whenever a formal demonstration was attempted in the Patristic
period, the _a posteriori_[13] was the method employed. The
physico-theological argument, derived from the harmony visible in the
works of creation, was used by Irenaeus to prove the doctrine of the
unity and simplicity of the Divine Nature, in opposition to Polytheism
and Gnosticism--the former of which held to a multitude of Gods, and
the latter to a multitude of aeons. The teleological argument, derived
from the universal presence of a design in creation, was likewise
employed in the Patristic theology." (Shedd's History of Christian
Doctrine, Vol. I, p. 267).
6. _The Trinity of the Apostolic Fathers:_ "The Apostolic Fathers
lived before the rise of the two principal Anti-Trinitarian theories
described in a previous section, and hence attempted no speculative
construction of the doctrine of the trinity. They merely repeat the
Biblical phraseology, without endeavoring to collect and combine the
data of revelation into a systematic form. They invariably speak of
Christ as divine; and make no distinction in their modes of thought
and expression, between the deity of the Son and that of the Father.
These immediate pupils of the Apostles enter into no speculative
investigation of the doctrine of the Logos, and content themselves
with the simplest and most common expressions respecting the trinity.
In these expressions, however, the germs of the future so-called
scientific statement may be discovered; and it is the remark of
Meier, one of the fairest of those who have written the history of
Trinitarianism, that the beings of an immanent trinity can be seen
in the writings of the practical and totally unspeculative Apostolic
Fathers."[14] (Shedd, Vol. I, 261-265.)
7. _The Patristic View of the Divinity of the Christ:_ "The
following extracts from their writings are sufficient to indicate the
freedom with which the Apostolic Fathers apply the term 'God' to the
second Person, who is most commonly conceived of as the God-man, and
called Jesus Christ by them.
"'Brethren' says Clement of Rome (Ep. II, Ch. 1), 'we ought to conceive
of Jesus Christ as of God, as of the judge of the living and the
dead.' Ignatius addresses, in his greeting, the church at Ephesus, as
'united and elected by a true passion, according to the will of the
Father, and of Jesus Christ our God.' Writing to the church at Rome,
he describes them, in his greeting, as 'illuminated by the will of Him
who willeth all things that are according to the love of Jesus Christ
our _God_'; and desires for them 'abundant and uncontaminated
salvation in Jesus Christ our God.' He also urges them (Ch. 3), to mind
invisible rather than earthly things, for 'the things that are seen
are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal. For even
our God, Jesus Christ being in the Father, (i. e., having ascended
again to the Father) is more glorified' (in the invisible world than
when upon earth). He enjoins it upon the Trallian[15] Church (Ch. 7),
to 'continue inseparable from God, even Jesus Christ'; and says to the
Smyrnaean Church, 'glorify Jesus Christ, even God, who has given you
such wisdom." (Shedd, Vol. I, pp. 265-6).
8. _Patristic Allusion to the Trinity:_ "The following allusions
to the trinity occur in the Apostolic Fathers: Clement of Rome, in his
first epistles to the Corinthians (Ch. 46), asks, 'Have we not one God,
and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of Grace, who is poured out
upon us, and one calling in Christ?' Polycarp, according to the Letter
of the Smyrna Church (Ch. 14), closed his prayer at the stake with the
glowing ascription:
"For this, and for all things, I praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify
Thee, together with the eternal and heavenly Jesus, Thy beloved Son;
with whom to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory, both now, and to all
succeeding ages. Amen." Ignatius, in his epistle to the Magnesians
(Ch. 13), places the Son first in the enumeration of the three persons
in the trinity; 'Study, that whatsoever ye do, ye may prosper both in
body and spirit, in faith and charity, in the Son, and in the Father,
and in the Holy Spirit,' * * * following in this particular St. Paul
in 2 Cor. 12:12. Barnabas (Epist. Ch. 5) finds the trinity in the Old
Testament. 'For this cause, the Lord endured to suffer for our souls,
although He was Lord of the whole earth, to whom He (the Father) said
before the making of the world: 'Let us make man after Our own image
and likeness." (Shedd, Vol. I, p. 267).
9. _Origin of Christian Creeds:_ It is quite possible that the
origin of creeds expressing the doctrine of Deity, grew out of certain
declarations made by the Apostles, and the felt need of fixing upon
some definite conception of God as a ground of Christian faith and
membership in the Church. Perhaps the now famous confession of St.
Peter was the first step in this direction. "Whom do ye say that I am?"
inquired Jesus of the Apostles. "And Simon Peter answered and said:
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Whereupon the Master
declared that the Father had revealed this truth to the Apostle, and
that upon it He (the Christ) would build His Church. (Matt. xvi, 13-21).
As an instance of the felt need of a confession warranting entrance to
the Church, take the case of the officer of the court of Queen Candace.
After being instructed of Philip, he inquired--"What doth hinder me to
be baptized?" "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."
And the officer answered--"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son
of God." The chariot was halted straight way, and the baptism was
performed. (Acts. viii).
10. _"The Apostles' Creed:"_ It is doubtful if the creed bearing
the Apostolic title was formulated by the Apostles. Dr Mosheim doubts
of the Apostles formulating it, in the following language. "There is
indeed extant, a brief summary of Christian doctrines which is called
the 'Apostles Creed'; and which from the fourth century onward, was
attributed to Christ's Ambassadors themselves. But at this day, all who
have any knowledge of antiquity, confess unanimously that this opinion
is a mistake and has no foundation." (Institutes Cent. I, Part 2, ch.
3). To this, also, substantially agrees Dr. Neander (Gen'l. History of
the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. I, pp. 306-307).
But while the simple formula may be of doubtful origin, it
unquestionably belongs to the Patristic period, and doubtless to the
period of the Apostolic Fathers, and would not be altogether unworthy
of the Apostles themselves. The Creed follows:
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His only
begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy
Ghost, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, arose from the dead
on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and sits at the right hand
of the Father; whence he will come, to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit; the holy church; the remission of sins; and the
resurrection of the body."
11. _Comment on the Apostles' Creed:_ As already observed, the
statement of the Christian faith as formulated in the Apostles'
Creed, so far as its doctrine of the Godhead is concerned, might well
be accredited to the Apostles, so unexceptional is it in the plain
statement of truth respecting the doctrine of God, as that doctrine
may be gathered from the scriptures. But the matter in the Patristic
period did not stop here, and perhaps it could not stop with the
statement of this first formula of a creed. Not only had the existence
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be affirmed, but the nature of
that existence had to be declared, and the relationship of the persons
of the Trinity also had to be stated. Moreover, the relationship of
this Christian doctrine to the Greek and Oriental philosophies had to
be explained. If in harmony with these preceding philosophies which
dealt with God--for knowledge of God, or the "Supreme Being," is always
the object of philosophy--then it must be stated in what the harmony
consists; if in antagonism to them, the points of antagonism must be
stated and justified, and the superiority of the Christian doctrine
vindicated. It may be all very well for safe and formal men to state
a truth within the lines of common-place facts, and say "We will be
content with this and beyond it we will not go;" but a creed or book
once formulated and published to the world, remains no longer the
possession of those who published it. It belongs to the world, and
the world will have its way with it. If there are defects in it, from
any cause whatsoever, the world will find them out, let the defects
be what they may--under-statement of the truth, over-statement of the
truth, misstatement of the truth, or exact statement of the truth--all
will come out, and Time, the arbitrator for truth, will pronounce his
judgment, resulting in condemnation or justification.
So it proved to be with this first formulated Christian Creed. It was
all very well to say, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in
Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son," and so following. But the adult
question came, and it was inevitable that it should come--"What is the
nature of this 'Father Almighty,' and of this 'Son,' and what their
relationship?" (For greater detail of consideration of this line of
questioning, see Year Book II, Lesson 37, note 2). Seeking an answer to
these questions, brought the Christian Fathers of our period in contact
with both Oriental and Greek philosophy; and soon the tendency to
harmonize the facts of Christian doctrine with Pagan philosophies set
in, resulting eventually in the paganization of the Christian doctrine.
(For further discussion on this head see Year Book II, Lesson 37).
Footnotes
1. "Patristic: Of or pertaining to the fathers of the Christian Church:
a patristic theology; patristic writings." (Cent. Dictionary.)
2. John x; Matt. xxvii; Mark xiv: 61, 62.
3. For all of which see John i: 1-4, 14; Heb. i: 1-3.
4. Col. i: 15-19, and ii: 9.
5. John xiv: 9, II Cor. iv: 4: and Heb. i: 3. Col. i: 17.
6. John x: 30, xvii: 11-22.
7. John, xiv: 9.
8. John xiv: 10, 11, 19, 20; also John xvii.
9. Tim. iii: 16.
10. John xvii.
11. Eph. iii: 14-19.
12. Acts v: 1-14. To lie to the Holy Ghost is to lie to God, because
the Holy Ghost is God.
13. From a consequent to its antecedent, from effects to causes.
14. Clement of Rome; Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch; Polycarp, Bishop of
Smyrna; Barnabas (not Paul's companion), see Mosheim Inst., Vol. I, p.
77; Hermas, and Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis.
15. In ancient geography, Tralles was a city of Asia Minor, situated
near the Menander, 228 miles east--southeast of Ephesus.
LESSON XXVI.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_PATRISTIC DOCTRINES OF GOD--(Continued)._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_VI. The Nicene Creed._ All the authorities
cited in Lesson xxv.
_VII. Creed of St. Athanasius._ Also "Plato's Republic"
and "Timaeus." Outlines
_VIII. The Arian Controversy._ of Lectures on the History
of Philosophy (Elmendorf's)
_IX. Origin of Metaphysical Difficulties._ Art. on
Plato and St. Augustine,
_X. Methods of Arriving at the Conception Chs. iv, v, vi, vii.
of "Pure Being."_
Moral and Metaphysical
_XI. Patristic Doctrine of God of Pagan Philosophy (Maurice).
Origin._ Art. Plato. St. Athanaus
and St Augustine, Vol. I. For
Orthodox Explanation of
Nicene and Athanasian
Principles, see Hodge's
"Commentary on the
Confession of Faith"
(Presbyterian), Ch. ii.
Also "The Nicene Creed,
a Manual for Candidates
for Holy Orders" (J. J. Lias,
M. A.), Chs. i-iv.
"A History of Christian
Councils, From Original
Documents," by
C. J. Hegele, D. D.
Translated from the
German by Wm. R. Clark.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "There shall be false teachers among you who privily
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought
them." II Peter ii, 1._
_NOTES._
1. _The Nicene Creed:_ The next official formulation of alleged
Christian doctrine after the "Apostles Creed," was the creed drafted at
the council of Nicea, in Bithynia, 325 A. D., as follows:
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of all things
visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father,
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were
made in heaven and in earth, who for us men and for our salvation came
down from heaven, was incarnate, was made man, suffered, rose again the
third day, ascended into the heavens, and He will come to judge the
living and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost. Those who say there was a
time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten, and He
was made of nothing (he was created), or who say that He is of another
hypostatis, or of another substance (than the Father), or that the
Son of God is created, that He is mutable, or subject to change, the
Catholic church anathematizes."[1]
2. _Creed of St. Athanasius:_ Nearly all Ecclesiastical writers
doubt of Athanasius being the author of the creed accredited to him;
but all agree, nevertheless, that it is an orthodox explanation of
the Nicene Creed. "This creed was evidently composed long after the
death of the great theologian whose name it bears, and after the
controversies closed and the definitions established by the councils of
Ephesus (A. D. 431), and Chalcedon (A. D. 451). It is a grand (?) and
unique (!) monument of the unchangeable faith of the whole Church as to
the great mysteries of Godliness, the Trinity of the Persons in the one
God, and the duality of natures in the one Christ." (Commentary on the
confession of Faith--Presbyterian--by Rev. A. A. Hodges, D. D., 1870.
Designed for Theological Students, ch. i, pp. 6, 7.) The creed follows:
"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither
confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one
person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy
Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is all one;
the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such
is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son
uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible,
the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The
Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet
there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not
three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreate, but one uncreate and one
incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty,
and the Holy Ghost almighty; and yet they are not three almighties, but
one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son, is God, and the Holy Ghost
is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God."
"So, likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost
Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For likewise as we
are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person
by himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholic
Religion to say: There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is
made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father
alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the
Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but
proceeding. So there is one Father; not three Fathers; one Son, not
three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after, other; none is greater,
or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal
together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the
Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He,
therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
"Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also
believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right
Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father,
begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother,
born in the world; perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul
and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his
Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who,
although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not
by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood
into God; one altogether, not by confusion of Substance, but by unity
of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God
and Man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation; descended into
hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven,
He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence
He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At Whose coming all men
shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their
own works." (Common Prayer, Church of England.) (For comment upon this
creed, see Year Book II, Lesson xxxvii.)
3. _Pro Et Con of the Arian Controversy:_ The orthodox doctrine
of deity for the Patristic period, is found in the last two creeds
quoted, still it is well enough to give each side of the controversy,
out of which the creeds were born, opportunity to state its own case.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, states the orthodox side. He
first represents Arius, leader of the opposition, as:
"Denying the divinity of our Saviour, pronounced him on a level with
all other creatures. He says that they held, there was a time when the
Son of God was not; and he who once had no existence, afterwards did
exist; and from that time was, what every man naturally is; for (say
they) [the Arians] 'God made all things of nothing, including the Son
of God, in this creation of all things, both rational and irrational;
and of course, pronouncing Him to be of a changeable nature, and
capable of virtue and of sin.'" Then, affirmatively, Alexander gives
his own views as follows:
"We believe, as the Apostolic Church does, in the only unbegotten
Father, who derived his existence from no one, and is immutable and
unalterable, always the same and uniform, unsusceptible of increase of
diminution; the giver of the law, and the prophets, and the gospels;
Lord of the patriarchs and apostles, and of all saints; and in one
Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, not begotten from
nothing, but from the living Father; and not after the manner of
material bodies, by separations and effluxes of parts, as Sabellius and
Valentinian supposed, but in an inexplicable and indescribable manner,
agreeably to the declaration before quoted: 'Who shall declare his
generation?' For His existence is inscrutable to all mortal beings,
just as the Father is inscrutable; because created intelligences are
incapable of understanding this divine generation from the Father--'No
one knoweth what the Father is, but the Son; and no one knoweth what
the Son is, but the Father.'
"He is unchangeable, as much as the Father; lacks nothing; is the
perfect Son, and the absolute likeness of the Father, save only that
He is not unbegotten. * * * Therefore, to the unbegotten Father, His
proper dignity must be preserved. And to the Son, also, suitable honor
must be given, by ascribing to Him an eternal generation from the
Father."
Arius, making complaint that he is persecuted by Alexander--states
first the position of his adversary thus: Arius and his friends are
persecuted--"Because we do not agree with him, publicly asserting that
God always was, and the Son always was; that He was always the Father,
always the Son; that the Son was of God himself." Then stating his own
position affirmatively, he says:
"We have taught, and still teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor
a portion of the unbegotten, in any manner; nor was He formed out of
any subjacent matter, but that in will and purpose, he existed before
all times and before all worlds, perfect God, the only begotten,
unchangeable; and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed,
or established, He was not; for He was never unbegotten. We are
persecuted, because we say, the Son had a beginning, but God was
without beginning. We are also persecuted, because we say, that He is
from nothing; and this we say, inasmuch as He is not a portion of God,
nor formed from any subjacent matter. Therefore we are persecuted. The
rest you know." (Mosheim, Vol. I, p. 288--Notes).
_The Differences Summed Up:_ Summing up the differences between the
two parties, Murdock, the able translator and annotator of Mosheim,
says: "According to these statements, both the Arians and the orthodox
considered the Son of God the Saviour of the World, as a derived
existence, and as generated by the Father. But they differed on two
points. (1.) The orthodox believed His generation was from eternity, so
that he was coeval with the Father. But the Arians believed there was
a time when the Son was not. (2.) The orthodox believed the Son to be
derived of and from the Father; so that He was of the same essence with
the Father. But the Arians believed that He was formed out of nothing,
by the creative power of God. Both, however, agreed in calling Him God,
and in ascribing to Him divine perfections. As to His offices, or His
being the Saviour of sinful men, it does not appear that they differed
materially in their views." (Ibid).
4. _Origin of These Metaphysical Difficulties:_ Undoubtedly it was
contact with Oriental and Greek philosophical vagaries, and seeking to
harmonize the facts of revelation, with these vagaries, that led to the
intellectual difficulties of patristic Christianity. The temptation to
seek such harmony, was strong. Already a similar work had been done for
the Jews at Alexandria, under the leadership of Philo. He found, in
the lofty speculations of Plato, the wisdom of Moses and of Solomon;
and in the second century of the Christian Era, Numenius could ask
"What is Plato but Moses talking Attic?" "The arms of Macedonians,"
remarks Gibbon," diffused over Asia and Egypt the language and learning
of Greece"; and with that language and learning, and as part of the
latter, went the philosophy of Plato, until among the learned and
influential it was largely the ground plan of their thinking. The
Christians, in the first three centuries of their existence, had
been despised sectaries, with no standing among those who made any
pretensions to learning; so that when there came opportunity to show
identity between the holy trinity of the Christian faith, and the
supposed trinity of Plato's philosophy; and identity of the "word"
of John's Gospel with the "Logos" of Plato's divine "being," it was
seized upon with avidity, not alone, it is to be feared, because of the
semblance of truth that was seen in the two things, but also because of
the advantages that struggling Christianity would secure by linking the
theology of the church with the philosophy of the Academy. "The lofty
speculations," says Gibbon, "which neither convinced the understanding
nor agitated the passions of the Platonists themselves, were carelessly
overlooked by the idle, the busy, and even the studious part of
mankind. But after the 'Logos' had been revealed as the sacred object
of the faith, the hope, and the religious worship of the Christians,
the mysterious system was embraced by a numerous and increasing
multitude in every province of the Roman world. Those persons who, from
their age, or sex, or occupations, were the least qualified to judge,
who were the least exercised in the habits of abstract reasoning,
aspired to contemplate the economy of the divine nature; and it is the
boast of Tertullian, that a Christian mechanic could easily answer
such questions as had perplexed the wisest of the Grecian sages. Where
the subject lies so far beyond our reach, the difference between
the highest and the lowest of human understandings may indeed be
calculated as infinitely small, yet the degree of weakness may perhaps
be measured by the degree of obstinacy and dogmatic confidence." What
more is necessary to know upon this topic, can be learned from the note
entitled "Patristic Doctrine of God of Pagan Rather than of Christian
Origin," and Lesson xxxvii, in Year Book II.
5. _The Manner of Apprehending "That Which Is"--God:_ The manner
of apprehending God--"that which is"--by the Christian Fathers, is
very similar to the method of the pagan philosophers in apprehending
"being"--or the "absolute." Take two examples of this process; the
first from Plato's "Republic," a conversation between teacher and
pupil; the second from the confessions of Augustine; where the father
describes how he came to his apprehension of God:
It is necessary first to remind the student that in Plato's philosophy
the "supreme being" is "being absolutely bare of quality." Of Him
it can only be said that he is not _what_ he is. In Timaeus,
Plato says: "We say, indeed, that 'he was,' 'he is,' 'he will be,'
but the truth is that 'he is;' alone truly expresses him." (Jowett's
Translation, Vol. 2, p. 530.) And now as to the method of arriving at
the apprehension of the "infinite being," or the "absolute," through
the medium of finite or relative things; and which, in the case here
quoted from Plato, is from "relative beauty" to "absolute beauty"; the
same process, however, may be followed from "finite being" to "infinite
being."
"This is the distinction which I draw between the sight-loving,
art-loving, practical class, and those of whom I am speaking, and who
are alone worthy of the name of philosophers.
"How do you distinguish them? he said.
"The lovers of sounds and sights, I replied, are, as I conceive, fond
of fine tones and colors and forms, and all the artificial products
that are made out of them, but their mind is incapable of seeing or
loving absolute beauty.
"That is true, he replied.
"Few are they who are able to attain the sight of absolute beauty.
"Very true.
"And he who, having a sense of beautiful things, has no sense of
absolute beauty, or who, if another lead him to a knowledge of that
beauty, is unable to follow--of such an one, I ask, Is he awake or in a
dream only? * * * *
"I should certainly say that such an one was dreaming.
"But take the case of the other, who recognizes the existence of
absolute beauty, and is able to distinguish the idea from the objects
which participate in the idea, neither putting the objects in the place
of the idea nor the idea in the place of the objects--is he a dreamer?
or is he awake?
"He is the reverse of a dreamer, he replied.
"And may we not say that the mind of the one has knowledge, and that
the mind of the other has opinion only?
"Certainly."
And how Augustine, the Christian father, spoken of as "the brightest,
clearest, most comprehensive" of Christian philosophers. ("Lectures on
the History of Christian Philosophy"--Elmendorf--p. 92):
"And I inquired what iniquity was, and found it to be no substance, but
the perversion of the will, turned aside from Thee, O God, the Supreme,
towards these lower things, and casting out its bowels, and puffed up
outwardly.
"And I wondered that I now loved Thee, and no phantasm for thee. And
yet did I not press on to enjoy my God; but was borne up to Thee by Thy
beauty, and soon borne down from Thee by mine own weight, sinking with
sorrow into these inferior things. This weight was carnal custom. Yet
dwelt there with me a remembrance of Thee; nor did I any way doubt,
that there was One to Whom I might cleave, but that I was not yet such
as to cleave to Thee; for that 'the body which is corrupted, presseth
down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind that
museth upon many things.' And most certain I was, that 'Thy invisible
works from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even Thy eternal power and God-head.' For
examining whence it was that I admired the beauty of bodies celestial
or terrestrial; and what aided me in judging soundly on things mutable,
and pronouncing, 'This ought to be thus, this not'; examining, I say,
whence it was that I so judged, seeing I did so judge, I had found the
unchangeable and true Eternity of Truth above my changeable mind. And
thus, by degrees, I passed from bodies to the soul, which through the
bodily senses perceives; and thence to its inward faculty, to which
the bodily senses represent things external, whitherto reaches the
faculties of beasts; and thence again to the reasoning faculty, to
which what is received from the senses of the body, is referred to be
judged. Which, finding itself also to be in me a thing variable, raised
itself up to its own understanding, and drew away my thoughts from the
power of habit, withdrawing itself from those troops of contradictory
phantasms; that so it might find what that light was, whereby it was
bedewed, when, without all doubting, it cried out:
"'That the unchangeable was to be preferred to the changeable'; whence
also it knew _That Unchangeable_, which, unless it had in some way
known, it had had no sure ground to prefer it to the changeable. And
thus with the flash of one trembling glance it arrived at _That Which
Is_. And then I saw 'Thy invisible things understood by the things
which are made.'"
6. _Patristic Doctrine of God of Pagan Rather Than of Christian
Origin--Data Not in the Old Testament:_ The data for the doctrine
that God is "pure being," "being absolutely bare of all quality,"
are not found in the Old Testament, for that teaches the plainest
anthropomorphic ideas respecting God. It ascribes to Him a human form,
and many qualities and attributes possessed by man, which, in the minds
of orthodox Christian philosophers, limit Him who must be, to their
thinking, without any limitation whatsoever, either as to essence,
or form, or passion, or quality; and ascribes relativity to Him who,
according to their conceptions, must not be relative but absolute.
The passage usually depended upon as giving the data for this "being
absolutely bare of quality," and that is held to identify the ground
plan of the philosophy of Moses and Plato--_"I am that I am"_--the
God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush; and Who replied when
the Hebrew prophet asked what he should say when the Egyptians and
Israel should ask who had sent him--"Say, I Am sent me;" that is the
Self-Existing One sent me. This passage, I say, does not furnish
the data for the Orthodox Christian conception of God, that He is
"being, absolutely free from all quality"; not material (the "without
body" of the creeds), without parts, and without passions; for to be
self-existent does not demand the absence of quality; indeed, to be
without quality, run to its last analysis, would mean non-existence.
_Data Not in the New Testament:_ The data for the doctrine of
God's absolute "simplicity," or, "being absolutely without quality,"
do not come from the New Testament; for the writers of that volume of
scripture accept the doctrine of the Old Testament respecting God, and
even emphasize its anthropomorphic ideas, by representing that the man
Christ Jesus was in the "express image" of God, the Father's person;
was, in fact, God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3: 16); "the image of
the invisible God" (Col. 1: 5); God, the Word, who was made flesh, and
dwelt among men, and they beheld His glory (St. John 1:1-14). Hence
the Orthodox Christian doctrine of God's "simplicity" cannot claim the
warrant of New Testament authority.
_Data Found in Pagan Doctrines:_ It is easy, however, to trace this
doctrine to Pagan sources. Plato, in his Timaeus (Jowett's translation,
p. 530), incidentally referring to God, in connection with the creation
of the universe, says: "We say indeed that 'he was,' 'he is,' 'he will
be,' but the truth is that 'he is' alone truly expresses him, and that
'was' and 'will be' are only to be spoken of generation in time."
Here, then, is the Orthodox Christian doctrine of "pure being," "most
simple," "not compound."
Again: "We must acknowledge that there is one kind of being which
is always the same, uncreated and indestructible, never receiving
anything into itself from without, nor itself giving out to any other,
but invisible and imperceptible by any sense, and of which the sight
is granted to intelligence only." (Ibid. p. 454). Here the Orthodox
Christian may find his God, 'who cannot change with regard to his
existence, nor with regard to his mode of existence.' Also his God who
can only be seen with the 'soul's intellectual perception, elevated
by a supernatural influx from God.' Dr. Mosheim, in his account of
Plato's idea of God, says: "He considered the Deity, to whom he gave
the supreme governance of the universe, as a being of the highest
wisdom and power, and totally unconnected with any material substance."
(Mosheim's "Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity,
During the First Three Hundred Years," Vol. 1. p. 37).
To the same effect, also, Justin Martyr (second Christian century)
generalizes and accepts as doctrine what may be gathered from the
sixth book of Plato's "Republic," with reference to God. To the Jew,
Trypho, Justin remarks: "The Deity, Father, is not to be viewed by the
organs of sight, like other creatures, but He is to be comprehended by
the mind alone, as Plato declares, and I believe him. * * * * Plato
tells us that the eye of the mind is of such a nature, and was given
us to such an end, as to enable us to see with it by itself, when
pure, that Being who is the source of whatever is an object of the
mind itself, who has neither color, nor shape, nor size, nor anything
which the eye can see, but who is above all essence, who is ineffable,
and undefinable, who is alone beautiful and good, and who is at once
implanted into those souls who are naturally well born, through their
relationship to and desire of seeing him."
Athanasius (third Christian century) quotes the same definition (Contra
Gentes, ch. 2), almost verbatim. Turning again to the Timaeus of
Plato, this question is asked: "What is that which always is and has
no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and has never
any being? That which is apprehended by reflection and reason [God]
always is; and is the same; that on the other hand which is conceived
by opinion, with the help of sensation without reason [the material
universe], is in a process of becoming and perishing but never really
is. * * * * Was the world [universe], always in existence and without
beginning? or created and having a beginning? Created, I reply." In
this, the orthodox Christians may find their God of pure "being," that
never is "becoming," but always is; also the creation of the universe
out of nothing.
_Pagan Origin of Doctrine of God Admitted:_ "In his great work
on the 'History of Christian Doctrine,' Mr. William G. T. Shedd says
(Vol. I, p. 56): "The early Fathers, in their defenses of Christianity
against their pagan opponents, contend that the better pagan writers
themselves agree with the new religion in teaching that there is one
Supreme Being. Lactantius (Institutiones, 1, 5), after quoting the
Orphic Poets, Hesiod, Virgil, and Ovid, in proof that the heathen
poets taught the unity of the supreme deity, affirms that the better
pagan philosophers agree with them in this. 'Aristotle,' he says,
'although he disagrees with himself, and says many things that are
self-contradictory, yet testifies that one supreme mind rules over
the world. Plato, who is regarded as the wisest philosopher of them
all, plainly and openly defends the doctrine of a divine monarchy, and
denominates the supreme being, not ether, nor reason, nor nature, but
as he is, God; and asserts that by him this perfect and admirable world
was made. And Cicero follows Plato, frequently confessing the deity,
and calls him the supreme being, in his Treatise on the Laws.'"
"It is conceded by Christian writers that the Christian doctrine of
God is not expressed in New Testament terms, but in the terms of Greek
and Roman metaphysics, as witness the following from the very able
article in the Encyclopedia Britannica on 'Theism,' by the Rev. Dr.
Flint, Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh: 'The proposition
constitutive of the dogma of the Trinity--the propositions in the
symbols of Nice, Constantinople and Toledo, relative to the immanent
distinctions and relations in the Godhead--were not drawn directly
from the New Testament, and could not be expressed in New Testament
terms. They were the product of reason speculating on a revelation to
faith--the New Testament representation of God as a Father, a Redeemer
and a Sanctifier--with a view to conserve and vindicate, explain and
comprehend it. They were only formed through centuries of effort, only
elaborated by the aid of the conceptions, and formulated in the terms
of Greek and Roman metaphysics.' The same authority says: 'The massive
defense of theism, erected by the Cambridge school of philosophy,
against atheism, fatalism, and the denial of moral distinctions, was
avowedly built on a Platonic foundation.'" (See note).
Guizot, the eminent stateman and historian of France, in one of
his lectures of which this is a sub-division of the title--"Of the
Transition from Pagan Philosophy to Christian Theology"--says, in
concluding his treatment of this theme: "I have thus exhibited the
fact which I indicated in the outset, the fusion of Pagan philosophy
with Christian theology, the metamorphosis of the one into the other.
And it is remarkable, that the reasoning applied to the establishment
of the spirituality of the soul is evidently derived from the ancient
philosophy, rather than from Christianity, and that the author seems
more especially to aim a convincing the theologians, by proving to them
that the Christian faith has nothing in all this which is not perfectly
reconcilable with the results derived from pure reason."
"In method of thought also, no less than in conclusions, the most
influential of the Christian fathers on these subjects followed the
Greek philosophers rather than the writers of the New Testament.
'Platonism, and Aristotelianism,' says the author of the 'History of
Christian Doctrine,' exerted more influence upon the intellectual
methods of men, taking in the whole time since their appearance, than
all other systems combined. They certainly influenced the Greek mind,
and Grecian culture, more than all the other philosophical systems.
They reappear in Roman philosophy--so far as Rome had any philosophy.
We shall see that Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero exerted more influence
than all other philosophical minds united, upon the greatest of the
Christian Fathers; upon the greatest of the Schoolmen; and upon the
theologians of the Reformation, Calvin and Melanchthon. And if we look
at European philosophy as it has been unfolded in England, Germany
and France, we shall perceive that all the modern theistic schools
have discussed the standing problems of human reason, in very much the
same manner in which the reason of Plato and Aristotle discussed them
twenty-two centuries ago. Bacon, Descartes, Leibnitz, and Kant, so
far as the first principles of intellectual and moral philosophy are
concerned, agree with their Grecian predecessors. A student who has
mastered the two systems of the Academy and Lyceum, will find in modern
philosophy (with the exception of the department of natural science)
very little that is true, that may not be found for substance, and
germinally, in the Greek theism."
"It is hoped that enough is said here to establish the fact that the
conception of God as 'pure being,' 'immaterial,' 'without form,' 'or
parts or passions,' as held by orthodox Christianity, has its origin
in Pagan philosophy, not in Jewish nor Christian revelation." (Mormon
Doctrine of Deity--Roberts--pp. 114-119).
Footnotes
1. For a brief account of the Arian controversy which resulted in the
formulation of this creed, see notes in Year Book II, Lesson xxxvii;
also note 3, this Lesson.
LESSON XXVII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_MEDIAEVAL CONCEPTIONS OF GOD._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. The Mediaeval Period and Schools The works cited in
of Thought._ Lessons xxv and xxvi
will be helpful in this
_II. Definitions._ Lesson under the topics
of the analysis; and of
_III. Representative Doctors of the Various course the authorities
Schools of Thought:_ cited in the notes of this
lesson.
1. Erigena, Extreme Realist.
2. Roscelina, of Compiegne, Extreme
Nominalist.
3. Anselm, Realist.
4. Thomas Aquinas, Properly Neither
Realist nor Nominalist,
Scholastic.
5. Eckhart, Mystic.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "And without controversy, great is the mystery of
Godliness." I. Tim. iii, 16_.
_NOTES._
1. _The Mediaeval Period:_ The Patristic Period, according to
our announced grouping of the Christian Fathers, extended to 750 A.
D. and included in the enumeration of the fathers John of Damascus.
The Mediaeval Period will extend from the above date to the middle
of the sixteenth century, which brings us to the establishment of
Protestantism, and the commencement, theologically, of the modern
world. This gives us a period of eight hundred years. "Of this period,"
says Shedd, "not more than four centuries witnessed any great activity
of the theological mind."
The "Orthodox Christian" doctrine of God for this period, and for
matter of that, for all subsequent periods, was fixed by the Nicene
Creed and the creed of St. Athanasius, quoted in Lesson 26. The effort
of the Christian scholars of the Mediaeval Period was to maintain,
first, the truthfulness of these creeds against skepticism and doubts
within the Church itself; and, second, to reconcile the creeds with
reason, and develop patristic philosophy into something like system
(History of Philosophy--Elmendorf--p. 102). However, "As there is never
a proper end to reasoning which proceeds on a false foundation," to
quote Cicero, the efforts of the schoolmen were not very successful,
and resulted in multiplying systems of philosophy, rather than in
bringing the patristic doctrine into harmony with reason. The systems
of thought developed by these efforts may be classed under three heads:
Realism, Nominalism, and Mysticism. A brief definition of each will be
necessary.
2. _Definitions--"Realism:"_ Realism divides into two classes,
extreme and moderate. (1) "Extreme realism taught that universals were
substances or things, existing independently of and separate from
particulars; this was the essence of Plato's ideas." (Cent. Dict.) The
thinking process of the realist is admirably depicted in Note 5, Lesson
xxvi, where St. Augustine describes his rise from the conception of the
"changeable" to the "Unchangeable," and "thus with the flash of one
trembling glance," arrived at the conception of "that which is"--to the
real--to the universal--to the apprehension of "God."
"Moderate Realism also taught that universals were substances, but
only as dependent upon and inseparable from individuals, in which each
inhered; that is, each universal inhered in each of the particulars
ranged under it. This was the theory of Aristotle, who held that
the individual thing was the first essence, while universals were
only second essences, real in a less complete sense than first
essences. He thus reversed the Platonic doctrine, which attributed the
fullest reality to universals only, and a participative reality to
individuals." (Cent. Dict.)
Elmendorf represents moderate realism as recognizing that
"the universal has objective reality, as to its contents, in
individuals"--(i. e., the universal is expressed through individuals).
_Nominalism:_ Nominalism also divides into two classes, extreme
and moderate. "Extreme nominalism taught that universals had no
substantive or objective existence at all, but were merely empty
names or words. Moderate nominalism or 'conceptualism' taught that
universals have no substantive existence at all, but yet are more than
mere names signifying nothing; and that they exist really, though only
subjectively, as concepts in the mind, of which names are the vocal
symbols." (Cent. Dict.).
_Mysticism:_ "Mysticism is a phase of thought, or rather perhaps
of feeling, which from its very nature is hardly susceptible of exact
definition. It appears in connection with the endeavor of the human
mind to grasp the divine essence or the ultimate reality of things,
and to enjoy the blessedness of actual communication with the Highest.
More specifically, a form of religious belief which is founded upon
mysticism, spiritual experience, not discriminated or tested and
systematized in thought. 'Mysticism and rationalism' represent opposite
poles of theology, rationalism regarding the reason as the highest
faculty of man and the sole arbiter in all matters of religious
doctrine; mysticism, on the other hand, declaring that spiritual
truth cannot be apprehended by the logical faculty, nor adequately
expressed in terms of the understanding." (Cent. Dict.). Mysticism
may also be regarded as the result of "a despair of reason, a refuge
in higher intuitions." (Elmendorf.) These definitions may be regarded
as difficult, but I know of no way by which the ideas considered can
be more simply explained. The definitions should be discussed until
mastered. Perhaps they will grow in clearness after considering the
rest of the notes of this lesson.
3. _Explanatory:_ Limiting our inquiry concerning the philosophy
of this mediaeval period to the doctrine of God, and selecting an
expression of that doctrine from an illustrious representative of
each school of thought, may be of assistance in forming a clearer
understanding of the definitions given in previous notes, and likewise
represent the leading conceptions of God that obtained in the period
under consideration.
4. _John Scotus Erigena:_ Extreme realist, and something of a
Mystic; "Man finds not God, but God finds himself in man," (Elmendorf)
is the keynote of this philosopher's teaching. Erigena was born in
Ireland, 800 A. D. Made a pilgrimage to the birthplace of Plato and
Aristotle A. D. 825; "and indulged the hope of uniting philosophy and
religion in the manner proposed by the ecclesiastics who were studying
in Spain."
"From Eastern sources, John Erigena had learned the doctrines of the
eternity of matter, and even of the creation, with which, indeed, he
confounded the Deity Himself. He was therefore a Pantheist, accepting
the Oriental ideas of emanation and absorption, not only as respects
the soul of man, but likewise all material things. In his work 'On
the Nature of things,' his doctrine is, 'That, as all things were
originally contained in God, and proceeded from Him into the different
classes by which they are now distinguished, so shall they finally
return to Him, and be absorbed in the source from which they came; in
other words, that as, before the world was created, there was no being
but God, and the causes of all things were in Him, so after the end of
the world, there will be no being but God, and the causes of all things
in Him. This final resolution he denominated deification, or theosis.
He even questioned the eternity of hell, saying, with the emphasis of
a Saracen, 'There is nothing eternal but God.' It was impossible under
such circumstances, that he should not fall under the rebuke of the
Church." (Draper's "Intellectual Development," Vol II, p. 9.)
5. _Roscelin of Compiegne:_ Extreme Nominalist. Sometimes credited
with being the originator of the system; but he was "not the originator
of the system," says Elmendorf, "but its clearest exponent and sharpest
defender in the eleventh century." The same authority says that he
regarded "universals" as "merely universal names." A title "for the
totality of things. This be applied to the doctrine of the Trinity in
the form of tritheism. There are three divine essences or substances,
like one another; for only individuals have a real existence"--(Hist.
of Philosophy--Elmendorf--pp. 105-6.) "Roscellinus taught that whatever
exists as a real thing or substance, exists as one self-identical
whole, and is not susceptible of division into parts. This was the
part of his teaching which created so much scandal when applied to
the doctrine of the Trinity. Roscellinus maintained that it is merely
a habit of speech which prevents our speaking of the three persons
as three substances, or three Gods. If it were otherwise, and the
three persons were really one substance or thing, we should be forced
to admit that the Father and the Holy Spirit became incarnate along
with the Son. Roscellinus seems to have put forward this doctrine in
perfect good faith, and to have claimed for it at first the authority
of Lanfranc and Anselm. In 1092, however, a council convoked by the
Archbishop of Rheims, condemned his interpretation, and Roscellinus,
who was in danger of being lynched by the orthodox populace, recanted
his error. As his enforced penitence did not prove lasting, his
opinions were condemned by a second council (1094), and he himself fled
to England. Forced by a fresh persecution to return to France at a
later date, he taught at Tours and Loc-menach in Brittany (where he had
Abelard as a pupil), and resided latterly as canon at Besancon." (Ency.
Brit.).
_6. St. Anselm, Realist:_ Born at or near Aosta, Italy, 1033,
A. D.; died at Canterbury, 1109. Credited with being the founder of
scholastic theology. He held that faith is not the pre-requisite, and
the regulator of knowledge, but leads to it. Also that "God can be
known through reason, attempts ontological, a priori proof, from the
concept of the objective existence. That than which a greater cannot be
conceived cannot exist in intellect alone; for then a greater can be
conceived." His doctrine is set forth in detail by Shedd: "The human
mind possesses the idea of the most perfect Being conceivable. But
such a being is necessarily existent; because a being whose existence
is contingent, who may or may not exist, is not the most perfect that
we can conceive of. But a necessarily existent Being is one that
cannot be conceived of as non-existent, and therefore is an actually
existent Being. Necessary existence implies actual existence. In
conceiving, therefore, of a being who is more perfect than all others,
the mind inevitably conceives of a real, and not an imaginary, being;
in the same manner as in conceiving of a figure having three sides,
it inevitably conceives of a figure having three angles." (History of
Christian Doctrine--Shedd--Vol. I, pp. 231-2.)
This argument of Anselm's was attacked by a Catholic Monk of the name
of Gaunilo, whose main point is that the existence of an idea of a
thing does not prove the existence of the thing itself. Shedd, in order
to exhibit the strength of Anselm's argument, suggests throwing it into
dialogue form, thus:
_Anselm:_ "I have the idea of the most perfect being conceivable."
_Guanilo:_ "True; but it is a mere idea, and there is no being
corresponding to it."
_Anselm:_ "But if there is no being answering to my idea, then my
idea of the most perfect being conceivable is that of an imaginary
being; but an imaginary being is not the most perfect being that I can
conceive of. The being who corresponds to my idea must be a real being.
If, therefore, you grant me my postulate, namely, that I have the
idea of the most perfect being conceivable, you concede the existence
of an actual being correspondent to it." (History of Christian
Doctrine--Shedd--Vol. I, p. 237.)
One feels, however, that this is but playing with and upon words, and
is much of kith and kin with that other abstraction, that "the thought
of God makes God." Maurice remarks upon this argument of Anselm's
for the divine existence, as follows: "In the present day, when the
arguments for the Divine existence from the constitution of the visible
world have displaced all others in the minds of theological advocates,
and when these are in their turn exposed to the severest criticism from
philosophers, such a subtlety as this of Anselm's would be dismissed
by both parties with indifference or scorn. Without participating in
either feeling, or pre-judging the question whether the argument is
tenable in itself, we may express our opinion, that in a time of clubs
and newspapers, it would be a serious moral offense to introduce into
discussion, upon a subject of the greatest interest to all men, that
which must appear to nine out of ten a play upon words, or a conjurer's
trick." (History of Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy, Vol. I, 524.)
7. _Abelard, Peter:_ A moderate nominalist, and usually regarded
as the founder of "Conceptualism." Born in Brittany, 1079. Moderate
nominalist. "Inspired by Aristotle, he taught * * * * that nothing
exists apart from the individual, and in it the individual only."
(Elmendorf History of Philosophy, p. 108.) Abelard also held that
there is "no believing antecedent to scientific understanding, and
consequently that the degree of posterior faith depends upon the degree
of anterior science." "Knowledge is prior to faith," was his dictum.
(See Shedd, Vol. I, pp. 163, 186 et seq.)
8. _St. Thomas Aquinas:_ Scholastic par-excellence. Born at
Acquino, in the kingdom of Naples, 1225. His great effort was to
reconcile faith and reason. Called the "Aristotle of the middle ages."
His doctrine respecting God, condensed by Elmendorf, is:
"In God is no composition of matter or form, nor any other. He is pure
actuality; for potentiality, in any sense, would imply an actuating
cause.
"In Him essence and being are one.
"In Him is no imperfection, because no potentiality; all perfections
which earthly things possess, being from Him, are in Him, one and
indivisible.
"From God as Absolute Intelligence, follows, necessarily, the concept
of God as Absolute Will. He wills what is not Himself freely, because
it is not necessary to His perfection and beatitude. From this follows
His Omnipotence.
"His Providence is the ordering of all things, both universal and
singular, with reference to an end, for it extends as far as His
knowledge and causality.
"The casual is with respect to a particular cause, not to the universal.
"Ills, corruptions, defects, are permitted in particular things,
contributing to the greater good of the whole." (History of
Philosophy--Elmendorf--p. 121.)
"The system of philosophical theology set forth in the writings of St.
Thomas Aquinas, is of supreme importance in Ecclesiastical History, not
only as intellectually perhaps the most perfect work of the Scholastic
age, but because it has been adopted as the authoritative standard of
doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church. Such pre-eminence is reported to
have been assigned to Thomas by the saying of his great master, Albert,
that he had "put an end to all labor even unto the world's end." * * *
"In the great controversy of the schools, Aquinas cannot be ranked
strictly with either the Realists or the Nominalists; his position has
been described as an Aristotelian Realist. Like the orthodox in general
he ranged himself with the modern section of the Realists, who while
holding that Universals--namely, genera and species--are more than mere
mental abstractions, and have a real existence, yet limited them to
an existence in the individual, and refused to attribute to them any
antecedent or independent existence." * * * *
"In this work of buttressing authority by philosophy, and vindicating
orthodoxy by the light of nature, as the way was led by Albert, so his
greater pupil carried it on to perfection; and the consequence has been
that the stately edifice of Systematic Theology, reared in the Church
of the West by the labors of the Schools, repose on the foundation
laid by the great luminary of Pagan Greece." (Smith's Students'
Ecclesiastical History, Vol. II, pp. 512-515.)
_Eckhart, Mystic:_ Born, it is thought, at Strasburg, 1250 A. D.
Taught and preached through Germany. Follows to some extent Erigena,
tending, unconsciously, to emanistic pantheism. "The inner ground of
man's soul is Divine, a 'spark' of Deity; knowledge is a real union of
subject and object. The soul's highest power is an immediate intuition
of the 'Godhead' transcending the determinate.
"The Absolute is impersonal, concealed even from thought; of the
'Godhead' no predicates may be used; it is hidden in eternal darkness.
In the act of self-knowledge, God is developed as the Trinity, the
form of 'Godhead' which beholds itself with love;--the subject is the
Father, the object is the Son, the love is the Holy Spirit. * * * *
"God is the essence of all essences, which are ever in Him; in sending
forth His Son, He sends forth all things (ideal world). In space and
time, natura naturata, are the Three Persons of the Trinity, eternal as
the world is, but in natura non naturata is only the 'Godhead.'
"Apart from God, the world is nonentity; God is in all things, and
is all things, for creatures have no essence except God. Yet He is
not nature, but above it, for the world of space and time is created
out of nothing. The motive of God's goodness, which necessarily
extends itself; and, by the same necessity, creation is continuous,
eternal. Different from this, as the realizing of the ideal by
the artist, is the creation out of nothing, in time." (History of
Philosophy--Elmendorf--pp. 136-137.)
LESSON XXVIII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF GOD._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. The Period--State of Philosophy._ Many of the authorities
cited in Lessons xxv,
_II. Modern Schools of Philosophy:_ xxvi and xxvii will be
available in this; also
1. Empiricism; the works of Bacon,
Locke, Hobbes, Descartes,
2. Idealism; Spinoza, Hamilton,
Berkeley, Hume,
3. Rationalism; Mill; also Kant, Fichte,
Hegel and Spencer.
4. Pantheism;
It may be that the
5. Materialism; works of these masters
may only be available to
6. Monism; those within reach of
reference libraries. The
7. Mormonism--Eternalism. following, however, are
one-volume works that
would be of great service
in studying this lesson:
John Fiske's Studies
in Religion; History
of Philosophy, Elmemdorf;
"The Conception of
God"--Royce, Leconte,
Howison, Meze; "Typical
Modern Conceptions
of God," Leighton;
Haeckel's "Riddle of the
Universe;" ditto, "Wonders
of Life," and J. S. Mills'
"Theism and
Berkeley," and Roberts'
"Mormon Doctrine of
Deity."
_SPECIAL TEXT: "Gird up now thy loins like a man * * * and answer thou
me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare
if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof if
thou knowest, or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereon are the
foundations thereof fastened, or who laid the cornerstone thereof?"
Job xxxviii_.
_NOTES._
1. _The Period:_ The Modern period extends from the establishment
of Protestantism, in the middle of the sixteenth century, until the
present time. Necessarily the limits imposed upon our treatise can
admit only of a very limited presentation of the conceptions of God
during that important thought-revolutionary period, covering something
over 250 years. In this period philosophy occupies a most independent
position. It is no longer dominated by the Church; nor are its efforts
consecrated to the advocacy of the defense of "orthodox Christian"
dogma In fact, little is heard of that dogma. "Highest truths," writes
Elmendorf in his "History of Philosophy," "were to be determined
by reason alone; not even an appeal for verification to Christian
revelation (was) recognized. Ancient systems were reconstructed without
any reference to the teaching of the Church, or it was maintained that
philosophic truth might be false according to faith and conversely. *
* * * The sixteenth century was a period of transition, of confusion,
without settled method or principle; there was no predominating school,
no originality, but a vague following of every ancient school. Greek
thinkers were now read in the original, and men, no longer scholastics,
were Platonists, Peripatetics, etc.; but rather as scholars,
classicists, than with any comprehensive or productive grasp of the
principles which they professed.
"Without great names, there was a widening of the sphere of philosophy;
it was popularized, but the influence of classicism made the culture of
mere form as extreme as the neglect of it among the later schoolmen;
but philosophy at the same time exerted, particularly through the
'humanists', a more manifest influence on general literature, science,
and social life. * * * The invention of printing, together with the
increase of wealth in the free cities, widened immensely the interest
in philosophy, and brought it sensibly into general literary culture
and political life." (History of Philosophy--Elmendorf--pp. 142-3.)
There was a reversion in Europe to the speculations of Plato and
Aristotle, and the intellectual battles of the two Greeks were fought
over again in Europe, with sometimes one and sometimes the other
prevailing.
The effort of philosophical thinking, as already remarked, was not
now to either sustain or disprove the Divine Existence or the mode
of that existence, as expressed in the Orthodox Christian creeds;
but its aim was more especially to set forth the modes of divine
existence independent of theological conceptions. Is the Absolute to
be apprehended as "Will," "finding its completion in the intuition of
perfect attainment?" Or "Reason," "comprehending itself as the eternal
process of the world and finding that all is Good?" Or "Feeling,"
"which apprehends the unity of things in a single and immediate act
of self-consciousness?" Or merely "Blind Energy," "which seems in a
cross-section of time, as viewed by the average spectator, to have a
definite direction, but which in reality has neither a "whence nor
whither;" and no other goal than the meaningless eternal oscillation
between states of motion and states of rest." ("Typical Modern
Conceptions of God"--by Joseph Alexander Leighton--1901--Introduction,
p. 8.)
2. _Modern Schools of Philosophy:_ So extensive is the period now
under consideration, and so numerous the voices to be heard, that one
cannot hope in three lessons--to which space it is necessary that we
limit ourselves--to convey, even by quotation from typical philosophers
of the period, an adequate idea of the conceptions of God that have
obtained. It will be necessary for the individual student personally to
take up the subject in private study if he feels the necessity of wide
knowledge on the speculations of men on the Supreme Being and His modes
of existence.
Meantime, the numerous teachers of this period may be grouped under
general descriptive terms which relate either to their methods of
thought or the result of their thinking, sometimes to both.
"In the wave of philosophical inquiry which swept over Europe in the
middle of the seventeenth century, and is regarded as the beginning
of a new, scientific age of the world, there were two controlling,
but divergent forces, those, namely, represented by Bacon and
Descartes, the first the founder of the experimental, and the latter
the idealistic or dogmatic method of philosophizing. From the former
(Bacon), we may trace a continuous influence through Locke, Berkeley,
Hume down to Mill, Spencer, Darwin and Huxley; from the latter
(Descartes), the development of the modern idealism represented by
Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Lotze." (Introduction to the
Works of Spinoza, p. 5.)
From this it will appear that our modern philosophers are mainly
divided, as to their methods of thought, into Empirics and Idealists.
(a) _Empiricism:_ "The empirical character, or method; reliance
on direct, and especially individual, observation and experience, to
the exclusion of theories or assumed principles, and sometimes of
all reasoned processes, inductive or deductive. The doctrine that
all knowledge is derived from the senses, or experience through the
senses, or at least from the perception of simple historical fact;
experientialism; opposed to intuitionalism. Empiricism, as its name
imports, affirms that all our knowledge comes from experience, and
is therefore subject to all the imperfections and limitations of
experience." (Standard Dictionary.)
(b) _Idealism:_ "Idealism--that explanation of the world which
maintains that the only thing absolutely real is mind; that all
material and all temporal existences take their being from mind, from
consciousness that thinks and experiences; that out of consciousness
they all issue, to consciousness are presented, and that presence to
consciousness constitute their entire reality and entire existence."
(Prof. Howison, Conceptions of God,--1902--p. 84.)
(c) Rationalism: In philosophy means, "the doctrine that reason
furnishes certain elements that underlies experience, and without which
experience is impossible; opposed to empiricism or experientialism."
(Standard Dictionary.) "In metaphysics, the doctrine of a priori
cognitions; the doctrine that knowledge is not all produced by the
action of outward things upon themselves, but partly arises from the
natural adaption of the mind to think things that are true.
"The form of Rationalism which is now in the ascendant, resembles the
theory of natural evolution in this, that the latter finds the race
more real than the individual, and the individual to exist only in the
race; so the former looks upon the individual reason as but a finite
manifestation of the universal reason." (Cent. Dict.)
(d) _Rationalistic Elements and Methods:_ A fine description of
rationalistic elements and method of philosophizing, is given in one of
Ernest Haeckel's latest works.
"We must welcome as one of the most fortunate steps in the direction of
a solution of the great cosmic problems, the fact that of recent years
there is a growing tendency to recognize the two paths which alone
lead thereto--experience and thought, or speculation--to be of equal
value, and mutually complementary. Philosophers have come to see that
pure speculation--such, for instance, as Plato and Hegel employed for
the construction of their idealist systems--does not lead to knowledge
of reality. On the other hand, scientists have been convinced that
mere experience--such as Bacon and Mill, for example, made the basis
of their realist systems--is insufficient of itself for a complete
philosophy. * * *
"True knowledge is only acquired by combining the activity of the two.
Nevertheless there are still many philosophers who would construct
the world out of their own inner-consciousness, and who reject our
empirical science precisely because they have no knowledge of the
real world. On the other hand, there are many scientists who still
contend that the sole object of science is 'the knowledge of facts,
the objective investigation of isolated phenomena;' that 'the age of
philosophy' is past, and science has taken its place. This one-sided
over-estimation of experience is as dangerous an error as the
converse exaggeration of the value of speculation." (Riddle of the
Universe--1900--pp. 18-19.)
(e) _Pantheism:_ "The metaphysical doctrine that God is
the only substance, of which the material universe and man are
only manifestations. It is accompanied with the denial of God's
personality." (Cent. Dict.) God and the universe are identical--the
universe is the only reality. (See also note 4, Lesson xx.)
(f) _Materialism:_ "The metaphysical doctrine that matter is
the only substance, and that matter and its motions constitute the
universe. Philosophical materialism holds that matter and the motions
of matter make up the sum total of existence, and that what we know as
physical phenomena in man and other animals, are to be interpreted in
an ultimate analysis as simply the peculiar aspect which is assumed by
certain enormously complicated motions of matter." (Cent. Dict.)
(g) Monism: "The doctrine which considers mind and matter as neither
separated nor as derived from each other, but as standing in an
essential and inseparable connection." Any system of thought which
seeks to deduce all the varied phenomena of both the physical and
spiritual worlds from a single principle. (Standard Dictionary, F. W.)
Ernest Haeckel, Monism's most illustrious disciple, if not its founder
thus defines it: "All the different philosophical tendencies may, from
the point of view of modern science, be ranged in two antagonistic
groups; they represent either a dualistic or a monistic interpretation
of the cosmos. The former is usually bound up with teleological and
idealistic dogmas, the latter with mechanical and realistic theories.
Dualism, in the widest sense, breaks up the universe into two entirely
distinct substances--the material world and an immaterial God, who is
represented to be its creator, sustainer and ruler. Monism, on the
contrary (likewise taken in its widest sense), recognizes one sole
substance in the universe, which is at once "God and nature;" body
and spirit (or matter and energy) it holds to be inseparable. The
extra-mundane God of dualism leads necessarily to theism; and the
intra-mundane God of the monist leads to pantheism.
"The different ideas of monism and materialism, and likewise the
essentially distinct tendencies of theoretical and practical
materialism, are still very frequently confused. As this and other
similar cases of confusion of ideas are very prejudicial, and give rise
to innumerable errors, we shall make the following brief observations,
in order to prevent misunderstanding:
"1. Pure monism is identical neither with the theoretical materialism
that denies the existence of a spirit, and dissolves the world into
a heap of dead atoms, nor with the theoretical spiritualism (lately
entitled 'energetic' spiritualism by Oswald) which rejects the notion
of matter, and considers the world to be a specially arranged group of
'energies,' or immaterial natural forces.
"2. On the contrary, we hold, with Goethe, 'that matter cannot exist
and be operative without spirit, nor spirit without matter.' We
adhere firmly to the pure, unequivocal monism of Spinoza: Matter, or
infinitely extended substance, and spirit (or energy), or sensitive and
thinking substance, are the two fundamental attributes or principle
properties of the all-embracing divine essence of the world, the
universal substance." (Riddle of the Universe, pp. 20-21.)
(h) _Mormonism--Eternalism:_ As a philosophical system, Mormonism
may not be classed under any of the titles so far employed. Eternalism,
I should select as the word best suited for its philosophical
conceptions. It is dualistic, but not in the sense that it "breaks up
the universe into two entirely distinct substances, the material world
and an immaterial God." (Haeckel, see note 8.) It is also monistic,
but not in the sense that in the last analysis of things it recognizes
no distinctions in matter, or that matter (gross material) and spirit
(mind, a finer and thinking kind of material)[1] are fused into one
inseparable "sole substance," which is at once "God and nature."
(Haeckel, note 8.) Its dualism is that which while recognizing an
"infinitely extended substance"--the universe, "unbounded and empty
in no part, but everywhere filled with substance" (Haeckel's Law of
Substance)--holds, nevertheless, that such substance exists in two
principal modes, having some qualities in common, and in others being
distinct. (1) Gross material, usually recognized as matter, pure and
simple. (2) A finer, thinking substance, usually regarded, by other
systems of thought, as spirit, i. e., immaterial substance. These
kinds of matter have existed from all eternity, and will exist to all
eternity in intimate relations. Neither produces the other, however;
they are eternal existences. They constitute the Book of Mormon "things
to act, and things to be acted upon." (2 Nephi, ch. 2 14.)
The Monism of Mormonism, while recognizing the universe as infinitely
extended substance, matter, and hence, in this respect monistic, yet
it also recognizes this substance as of two kinds; one gross material;
the other finer, or thinking material--mind; having some qualities in
common, with gross matter, and in others being distinct. After these
distinctions are made, and if constantly held in consciousness, so that
there shall not be a loss of distinction in things, we may hereafter
use the terms "Intelligence" and "Matter" as naming the two modes in
which for Mormonism, the eternal and infinitely extended substance--the
Universe--exists. To say that intelligence dominates matter, and
produces all the ceaseless changes going on in the universe, both of
creation and demolition[2] (or evolution and devolution)--is simply to
say that the superior dominates the inferior; that that which acts is
greater than that which is acted upon; that mind is the Eternal Cause
of the "ever becoming" in the universe--the Cause and Sustainer of
the cosmic world. It is also to say that mind is power; that mind is
thought, and will, and life, and love.
_--Modes of Existence of the Infinitely Extended Substance--The
Universe:_ As the gross material exists ultimately in final
particles--atoms, or something smaller, if you will--uncreated and
uncreatable; so the finer or thinking substance, intelligence, exists
in ultimate entities--uncreated and uncreatable.[3]
And as the gross material atoms exist some in organized worlds and
world-systems--the cosmos--and also others in chaotic mass; so the
finer or thinking substance--the intelligent entities, exist in
somewhat analogous states; some in the form of perfected, exalted men,
clothed upon with immortal bodies, participating in a nature that is
divine, having won their exaltation through the experiences, through
stress and trial in the various estates, or changes through which they
have passed. Other intelligencies exist in spirit-bodies, less advanced
than the first class, possessed of less experience and of power and of
dignity; still they are in the way of progress through other estates,
yet to be experienced by them. Other intelligent entities exist as
intelligences merely, not yet the begotten spirits, not yet united with
elements on the grosser substance, union with which is essential to the
highest development of intelligences.[4]
Such the Mormon view of the universe and the modes of existence in
it--briefly outlined. These existences, both of the thinking substance,
and the grosser materials, are subject to infinite changes and
developments, in which there are no ultimates. Each succeeding wave of
progress may attain higher, and ever higher degrees of excellence, but
never attain perfection--the ideal recedes ever as it is approached,
and hence progress is eternal, even for the highest existences.
As to methods of thinking, Mormon philosophizing is bound by no rules
prescribed by any of the schools of thought. Both idealistic and
empirical methods it employs; it recognizes both experience and thought
as avenues to knowledge; and "both channels of knowledge as mutually
indispensable." These subjects are somewhat elaborately discussed in
the writer's book "Joseph Smith, The Prophet Teacher."
Footnotes
1. I use the modifying terms of the brackets instead of "ponderable"
and "imponderable substance" (sometimes used in describing the ether),
because I am not sure as to "spirit substance" being without weight,
which it must not possess if it be described as "imponderable." Also
I use "gross material" and "finer material," because they are terms
most nearly suited--and indeed suggested--in the distinction made
by Joseph Smith when announcing, in the passage which follows, that
"All spirit is matter." "There is no such thing as immaterial matter
[substance]. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can
only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it [now]; but when our
bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." (Doc. & Cov.,
sec 131; 6-8.)
2. "There are many worlds that have passed away by the word of My
power. And there are many that now stand. * * * And as one earth
shall pass away, and the heavens thereof, even so shall another come;
and there is no end to My works." (The Lord to Moses, Pearl of Great
Price, pp. 6-7.) Hence the "creation and demolition," or evolution and
devolution of the text.
3. "Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made,
neither indeed can be." (Doc. & Cov., Sec. 93; 29.)
4. "The elements [i. e., of the gross material] are eternal, and spirit
and element, inseparably connected [as in resurrected persons], receive
a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of
joy." (Doc. & Cov., Sec. 93.)
LESSON XXIX.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_TYPICAL MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF GOD._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. Typical Views of God--Philosophers:_ The works cited in
Lessons xxvii and xxviii,
1. Spinoza: will be available in this
lesson; also the works
2. Locke; quoted in the notes. The
notes of this lesson aim
3. Berkeley; to convey in condensed
form the generalized
4. Fichte; view of each Philosophers
quoted. They make
5. Kant. difficult reading, but--well,
master them.
_SPECIAL TEXT: For these philosophers one might say: "Oh that I might
know where I might find Him! That I might come even to His seat * * * *
* Behold I go forward, but He is not there; and backward, but I cannot
perceive Him; on the left hand, where He doth work, but I cannot behold
Him. He hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot see Him." Job
xxiii_.
_NOTES._
1. _Spinoza--Pantheist:_ Born in Amsterdam 1632, of Jewish parents,
who were refuges from the Spanish persecution of that period. He states
his conceptions of God in the following passages:
"By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance
consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and
infinite essentiality.
"Explanation: I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind;
for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may
be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its
essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation. * * *
* * * "God is a being absolutely infinite, of whom no attribute that
expresses the essence of substance can be denied, and he necessarily
exists: If any substance besides God were granted, it would have to be
explained by some attribute of God, and thus two substances with the
same attribute would exist, which is absurd; therefore, besides God, no
substance can be granted or consequently, be conceived. If it could be
conceived, it would necessarily have to be conceived as existent; but
this (by the first part of this proof) is absurd. Therefore, besides
God, no substance can be granted or conceived.
"Some assert that God, like a man, consists of body and mind, and is
susceptible of passions. How far such persons have strayed from the
truth, is sufficiently evident from what has been said. But these
I pass over. For all who have in anywise reflected on the divine
nature, deny that God has a body. Of this they find excellent proof
in the fact, that we understand by body a definite quantity, so long,
so broad, so deep, bounded by a certain shape, and it is the height
of absurdity to predicate such a thing of God, a being absolutely
infinite. But, meanwhile, by the other reasons with which they try
to prove a point, they show that they think corporeal or extended
substance wholly apart from the divine nature, and say it was created
by God. Wherefrom the divine nature can have been created, they are
wholly ignorant; thus they clearly show, that they do not know the
meaning of their own words. I, myself, have proved sufficiently
clearly, at any rate in my own judgment (Coroll. Prop. 6, and note 2,
Prop. 8), that no substance can be produced or created by anything
other than itself. Further, I showed (in Prop. 14) that besides God no
substance can be granted or conceived. Hence, we drew the conclusion
that extended substance is one of the infinite attributes of God."
2. _Locke's View of God and Spirit:_ Locke regards God as an
infinite, immaterial spirit, present in all duration and as filling
immensity. Men derive their best knowledge of God, not by reason of
innate ideas of Him, but by thought and meditation. "It seems to me
plainly to prove the truest and best notions men had of God were not
imprinted, but acquired by thought and meditation, and a right use of
their faculties; since the wise and considerate men of the world, by
a right and careful employment of their thoughts and reason, attained
true notions in this, as well as other things; whilst the lazy and
inconsiderate part of men, making far the greater number, took up
their notions by chance, from common tradition and vulgar conceptions,
without much beating their heads about them." * * * * "God, every one
easily allows, fills eternity; and it is hard to find a reason why
anyone should doubt that he likewise fills immensity. His infinite
being is certainly as boundless one way as the other; and methinks it
ascribes a little too much to matter to say, where there is no body
there is nothing." * * * * "Motion cannot be attributed to God; not
because he is an immaterial, but because he is an infinite spirit."
(Locke's Works, Vol. I, pp. 195, 319.)
In discussing the nature of man's spirit, Locke had not excluded the
idea of its being a thinking, material substance. Whereupon the Bishop
of Worcester took him to task about it; to which Locke said in his own
defense--and in his reply something further may be learned in relation
to his idea of God:
"Perhaps my using the word spirit for a thinking substance, without
excluding materiality out of it, will be thought too great a liberty,
and such as deserves censure, because I leave immateriality out of
the idea I make it a sign of. I readily own, that words should be
sparingly ventured on in a sense wholly new, and nothing but absolute
necessity can excuse the boldness of using any term in a sense whereof
we can produce no example. But in the present case, I think I have
great authorities to justify me. The soul is agreed, on all hands, to
be that in us which thinks. And he that will look into the first book
of Cicero's 'Tusculan Questions,' and into the sixth book of Virgil's
'Aeneid,' will find that these two great men, who, of all the Romans,
best understood philosophy, thought, or at least did not deny, the
soul to be a subtle matter, which might come under the name of aura,
or ignis, or ether, and this soul they both of them called spiritus;
in the notion of which, it is plain, they included only thought and
active motion, without the total exclusion of matter. Whether they
thought right in this I do not say--that is not the question; but
whether they spoke properly, when they called an active, thinking,
subtle substance, out of which they excluded only gross and palpable
matter, spiritus, spirit? * * * * * I would not be thought hereby to
say, that spirit never does signify a purely immaterial substance. In
that sense the Scripture, I take it, speaks, when it says 'God is a
spirit'; and in that sense I have used it, and in that sense I have
proved from my principles that there is a spiritual substance, and am
certain that there is a spiritual, immaterial substance; which is, I
humbly conceive, a direct answer to your lordship's question in the
beginning of this argument, viz: 'How we come to be certain that there
are spiritual substances supposing this principle to be true, that the
simple ideas, by sensation and reflection, are the soul-matter and
foundation of all our reasoning?' But this hinders not, but that if
God, that infinite, omnipotent, and perfectly immaterial spirit, should
please to give a system of very subtle matter, sense and motion, it
might with propriety of speech be called spirit, though materiality
were not excluded out of its complex idea. Your lordship proceeds:
'It is said, indeed, elsewhere, that it is repugnant to the idea of
senseless matter, that it would put into itself sense, perception, and
knowledge.' But this doth not reach the present case, which is not what
matter can do of itself, but what matter prepared by an Omnipotent hand
can do. And what certainty can we have that He hath not done it? We
can have none from the ideas, for those are given up in this case, and
consequently we can have no certainty, upon these principles, whether
we have any spiritual substance within us or not." (Works, Vol. II, pp.
388-9).
3. _Berkley's Views of the Doctrine of Diety:_ George Berkley was
born at Killkrin, Ireland, 1684; died at Oxford, 1753. I follow Locke
with Berkley because he stands somewhat in contrast with him, although
he was, like Locke, an experimentalist in method; but he regarded Locke
as a materialist, and he runs to the opposite extreme, as will appear
in what follows:
"Locke had allowed to pass the hypothesis that matter can think.
Berkley justly argued that if this were allowed, we could not affirm
the immateriality and perpetuity of the thinking principle in man.
For, with the disintegration of the matter there must be an end to
the individual. If it be allowed that matter can think, then, as
Locke offers no proof to the contrary, it might be inferred that our
thinking principle, the substratum of our thoughts, is but matter.
This, Berkeley undertook to combat. But how did he do so? By trying
to establish that there is no matter, that we can not affirm its
existence; and, hence, as something at least, is, as we do exist, that
the thinking principle in us, the soul, must be immaterial." (Truth of
Thought--Poland--pp. 24, 25).
"To counteract the influence of Locke's quasi-materialism, Berkley
crossed to the other extreme, in the exaltation of spirit which, of
course, he held to be immaterial. "The possibility that hereafter this
exaltation of spirit might lead to a denial of any Being higher than
man--that the universe might appear to him his own creation--scarcely
presented itself to the mind of Berkley. It was not the peril of his
time. A creator was not denied by any of the minute philosophers with
whom Berkeley contended. What he desired to impress them with was, the
belief that the Being who made the outward world was a Spirit, who took
cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart; that the words to
the poor woman who drew water at the well ascended above the philosophy
of the eighteenth century; that they were real and scientific, that it
was conversant with phantasies and shadows." (Moral and Metaphysical
Philosophy--Maurice--Vol. II, p. 457).
4. _Fichte's Conception of God--God as Will:_ Born 1762; died 1814.
There seems to be something of a distinction between Fichte's earlier
and later views. In his earlier writings he appears to hold to the
doctrine that God was manifest in "Will" alone, which was the cause of
the moral order. "The living and working moral order is God himself,
and we can conceive no other." He quotes with approval a passage from
Schiller, saying that it expressed his own views:
"And God is!--a holy Will that abides,
Though the human will may falter;
High over both Space and Time it rides,
The high Thought that will never alter;
And while all things in change eternal roll,
It endures, through change, a motionless soul."
For these views Fichte was charged with atheism, which he resented:
"He contends," says Leighton, "that his opponents regard God as a
particular substance. Substance means with them 'a sensible being
existing in time and space.' This God, extended in time and space,
they deduce from the sense-world. Fitche claims that extension or
corporeality cannot be predicated of the Diety. The sensuous world is
only the reappearance of the supersensuous, or moral world, through
our attempt to grasp the latter by means of our sensuous faculty of
presentation. The sensuous, is mere appearance, and can furnish no
ground for the existence of God. The Diety is not to be understood as
the underlying ground of phenomena, for, so conceived, he is made a
corporeal substrate. He is an order of events, not a substance. The
sensuous predicate of existence is not to be applied to Him, for the
supersensuous God alone is. He is not dead Being, but rather pure
action, the life and principle of the supersensuous World-Order. *
* * * * To characterize God as a spirit, is of negative value in
distinguishing Him from things material. It gives us no positive
information, for we know as little wherein the being of a spirit
consists as wherein the being of God consists. Inasmuch as all our
thinking is limited, God is inconceivable. To determine him is to make
him finite. If personality and consciousness are to be denied of God,
it is only in the sense in which we conceive ourselves as personal and
conscious. God is wider consciousness than we are, a pure intelligence,
spiritual life and actuality. He is neither one nor many, neither man
nor spirit."
In his later views he seems to add "Intelligence" to his "will," or
moral order. Leighton, summing up both the earlier and later views
of the philosopher, says: "When we put together what Fichte said at
different times and from various points of view, his doctrine becomes
a unity, and his thought exhibits a consistent development. He always
conceived God as immanent in the moral universe--the only universe
which he recognized. He consistently held that the human mind could
not conceive God in His transcendence. But he did not deny that
transcendence; and, indeed, in his later writings he emphasized it by
his doctrine of the 'Absolute Being.' While in his innermost nature he
[God] is beyond the reach of thought, God manifests Himself eternally
as active intelligence or Will, and by the free act of his own
intelligence, man can rise to an intuitive knowledge of God and enter
into union with Him. In the earlier form of the 'Science of Knowledge',
the Absolute I is the expression of God. In the final form which his
philosophy assumes, Fichte emphasizes the doctrine that God is more
than the Absolute I. The idea of God is more fully defined. Beyond His
manifestation of Himself, He exists as Absolute Being. He alone is. But
this Being is not an abstract motionless One. Fichte says again and
again, in the 'Way to the Blessed Life,' that the nature of Being is to
manifest itself, that it is ever-active, ever-living and loving. 'Being
and Life are one and the same.' 'The Divine is thinking and living in
one organic unity.' Being becomes conscious of itself in Existence.
The universal form in which the Divine Essence appears, is 'Knowing,
the Concept, Freedom,' and these are all equivalent expressions.
Knowing is the first image or scheme of the Divine Being. We have not
yet reached self-consciousness. But free Knowing, or the Concept,
understands or becomes conscious of itself in life, and Life appears in
the Multiplicity of finite, self-conscious individuals." (Conceptions
of God--Leighton--pp. 27-28).
5. _Kant:_ Born at Konigsburg, 1724; died 1804. It is said that
Kant's influence in the world of thought is second only, if second, to
Aristotle's (Elmendorf).
"Kant's Organon--[a code of rules or principles for scientific
investigation--Kant uses the term to denote the particular rules for
acquiring the Knowledge of a given class of objects.--Cent. Dict.]
is immeasurably more severe than Aristotle's or than Bacon's. At
times, everything which we think we have gained when we entered upon
this division of our subject, appears again to be slipping from us.
God--Immortality, Freedom--these we find to be the ideas or postulates
of the reason. We have them; they are with us. But what are they? Can
we proceed to reason from them, to build any conclusions upon the
fact that such ideas are? If we do, we at once involve ourselves in
contradictions. They are ideas assuredly--fundamental principles; but
they cannot be treated as realities external to the mind. They are
only within it. If the Atheist, or the denier of immortality, begins
to dispute with me, I can defy him to prove a negative. But I can go
no further. I cannot make that into an object which exists in me,
the subject. If I do, I shall invest it with some of the conditions
and limitations of my own nature, or I shall call in experience to
represent to me that which is above experience.
"Are, then, senses, understanding, reason, all equally at fault? Are
they, all alike, prone to deception, all alike, unproductive? If that
is the case, let no one dream that he can help out our weakness by
speaking of a divine communication--a revelation from above. We have
nothing which can receive such a communication; nothing which can turn
it to any account. The voice may speak, there is no ear which can take
it in. But Kant does not leave us in this utter desolation of heart
and hope. No results can follow from trying to speculate with those
ideas of the reason. They will only turn round and round upon us; we
can never get them outside of us to act upon us. But let us look at
them practically. I have the idea of freedom, and I want a law over
me--over me, this being who has this demand for freedom. A law; that
is, something which commands me--something which I did not make for
myself. If it is not imperative, it is nothing; if I may alter it
according to some taste or fancies of mine, it is nothing. Yet, it
must be the law of a free being; this idea of freedom, if it is only
negative, affirms so much. And the law must tell me what is right--what
I, with my freedom, ought to do. The freedom calls for the law, the
law respects the freedom. Now contemplate those other ideas of God and
Immortality in this light, and see whether they remain ineffectual and
barren. The idea of God becomes that of the lawgiver; the lawgiver who
commands what is right. But such an idea involves an actual Being--one
who is right--one who is not under our limitations in the exercise
of right--one who will make right prevail. The idea of immortality
combines itself with this idea of God. The limitations of our mind
interferes with the full accomplishment of His purpose. We demand an
unlimited range for the success of the right will, for the attainment
of what is implied in our freedom and in our sense of law. God stands
out before us as the eternal and absolutely good Being. The happiness
of man must consist in the pursuit of that goodness, in the conformity
to it. Happiness in any sense but this, in any sense which it is merely
identical with eudaemonism[1]--good luck or good fortune--never can be
the end of any creature constituted as man is constituted.
"We have thus been driven--fairly driven--to a ground beyond those
conditions which appear to limit all our knowledge, our acts, and
our hopes. Let the reader observe carefully how Kant has been led to
transgress those boundaries which no one had so rigorously defined as
himself, which it was part--this should always be kept in mind--of
his function as a transcendental philosopher to define. It is not
from any passion for the excesses of the reason; it is not from any
weariness of the restraint of laws. He is in the act of prohibiting
the excesses of the reason when the discovery of this necessity bursts
upon him. He accepts it, because he can find no laws that are adequate
to hold fast human creatures, if he does not. He has listened to the
discussions and demonstrations of those who think they can establish
the existence of a Creator of nature from the facts of nature. They
appear to him feeble and unsatisfactory; but, were they ever so strong,
such a Creator, so setting in motion the machinery of the universe,
could not satisfy him. He has examined the metaphysical reasonings
which lead to the same conclusion, or which are urged in support of
the immortality of the soul. He can make nothing of them; but if he
could, what God, what immortality, would they establish? Leaving, then,
dogmatists and skeptics to conduct these controversies, and to arrive
at any results they can--being convinced inwardly that they will arrive
at no result, that each can say just enough to make the conclusions of
the other untenable--he falls back upon this moral law, this law for
free creatures. Once admitting that, he can, nay, he must, recognize
all nature as subject to the same Righteous Being; he must contemplate
the world as a moral world, the universe as designed for a good end."
(Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy, Vol. II, pp. 631-633.)
The doctrine of Kant, summed up by Elmendorf, stands: "God the moral
ruler of nature, and reconciler of it with reason, giving that harmony
to happiness and morality which nature does not provide. This postulate
also necessary to morality. These postulates are given by practical
reason, not as cognitions, not in the relations of phenomenon and
noumenon, but as realities serving practical ends. Rational faith is a
necessity of man's nature."
From all which, it appears that according to Kant, and especially
according to his treatise, "Critique of Practical Reason"--1788--the
ideas of "God, Human Liberty and Immortality, are postulates of
practical reason."
Footnotes
1. "The type of utilitarian ethical theory that makes the pursuit
enjoyment and production of happiness the supreme end in moral
conduct."--(Standard Dictionary.)
LESSON XXX.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_TYPICAL MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF GOD--(Continued)._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. Typical Views of God--Philosophers:_ The works cited in
Lesson xxvii and xxviii,
6. Schleiermacher; will be available in this
lesson; also the works
7. Hegel; quoted in the notes of
this lesson.
8. Schelling;
The notes aim to convey
9. Spencer; in condensed form
the generalized view of
10. Fiske. each Philosopher quoted.
They make difficult
reading, but--master
them.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom
concerning all things that are done under heaven; this sore travail
hath God given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith." Solomon:
Ecclesiastes, Ch. i, 13_.
_NOTES._
1. _Schleiermacher's Conception of God:_ Schleiermacher was born
at Breslau, 1768; died at Berlin, 1834. The primary thought of God
for Schleiermacher, is that of Feeling, which apprehends the unity of
things in a single and immediate act of consciousness. "He regards
the God-consciousness as immediate. The direct organ of the Knowledge
of God is feeling." * * * * "The infinite is not outside the world
of phenomena. On the contrary the latter exists within the 'Infinite
One.' The 'Infinite One' is the completion of the series of conditioned
existences, and not something separated from them. 'The Infinite exists
in the finite.' The Infinite One 'is a living Spirituality, dynamically
conceived, in which thought holds the primacy.'" (Modern Conception of
God--Leighton--p. 93).
Schleiermacher is contrasted with Spinoza, by one author, in the
following manner (For Spinoza views see note I, Lesson XXIX.):
"Spinoza's Absolute is the static indifference-point of an infinite
number of attributes, of which two, thought and extension, are
known to us. Moreover, Schleiermacher's most original and important
philosophical doctrine, that of the worth of individuality, separated
him from Spinoza. Whilst the latter holds that Body and Soul are
related only in and through the Divine substance, Schleiermacher
regards every human individual as a unique manifestation of the
unity of the ideal and the real, of thought and being. Hence, human
individuality is with him a sacred and significant manifestation of the
Absolute." (Ibid, p. 94).
2. _Hegel--Extreme Idealist:_ Born at Stuttgart, 1770. "Hegel
gives to idealism its full systematic development" (Elmendorf). He
conceives the Absolute "as wholly immanent in the temporal world of
human experience. He labors to subjugate all spheres of existence,
every phase of human experience to the dominion of the immanent
Divine Reason" (Leighton, "Typical Modern Conceptions of God,"
Introduction). "A reason-derived Knowledge of God is the highest
problem of philosophy." (Wallace, "The Logic of Hegel," p. 73). "God
is for him [Hegel] the self-conditioning, self-centered totality
of all that is, i. e., the ultimate unity" (Leighton, "Typical
Conceptions of God," p. 35). "Truth, for him, is the agreement of a
thought content with itself; i. e., self-consistency" (Ibid, p. 36).
"Hegel analyzes the notion of self-consciousness, and puts it forward
with courageous anthropomorphism as the ultimate explanation of the
universe" (Ibid, p. 42). "The task of philosophy is to know God. * *
* * Immediate Knowledge tells us that God is not what he is. But if
God is not an empty Being beyond the stars, He must be present in the
communion of human spirits, and, in His relation to them, He is the
One Spirit Who pervades reality and thought. Hence, there can be no
final separation between our immediate consciousness of Him and our
mediate Knowledge of reality" (Ibid, pp. 46-47). "The three aspects
of God are treated respectively under the realm of the Father; the
realm of the Son; the realm of the Spirit; God is the absolute eternal
Idea Who exists under these aspects" (Ibid, p. 50). "The question has
been raised as to whether Hegel's God is not better described as a
society than as a single person. Now, Hegel's God is certainly not an
individual spirit, existing in single blessedness apart from all the
contents of His universe. He therefore is not a single person in the
sense in which we are individuals. But He is forever the unity of the
society of individual finite spirits. In Him the scattered rays of
light which issue from the multitude of finite selves, converge to a
single point--to the unstained purity and translucency of an absolute
self-consciousness. God, then, is the unity of spirits. The society of
finite individuals exists as the object of his thought. Without them
his life would be blind. Without Him they would be chaos, and anarchy,
and naught."
In brief, "God," in Hegel's philosophy, "is the universal
self-consciousness which comprehends within itself all concrete
differences, men and things--'God is a spirit in His own concrete
differences, of which every finite spirit is one.' Man truly knows
God when he sees nature and himself as manifestations of God, and
recognizes himself as the highest of these manifestations, capable of
grasping in thought the whole of which he is a part.
"It has been doubted whether there is any place in Hegel's system for
individuals. It seems to me that the most insistent note in Hegel's
writings, is the emphasis on the concrete individual. He never wearies
of attacking abstractions like 'being' and 'substance.' The movement
of the 'Logic' is towards the category of individuality." (Modern
Conceptions of God, pp. 65-66.)
3. _Schelling Conceptions:_ Born in Wurtemburg, 1775; died 1854.
The philosopher of "identity"--i. e., he identifies subject and object
as one. Schelling is best understood by being placed in contrast with
Fichte. I quote from Maurice: "Fichte, combining the enthusiasm of
the French revolution with a cordial acceptance of the lessons he had
learned in Konigsberg, was, from the beginning of his life to the
end of it, asking what was needful to make him a free man--to enable
him to do the work which he had to do--to be what he was meant to
be. He was sure that he could find the answer to that question. He
said boldly that neither he nor any man could find the answer to any
other. What was not himself he must leave. It sounded like atheistical
doctrine. People said it was atheistical doctrine. But in demanding
what was needful to make him true, he found that he needed a true
God. His rivals charged him with inconsistency. He had taken into
his doctrine that which did not belong to it--he was borrowing from
them. That did not signify. He must have what he required. That was
his consistency. He was happy, not only in the nobleness of his life,
but in the opportunity of his death. He died just as his country
became free--before it was again reduced into slavery by monarchs
and system-mongers. Schelling was the thinker who most denounced
Fichte's methods and Fichte's departures from his own maxims. For
he had been led to feel profoundly the worth of that which Fichte
ignored--the worth of a method which he [Fichte] thought impossible.
He [Schelling] could not start from that which he is, or thinks, or
knows, or believes. He could not forget that a whole world is presented
to us. He must proceed from that which is given; he must see how that
affects the man, meets the demands of man, prevents him from losing
himself in himself. He must have a nature-philosophy. That Schelling
thinks, will include all things, be the end of all things. Is not
that atheism? cry his opponents. Is not Nature taking the place of
God? He replies to them vehemently, contemptuously. He does not want
to make all the shifting forms of nature into God. There is a Being
working through these, working behind them. To know that Being is what
man requires. He must have an object for all his search. That Object
cannot only be an Object. It must be a subject--thinking as well as
thought of. In that confession of a Subject-Object is a depth which a
Nature-philosophy might disclose, but which it could not contain. It
must, as some of Schelling's critics said--at first exciting only his
scorn by the remark--lie beyond the bounds of philosophy; it must be
that which philosophy asks for. Perhaps Schelling may have discovered
afterwards, or partly discovered, that they were right. If he did,
it was by faithfully pursuing his inquiry as far as it would go, by
holding fast to the thought that man's first demand is for a revelation
of something. If of a Subject-Object, perhaps 'something' does not
exactly meet the demand; perhaps the thing will not be able to reveal
itself, or to make persons know what is revealed. We are not careful
to inquire what the conclusions were at which Schelling ultimately
arrived. He often angrily discouraged the attempts of his disciples
and of his opponents to explain those conclusions; not unnaturally or
unreasonably, it seems to us, if he felt that the explanations were to
be fitted into a compact system, and if he knew that what he had done,
supposing he had done anything, was to point to that which is, or to
Him Who is, above all systems--to the only ground, as well as the only
end, of knowledge.
"It is clear, at all events, that we are once more in that ocean of
Being, which our guides of the eighteenth century were so anxious
that we should avoid. Being and Not Being, Being and Becoming, are,
as in the days of Plato, the watchwords which will be rung in our
ears; to which we may shut our ears if we please, but which will
encounter us when we least expect them." (Moral and Metaphysical
Philosophy--Maurice--Vol. II, pp. 655-6).
"God" for Schelling, says Elmendorf, "is the absolute indifference of
contraries; the unity of being and thought, of subject and object, of
ideal and real; this is the potentiality of the actual from which the
two opposites differentiate themselves without losing their unity in
the absolute." (History of Philosophy, p. 257).
4. _Herbert Spencer:_ God unknown, and unknowable, would be the
description of Spencer's conception of the "Absolute Being." "Spencer's
primary doctrine is evolution, both in psychical and physical
phenomenon"; evolution he describes as a change from 'an indefinite,
incoherent homogeneity, to a definite coherent heterogeneity.'" "This
principle is an induction from experience, of which no further account
can be given, for the absolute in any form is unthinkable, although
there is an ultimate reality in which subject and object coincide; yet
our concept of the Absolute is positive though indefinite." (Elmendorf).
Spencer's own declarations of our inability to know the "unknowable,"
is as follows:
"Every religion, setting out, though it does, with the tacit assertion
of a mystery; and so asserts that it is not a mystery passing human
comprehension. But an examination of the solutions they severally
propound, shows them to be uniformly invalid. The analysis of
every possible hypothesis proves, not simply that no hypothesis is
sufficient, but that no hypothesis is even thinkable. And thus the
mystery which all religions recognize, turns out to be a far more
transcendent mystery than any of them suspect--not a relative, but an
absolute mystery.
"Here, then, is an ultimate religious truth of the highest possible
certainty--a truth in which religions in general are at one with each
other, and with a philosophy antagonistic to their special dogmas. And
this truth, respecting which there is a latent agreement among all
mankind, from the fetish-worshipper to the most stoical critic of human
creeds, must be the one we seek. If Religion and Science are to be
reconciled, the basis of reconciliation must be this deepest, widest,
and most certain of all facts--that the Power which the Universe
manifests to us is utterly inscrutable." (First Principles, pp. 47-48).
On this passage from Spencer, Leighton justly remarks:
"This, certainly is a species of knowledge unique in kind. How can we
know that we can know absolutely nothing about a conceivable object
of knowledge? Mr. Spencer's knowledge of the unknowability of the
ultimate reality is, so far as it goes, very positive. And, furthermore
he knows that the Unknowable is a Power, "an infinite and Eternal
Energy from which all things proceed. The certainty that such a power
exists, while, on the other hand, its nature transcends intuition,
is the certainty towards which intelligence has from the first been
progressing. Furthermore, we know the modes in which this inscrutable
Power manifests itself. 'The Power manifested throughout the universe
distinguished as material, is the same Power, which in ourselves, wells
up under the form of consciousness.' (Principles of Sociology, 3, p.
174). "Notwithstanding the antinomies which Mr. Spencer finds to be
involved in thinking 'Infinite' and 'Eternal' and notwithstanding that
the deepest nescience is the goal of human thought, he confidently
asserts that 'amid the mysteries which become the more mysterious
the more they are thought about, there will remain (to man) the one
absolute certainty, that he is ever in the presence of an Infinite and
Eternal Energy, from which all things proceed.'
"The positiveness of this conclusion, when compared with Mr. Spencer's
declaration of the impotence of knowledge when it is confronted with
ontological problems, is sufficient of itself to awaken doubts as to
the legitimacy of his procedure." (Modern Conceptions of God, pp.
104-105).
5. _John Fiske:_ I select John Fiske to represent what I take to
be the most recent conception of God in the Ultra intellectual world;
and it is to be noted that he marks a drift of thought (gradually
being emphasized by more recent writers), from what I shall call
ultra anti-anthropomorphic conceptions toward at least a thin
anthropomorphism. His most definite conception of God is found in the
following statement:
"We may hold that the world of phenomena is intelligible only
when regarded as the multiform manifestation of an Omnipresent
Energy that is in some way--albeit in a way quite above our finite
comprehension--anthropomorphic or quasi-personal. There is a
true objective reasonableness in the universe; its events have
an orderly progression, and, so far as those events are brought
sufficiently within our ken for us to generalize them exhaustively,
their progression is toward a goal that is recognizable by human
intelligence; 'the process of evolution is itself the working out of
a mighty teleology, of which our finite understandings can fathom but
the scantiest rudiments' (Cosmic Philosophy, Part 3, ch. 2); it is,
indeed, but imperfectly, that we can describe the dramatic tendency in
the succession of events, but we can see enough to assure us of the
fundamental fact that there is such a tendency; and this tendency is
the objective aspect of that which, when regarded on its subjective
side, we call Purpose. Such a theory of things is Theism. It recognizes
an Omnipresent Energy, which is none other than the living God."
"It is this theistic doctrine which I hold myself, and which in the
present essay I have sought to exhibit as the legitimate outcome of
modern scientific thought." * * * * * * "As to the conception of
Deity, in the shape impressed upon it by our modern knowledge, I
believe I have now said enough to show that it is no empty formula or
metaphysical abstraction which we would seek to substitute for the
living God. The infinite and eternal Power that is manifested in every
pulsation of the universe is none other than the living God. We may
exhaust the resources of metaphysics in debating how far his nature may
fitly be expressed in terms applicable to the psychical nature of Man;
such vain attempts will only serve to show how we are dealing with a
theme that must ever transcend our finite powers of conception. But of
some things we may feel sure. Humanity is not a mere local incident in
an endless and aimless series of cosmical changes. The events of the
universe are not the work of chance, neither are they the outcome of
blind necessity. Practically there is a purpose in the world whereof
it is our highest duty to learn the lesson, however well or ill we may
fare in rendering a scientific account of it. When from the dawn of
life we see all things working together toward the evolution of the
highest spiritual attributes of Man, we know, however the words may
stumble in which we try to say it, that God is in the deepest sense a
moral Being. The everlasting source of phenomena is none other than
the infinite Power that makes for righteousness. Thou canst not by
searching find him out; yet put thy trust in Him, and against thee
the gates of hell shall not prevail; for there is neither wisdom nor
understanding nor counsel against the Eternal." ("Studies in Religion,"
pp. 93-94, 209).
LESSON XXXI.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
SPECIAL LESSON.
_THE PAGANIZATION OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF DEITY: WHAT PARTICULAR
TENDENCIES IN HUMAN NATURE LED TO THIS RESULT?_
(AN EXPOSITORY--ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE)
_NOTES._
1. _Character of the Proposed Discourse:_ For suggestion in
relation to expository and argumentative discourses, see Lesson XXV,
note 2, and the references there given to Seventy's Year Books Nos. I
and II.
2. _Sources of Information:_ For the Christian Doctrine of God,
see, of course, New Testament, especially the Fourth Gospel. Seventy's
Year Book No. II, Lesson XXXIV; notes 4, 5 and 6 (pp. 190-193). All of
Lesson 37; also Year Book III, Lesson XXV. Mormon Doctrine of Deity
(pp. 114-119); Also chs. 4 and 5 Orson Pratt's works, "The Kingdom of
God," Subdivision, "The Nature and Character of the King." Outlines of
Ecclesiastical History (Roberts), Part II, Section 5.
3. _Suggestions to the Speaker:_ In previous lessons under this
topic we have dealt with the "First Moments of Speech" and the
"Introduction." Having done with these, we come now to the main part of
the work--to the discussion of the subject. This can only be considered
in part in this lesson. I quote from Pittenger: "The passage from the
introduction to the discussion should be made smoothly and gradually.
To accomplish this, and to strike the subject at just the right angle,
continuing all the interest previously excited, is a most important
achievement. A definite object is a great assistance in this part of
the work. If the object is clearly in view, we go right up to it with
no wasted words, and the people follow our guidance because they see
that we are not proceeding at random. But with no strong purpose, we
are apt to steer about our subject without ever being quite ready to
enter upon it. The more brilliant the introduction, the more difficult
this transition will be. But all these difficulties may be overcome
with the aid of a well-constructed plan."
4. _Must be a Controlling Purpose in Discourse:_ "The whole
discourse must be animated with some controlling purpose, and in its
general character, tend upward, until its close. The law of climax
ought to be carefully considered by the speaker. There may be more than
one culmination of interest in an address, separated by an interval
less absorbing and powerful, but this decline should only be allowed in
order to prepare a second or third climax, grander than all before. To
violate this rule and have a speech 'flatten out' toward its close, is
a fearful error. Better reduce the length of the whole by one-half or
three-fourths, and maintain interest and attention to the end."
5. _Of Diffuseness:_ "Diffuseness is often supposed to be a
necessary quality of extemporaneous speech. Many speakers do fall into
it, but they need not. They are diffuse because they are unwilling or
unable to say exactly what they mean, but come near it, and continue
their efforts until they are satisfied. They furnish no clear view of
any idea, but only a kind of twilight illumination. This serious fault
may be overcome in spontaneous speech as readily as in writing. He who
thinks clearly and forcibly will talk in the same manner. Exquisite
finish and elaborate verbal arrangement are not to be looked for in
off-hand speech, but each idea may be expressed with great force,
vigor, and accuracy of shading.
"This ability to say precisely what we mean in few words, and at
the first effort, constitutes one of the great beauties of a spoken
style. The hearer is filled with grateful surprise when some new and
living idea is suddenly placed before him, clothed in a single word or
sentence. A diffuse speaker gives so many premonitions of his thought
that the audience have guessed it, and may even come to believe that
they have always known it, before he has made his formal presentment.
Of course, they are wearied, and never give him credit for an original
conception.
"If troubled with this fault, frequently forecast what to say; drive
it into the smallest number of vivid, expressive words; then, without
memorizing the language, reproduce the same briefly in the hurry of
speech. If not successful in making it as brief as before, repeat the
effort. This exercise will, in time, give the ability to condense. But
to exercise it, the temptation to fine language must be overcome. No
sentence should be introduced for mere glitter or sparkle; a single
unnecessary word may require others to justify or explain it, and thus
may ruin a whole discourse. The danger of showy language in speech is
far greater than in writing, for if the writer be drawn too far away
from his subject, he can strike out the offending sentences and begin
again, while the speaker has but one trial. If beauty lies in his way,
well; but if not, he should never abandon his course to seek it."
_Concluding the Speech:_ "There are three principal ways of
concluding a speech. (1). One of the most graceful is to condense a
clear view of the whole argument and tendency of the address into a few
words, and leave the summing up thus made to produce its own effect.
Discourses aiming principally to produce conviction may very well be
concluded in this manner.
(2). "Another and very common mode is to close with an application or
with practical remarks. When the address is a sermon, this form of
closing is frequently termed an exhortation, and the whole speech is
made to bear upon the duty of the moment.
(3). "A third method of closing is to simply break off when the last
item is finished. The full development of the discourse is thus made
its ending, care being taken that the last item discussed shall be of
weight and dignity. This is by no means the easiest form of conclusion
but rightly managed it is one of the most effective.
(4). "A conclusion should always be short and contain no new matter.
Few things are more disastrous than the practice of drawing toward an
end and then launching out into a new discussion. All good things that
have been said, all previous favorable impressions, are obliterated by
this capital fault." (Extempore Speech, Pittenger, ch 8).
4. _Strength:_ We have already considered three means of promoting
strength of expression. The third suggestion was, that care be taken to
have the last word of a sentence a forcible one. The same holds good as
to the members of a sentence: "Strength requires that, when the members
of a sentence differ in length, the shorter should have precedence of
the longer; and, when they are of unequal force, that the weaker be
placed before the stronger. Both of these principles are violated in
the following sentence:
_Example:_ "In this state of mind, every employment of life becomes
an oppressive burden, and every object appears gloomy."
_Corrected:_ How much more forcible does it become when the shorter
and weaker member is placed first: "In this state of mind, every object
appears gloomy, and every employment of life becomes an oppressive
burden."
This arrangement of the members of a sentence constitutes what is
defined among the rhetorical figures as _Climax_. What is most
emphatic is brought last, in order that a strong impression may be left
on the reader's mind.
"This principle, also, requires us to avoid terminating a sentence with
a succession of unaccented words; such as, 'with', 'it', 'in it', 'on
it', etc.
_Example:_ "This is a proposition which I did not expect; and I
must ask time for privilege of reflecting on it."
_Corrected:_ The last member would be more forcible thus: "This
is a proposition which I did not expect; and I must ask time for
reflection." (Quackenbos' Rhetoric.)
PART III.
The True Doctrine of Deity.
LESSON XXXII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_THE EXISTENCE OF GOD._[1]
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. Evidences for the Divine Existence Part I. Ten Lessons.
Found In--_
Lesson i. References
1. Tradition; and Notes.
2. Creation, the Evidence of Design Lesson ii. References
in Nature; and Notes.
3. Innate Consciousness of God in Lesson iii. References
the Human Soul; and Notes.
4. The General Consent of Mankind; Lesson iv. References
and Notes.
5. The Necessary Presence of an
Eternal Cause in the World; Lessons vi, vii. References
and Notes.
6. Revelation--Limitation of
Revelation. Lessons viii, ix. References
and Notes.
Lesson x.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "The Scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all
things denote there is a God; yea, the earth and all things that are
upon the face of it; yea, and its motion; yea, and also all the planets
which move in their regular form [order], do witness that there is a
Supreme Creator." Alma, Ch. xxx._
_NOTES._
Owing to the volume of information supplied in Part I--Ten Lessons--on
the various subdivisions of this lesson, it is not thought necessary to
add more notes here.
Footnotes
1. It is suggested that this lesson be made simply a review of Part I,
and that two sessions of the class could be profitably used for this
purpose.
LESSON XXXIII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_THE FORM OF GOD._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. Jesus Divine-Hence God._ The New Testament
and Book of Mormon
1. Dependent Upon Revelation and Doctrine and Covenants.
for Knowledge of Form and
Nature of God. Psalms xix, Rom. i,
Note 1.
2. World's Need of a Revelation
of God. Note 2.
3. Scripture Evidence of the Divinity See collection of passages
of Jesus: of Scripture,
Richards and Little's
--Jesus Christ is Called God in Compendium title,
Revelation--Hence God; "True and Living God,"
pp. 187-191.
--Jesus Declares Himself to be
God--The Son of God; Note 3 and contexts of
passages of Scripture
--Jesus is to be Worshipped--Hence cited.
God;
Note 4.
--Jesus Christ is Creator--Hence
God; Note 5.
_II. Jesus the Express Image of the Note 6.
Father's Person._
Note 7.
Hebrews i and Notes
8, 9, 10, 11 and the
Scripture References
within the notes.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "For it pleased the Father that in Him [the Christ]
should all fulness dwell. * * * For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of
the Godhead bodily." Colossians._
_NOTES._
The notes of this Lesson are taken from two discourses by the author:
one the "Mormon Doctrine of Deity"; the other "Jesus Christ, the
Revelation of God," hence the personal character and direct address
style that appears in the notes.
1. _Need of Revelation for Definite Knowledge of God:_ We are
dependent upon that which God has been pleased to reveal concerning
Himself for what we know of Him; especially as to His form, nature and
attributes. While it is true, in a certain sense, that the heavens
declare God's glory; and "the invisible things of Him from the creation
of the world," in a certain sense, "are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made"; and while the spirit in man may be
intuitively conscious of the being of God; while the general consent of
mankind may confirm man's own consciousness of the divine existence,
yet nothing definitely is learned or can be learned concerning the
form, nature, or attributes of God from these sources. Now, as of old,
man by searching cannot find out God. He cannot "find out the Almighty
unto perfection." (Job II, 7.) This can only be learned by revelation.
It is the revealed law of the Lord that is perfect, "converting the
soul;" it is the statutes of the Lord that are right, "rejoicing the
heart;" it is the commandment of the Lord that is pure, "enlightening
the eyes;" it is the judgments of the Lord that are "true and righteous
altogether." "More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much
fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honey comb. Moreover, by
them is My servant warned, and in the keeping of them there is great
reward." (Psalms 19.)
2. _The World's Need of a Revelation of God:_ In all the survey
we have taken of men's conceptions of God in Ancient, Mediaeval and
Modern times, in all their doctrines, outside of the revelations of
God--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 is not
to 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 Hindoos 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
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 veil 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 likeness 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 fore-knowledge 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. (This synopsis of
the Christ's life is in Acts, ch. ii.)
Mark you, in all this there is not a word about the mysterious,
ineffable generation of the Son of God from the Father, together with
all the mysteries that men have gathered together in their learned
disquisitions about God. No question is raised as to whether Jesus
was made out of nothing or begotten by ineffable generation from the
substance of the Father. Whether He is consubstantial, that is, of the
_same_ substance with the Father, or only of a similar substance.
Nor is there any question raised as to whether Jesus was "begotten
before or after time began." All these and a hundred other questions
arose after the Christian doctrine of Deity began to come in contact
with the Greek and other philosophies. Jesus accepted the existence of
God as a settled fact, and proclaimed Himself to be the Son of God:
offending the Jews by so doing, for they saw that He made Himself
equal with God, (John v, 18) and being a man, held forth Himself to be
God (John v: 30-33.) Slow, indeed, were they to learn the great truth
plainly revealed in Jesus Christ, _that God is a perfect man_. Such
was Jesus Christ, and He was God manifested in the flesh. "Was," did
I say? Nay, "_is_," I should have said; and such will He remain
forever; a spirit He is, clothed with an immortal body, a resurrected
body of tangible flesh and bones made eternal, and now dwelling in
heaven with His Father, of whom He is the express image and likeness,
as well now as when He was on earth; and hence the Father also must be
a personage of flesh and bones, as tangible as the exalted man, Christ
Jesus the Lord.
3. _Jesus Is Called God In the Scriptures:_ "The first proof I
offer for this statement, is from the writings of Isaiah. You remember,
perhaps, my former quotation from Isaiah, wherein that prophet says,
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his
name Immanuel," (Isaiah vii: 14) the interpretation of which name
is, according to Matthew "God with us." (Matt. i: 23.) So that this
man-child, born of a woman, and called "Immanuel," is God; and,
moreover, is "God with us"--that is, with men. The same prophet also
says: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the
government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called
Wonderful, Counselor, _The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the
Prince of Peace_." (Isaiah ix: 6.)
All concede that this is in plain allusion to Jesus Christ, and the
scriptures here directly call Him "_The Mighty God_." He is also
called God in the testimony of John. Mark this language, for it is a
passage around which many ideas center, and to which we shall have
occasion to refer several times. In the preface to his Gospel, John
says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, _and
the Word was God_. The same was in the beginning with God. * * *
_And_ the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld
His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of
grace and truth."
There can be no question but direct reference is here made to the Lord
Jesus Christ, as being the "Word;" and the "Word," or Jesus being with
the Father in the beginning, and the "Word," or Jesus Christ, also
being God. The "Word," then, as used here by John, is one of the titles
of Jesus in his pre-existent estate. Why called the "Word" I do not
know, unless it is that by a "word" we make an expression; and since
Jesus Christ was to be the expression of God, the revelation of God to
the children of men, he was for that reason called the "Word."
4. _Jesus Declares Himself to be God--the Son of God:_ Jesus was
crucified on the charge that He was an imposter--that he, being a man,
said that "God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." (John
v:18.)
And again: "For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy, and
because that Thou being a man, makest thyself God." (John x:33.)
Again: when accused before Pilate, who declared he could "find no fault
in Him," the Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by our law He ought
to die, because He made Himself the Son of God." Moreover, the high
priest, in the course of the trial before the Sanhedrim of the Jews,
directly said to Jesus, "I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou
tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto
him, Thou hast said: nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye
see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in
the clouds of heaven." (Matt. xxvii: 63, 64.)
And finally, when Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples after His
resurrection, He said unto them, "All power is given unto Me, in heaven
and in earth, go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt.
xxviii: 18, 19.) A clearer proclamation of his divinity could not be
made than in the statement, "all power is given unto Me in heaven and
in earth," especially when it is followed by placing Himself on equal
footing with the Father and the Holy Ghost, which He does when he
commands His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Nothing can be added to this, except it be
the words of God the Father directly addressed to Jesus, when he says,
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." (Heb. i:8.)
5. _Jesus Christ to be Worshipped, Hence God:_ Jesus Christ is to
be worshipped by men and angels; and worship is an honor to be paid
only to true Deity. The angels of heaven refuse the adoration we call
worship. You remember when the Apostle John was on the Isle of Patmos,
and God sent a heavenly messenger to him, how the Apostle, over-awed by
the brightness of the angel's glory, fell upon his face to worship him,
and the angel said: "See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow servant,
and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of
this book: Worship God." (Rev. xix:10.) So you see the angels refuse
divine honors. But the scriptures prove that Jesus was especially to be
worshipped; hence He must be Deity:
"For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou are My son,
this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to Him a Father,
and He shall be to me a Son. And again, when He bringeth in the First
Begotten into the world, He saith, let all the angels of God worship
him." (Heb. i: 5, 6.)
The same doctrine is taught in the epistle to the Philippians:
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which
is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father." (Phil. ii: 9, 10.)
There are other passages to the same effect, but it is perhaps
unnecessary for me to turn to each of these, since the ones here quoted
will be sufficient to establish in your minds the fact contended for.
6. _Jesus Christ is the Creator Hence God:_ Jesus Christ is the
Creator. Evidence of this is found in the testimony of John from which
I have already quoted: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made
that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men."
(John i: 1-4.)
Again in the epistle to the Colossians: "The Father * * * hath
delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into
the kingdom of His dear Son. * * * Who is the image of the invisible
God, the firstborn of every creature. For by Him were all things
created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or
powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him." (Col. i: 12-17.)
Again in Hebrews: "God, Who at sundry times and in divers manners spake
in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days
spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also He made the worlds." (Heb. i: 1.)
Now we begin to see the relation of the Father and the Son; for though
the "Word" be God, though "Immanuel" is God, that is, "God with us," He
does not displace God the Father, but stands in the relationship of a
son to Him. Under the direction of the Father, He created worlds, and
in this manner is the Creator of our earth, and the heavens connected
with the earth. And everywhere the scriptures command that men should
worship the Creator. In fact, the burden of the cry of that angel
who is to restore the gospel in the hour of God's judgment is: "Fear
God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come; and
worship Him that made heaven and earth and the seas and the fountains
of waters." (Rev. xiv: 7.)
7. _Jesus Christ Equal with God the Father, Hence God:_ After the
resurrection, Jesus appeared unto His disciples, and said to them, as
recorded in the closing chapter of Matthew: "All power is given unto
Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you." (Matt. xxviii: 18, 19.)
Observe that the Lord Jesus Christ is placed upon a footing of equal
dignity with God the Father, and with the Holy Ghost. This brings to
mind the scripture of Paul, where he says, speaking of Jesus: "Who,
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
(Phil. ii: 6.)
So also is Christ given equal station with the Father and with the Holy
Ghost in the apostolic benediction over and over again. "May the grace
of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the Holy
Ghost be with you all."
In these several passages we have Jesus Christ, after His resurrection,
asserting that all power had been given unto Him, both in heaven and
in earth; He is placed upon a footing of equal dignity with God the
Father in the holy Trinity--in the Grand Triumvirate which constitutes
the Presiding Council or Godhead reigning over our heavens and our
earth--hence God.
I now wish to give you the proof that Jesus Christ is the express
image of the Father; the express image of His person, as well as the
revelation of the attributes of God.
Following that language in Hebrews where Jesus is spoken of as having
created worlds under the direction of the Father, it is said: "Who
being the brightness of His [the Father's] glory, and the express image
of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when
He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the
Majesty on high." (Heb. iii: 3.)
So Paul to the Corinthians: "The God of this world hath blinded the
minds of those which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel
of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (II Cor.
iv: 4.)
So also, in his letter to the Colossians, when speaking of Christ, Paul
says: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every
creature." (Col. i: 5.)
Being "the express image of His person," then the "image of the
invisible God," Jesus becomes a revelation of the person of God to
the children of men, as well as a revelation of His character and
attributes. Again, you have the scriptures saying: "For it pleased the
Father that in Him [Christ Jesus] should all fulness dwell. * * * For
in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. i: 19;
ii: 9.)
All there is, then, in God, there is in Jesus Christ. All that Jesus
Christ is, God is. And Jesus Christ is an immortal man of flesh and
bone and spirit, and with His Father and the Holy Spirit will reign
eternally in the heavens, verily the Godhead.
8. _God Created Man in His Own Image:_ Let us now consider the
form of God. In those scriptures which take us back to the days of
creation, when God created the earth and all things therein--God is
represented as saying to someone: "Let us make man in Our image, after
Our likeness. * * * So God created man in His own image, in the image
of God created He him, male and female created He them." (Gen. i: 26,
27.)
Now, if that were untouched by "philosophy," I think it would not be
difficult to understand. Man was created in the image and likeness of
God. What idea does this language convey to the mind of man, except
that man, when his creation was completed, stood forth the counterpart
of God in form? But neither philosophers nor theologians have been
willing to let it stand so. They will not have God limited to any form.
They will not have Him prescribed by the extensions of His person to
some line or other of limitation. No: He must needs be in His person,
as well as in mind or spirit, all-pervading, filling the universe with
His "being," with a center nowhere, with a circumference everywhere.
We must expand the person of God out until it fills the universe. And
so they tell us that this plain, simple, straightforward language of
Moses, which says that man was created in the image of God--and which
everybody can understand--means, not the "full length" image of God,
but God's "moral image!" Man was created in the "moral image" of God,
they say.
The meaning of this language from the 26th and 27th verses of the
first chapter of Genesis, is made perfectly clear when compared with
the third verse of the fifth chapter of Genesis, where it is written:
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own
likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." What do these
words imply, but that Seth was like his father in features, and also,
doubtless, in intellectual and moral qualities? And if, when it is said
Adam begat a son in his "own likeness, after his image," it simply
means that Seth, in form and features, and intellectual and moral
qualities, was like his father--then there can be no other conclusion
formed upon the passage that says God created man in his own image and
likeness, than that man, in a general way, in form and feature, and
intellectual and moral qualities, was like God.
9. _Bodily Form May Not be Excluded from Being "In God's Image":_
It is rather refreshing, in the midst of so much nonsense that is
uttered upon this subject, in order to hide the truth and perpetuate
the false notions of a paganized Christianity, to find now and then a
Christian scholar who rises out of the vagaries of modern Christianity
and proclaims the straightforward truth. Let me read to you the words
of such an one--the Rev. Dr. Charles A. Briggs. It may be said, of
course, by Presbyterians that Dr. Briggs is a heretic; that he has been
cast out of their church. Grant it; but with open arms he has been
received by the Episcopal church, and ordained into its priesthood;
and has an influence that is considerable in the Christian world. But
however heretical Dr. Briggs' opinions may be considered by his former
Presbyterian brethren, his scholarship at least cannot be challenged.
Speaking of man being formed in the image and likeness of God, he says:
"Some theologians refer the form to the higher nature of man [that
is, to that 'moral image' in likeness of which it is supposed man was
created]; but there is nothing in the text or context to suggest such
an interpretation. The context urges us to think of the entire man as
distinguished from the lower forms of creation--that which is essential
to man, and may be communicated by descent to his seed.--The bodily
form cannot be excluded from the representation." (Messianic Prophecy,
p. 70.)
I say it is rather refreshing to hear one speak like that, whose
scholarship, at least, is above all question. And yet still another
voice; and this time from one who stands high in scientific circles,
one who has written a work on the "Harmony of the Bible and Science,"
which is a most valuable contribution to that branch of literature. The
gentleman I speak of is a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society,
and principal of the College at Highbury New Park, England. On this
subject of man being created in the image of God, he says: "I think
the statement that man was made in the Divine image is intended to be
more literal than we generally suppose; for judging from what we read
throughout the scriptures, it seems very clear that our Lord, as well
as the angels, had a bodily form similar to that of man, only far more
spiritual and far more glorious; but which, however, is invisible to
man, unless special capabilities of sight are given him, like that
experienced by Elisha's servant when, in answer to the prophet's
prayer, he saw the heavenly hosts surrounding the city of Dothan."
After discussing this question at some length, and bringing to bear
upon it numerous Biblical illustrations, this celebrated man--Dr.
Samuel Kinns--whose scientific and scholarly standing I have already
referred to, speaks of the effect of this belief upon man, and thus
concludes his statement on that head: "I am sure if a man would only
consider a little more the divinity of His human form, and would
remember that God has indeed created him in His own image, the thought
would so elevate and refine him that he would feel it his duty to
glorify God in His body as well as in His spirit."
10. _Captain of the Lord's Host--A Deity:_ But we have higher and
better authority to which we can appeal--the scriptures. And here I
pass by that marvelous appearance of God unto Abraham in the plains of
Mamre, when three "men" came into his tent, one of whom was the Lord,
who conversed with him, and partook of his hospitality, and disclosed
to him His intention with reference to the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah. (Gen. xviii.)
I come now to that marvelous revelation of God to Joshua, when Joshua
drew near to Jericho and saw a person in the form of a man standing
with sword in hand. Joshua approached him and said: "Art thou for us,
or for our adversaries?" "Nay," replied the person, "but as captain
of the host of the Lord am I now come." And Joshua bowed himself to
the very earth in reverence, and worshipped that august warrior.
(Joshua v: 13, 14.) Do not tell me that it was an "angel"; for had it
been an angel, the divine homage paid by Israel's grand old warrior
would have been forbidden. Do you not remember the time when John,
the beloved disciple, stood in the presence of an angel and, awed by
the glory of his presence, he bowed down to worship him, and how the
angel quickly caught him up and said: "See thou do it not; for I am
thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them
which keep the sayings of this book: worship God!" (Rev. xvii: 8, 9.
Also Rev. xix: 10.) The fact that this personage, before whom Joshua
bowed to the earth, received without protest divine worship from him,
proclaims trumpet-tongued that He indeed was God. Furthermore, that
personage bade Joshua to remove the shoes from his feet for even the
ground on which he stood was holy.
I call attention to that marvelous vision given of the Son of God to
the pagan king of Babylon. This king had cast the three Hebrew children
into the fiery furnace, and lo! before his startled vision were "four
men" walking about in the furnace, "and," said he, "the form of the
fourth is like the Son of God." (Dan. iii: 25.)
The great Apostle to the Gentiles, writing to the Colossian saints,
speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom we have redemption through
His blood, even the forgiveness of sins," as being in the "image of
the invisible God." (Col. i, 15.) Again, writing to the Hebrew saints,
and speaking of Jesus, he says: "Who, being the brightness of his [the
Father's] glory, and the express image of his [the Father's] person,
and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by
Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on
high." (Heb. i: 1, 2.)
In the face of these scriptures, will anyone who believes in the Bible
say that it is blasphemy to speak of God as being possessed of a bodily
form? We find that the Son of God Himself stood among His fellows a
man, with all the limitations, as to His body, which pertain to man's
body; with head, trunk, and limbs; with eyes, mouth and ears; with
affections, with passions; for He exhibited anger as well as love in
the course of His ministry; He was a man susceptible to all that man
could suffer, called by way of pre-eminence, the "man of sorrows," and
one "acquainted with grief"; for in addition to His own, He bore the
world's sins, and suffered that men might not suffer if they would but
obey His gospel.
11. _"What Think Ye of Christ?"_ What think ye of Christ? Is he
God? Yes. Is he man? Yes--there is no doubting it. His resurrection,
and the immortality of His body, as well as of His spirit that succeeds
His resurrection, is a reality. He Himself attested it in various ways.
He appeared to a number of the apostles, who, when they saw him, were
seized with fright, supposing they had seen a spirit; but He said unto
them, "Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; handle Me and see;
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have." (Luke xxiv:
36-39.) Then, in further attestation of the reality of His existence,
as if to put away all doubt, He said, "Have ye here any meat?" And they
brought Him some broiled fish and honeycomb, and "He did eat before
them." (Luke xxiv: 41-43.) Think of it! A resurrected, immortal person
actually eating of material food! I wonder that our spiritually-minded
friends, both philosophers and theologians, do not arraign Him for such
a material act as that after His resurrection!
But not only did the risen Messiah eat in the presence of His
disciples, but with His resurrected hands He prepared a meal on the
seashore for His own disciples, and invited them to partake of the food
which He, with His resurrected hands, had provided. (John xxi: 9-13,
and Acts x: 41.) Moreover, for forty days He continued ministering to
His disciples after His resurrection, eating and drinking with them
(Acts x: 41, and Acts i: 2, 3); and then, as they gathered together on
one occasion, lo! He ascended from their midst, and a cloud received
Him out of their sight. Presently two personages in white apparel stood
beside them and said. "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into
heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall
so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." (Acts
I:11.) What! With His body of flesh and bones, with the marks in His
hands and in His feet? Shall He come again in that form? The old Jewish
prophet, Zechariah, foresaw that He would. He describes the time of His
glorious coming, when His blessed, nail-pierced feet shall touch the
Mount of Olives again, and it shall cleave in twain, and open a great
valley for the escape of the distressed house of Judah, sore oppressed
in the siege of their great city, Jerusalem. We are told that "They
shall look upon Him Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for
Him as one mourneth for his only son," and one shall look upon Him in
that day and shall say, "What are these wounds in Thy hands and in Thy
feet?" and He shall answer, "These are the wounds that I received in
the house of my friends." (Zech. the 12th, 13th and 14th chapters).
What think ye of Christ? Will that resurrected, immortal, glorified man
ever be distilled into some bodiless, formless essence, to be diffused
as the perfume of a rose is diffused throughout the circumambient air?
Will He become an impersonal, incorporeal, immaterial God, without
body, without parts, without passions? Will it be? Can it be? What
think ye of Christ? Is He God? Is He an exalted man? Yes; in the name
of all the Gods He is. And one wonders why Christian ministers arraign
the faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because
they believe and affirm that God is an exalted man, and that He has a
body, tangible, immortal, indestructible, and will so remain embodied
throughout the countless ages of eternity?--And since the Son is in
the form and likeness of the Father, being, as Paul tells us, "in the
express image of His [the Father's] person"--so, too, the Father, God
must be a man of immortal tabernacle, glorified and exalted: for as the
Son is, so also is the Father, a personage of tabernacle, of flesh and
of bone as tangible as man's, as tangible as Christ's most glorious,
resurrected body (See article in Improvement Era for March, 1910, for
further treatment of this theme).
LESSON XXXIV.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_THE CHARACTER OF GOD REVEALED IN JESUS CHRIST._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. Humility._ Note 1, and the Scripture
references within
_II. Obedience._ the note.
_III. Compassion and Impartiality of Note 2 and the Scriptures
God:_ quoted.
1. Ministration to Rich and Poor Note 3, and citations
Alike; in the note.
2. His Treatment of Sinners; Notes 4 and 5.
3. His Mercy and Toleration. Note 6, and citations
of Scriptures in the
_IV. His Love Manifested in the Atonement._ notes.
_V. The Justice and Severity of God._ Note 7.
_VI. The Revelation of God Complete in Note 8, and Lectures
Jesus Christ._ on Faith, Doc. & Cov.,
Lecture III.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "God was manifested on the flesh (margin), justified in
the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in
the world, received up into glory." I Tim. ii:16._
_NOTES._
The notes of this Lesson are taken from two discourses by the author:
one the "Mormon Doctrine of Deity"; the other "Jesus Christ, the
Revelation of God," hence the personal character and direct address
style that appears in the notes.
1. _The Humility of God Manifested Through Jesus Christ:_ First
of all, I call your attention to the deep, the profound humility of
God; His great condescension in living among men, as He did, for their
instruction; and from that circumstance would draw to your attention
the lesson of humility His life teaches. The heights of glory to
which Jesus had attained, the power and dignity of His position in
the heavenly kingdom, of course, cannot be comprehended by us in our
present finite condition, and with our limited knowledge of things.
Great and exalted as we might think Him to be, you may depend upon it
He was exalted infinitely higher than that. Then when you think of one
living and moving in the courts of heaven and mingling in the councils
of the Gods, consenting to come down to this earth and pass through
the conditions that Jesus passed through, do you not marvel at His
humility? To be born under such circumstances as would enable wicked
man to cast reflection upon His very birth! (St. John viii:41.) To be
born, too, in a stable, and to be cradled in a manger! To grow up a
peasant, with a peasant's labor to perform, and a peasant's fare to
subsist upon from childhood to manhood--do you not marvel at this great
humility, at this great condescension of God? And by His humility, are
not men taught humility, as they are taught it by no other circumstance
whatsoever?
2. _The Obedience of God Manifested Through Jesus Christ:_ Of His
youth, we know but little; but the little we know reveals a shining
quality, either for God or man to possess. You must remember, in all
our consideration of the life of Messiah, one great truth, which
comes to us from the scriptures in an incidental way, viz., that "In
His humiliation His judgment was taken from Him." (Acts viii:33.) As
the veil is drawn over our minds when our pre-existent spirits come
into this world and we forget the Father and mother of the spirit
world, and the positions we occupied there, so, too, with Jesus; in
His humiliation His judgment was taken from Him; He knew not at first
whence He came, nor the dignity of His station in heaven. It was only
by degrees that He felt the Spirit working within Him and gradually
unfolding the sublime idea that He was peculiarly and pre-eminently the
Son of God in very deed. When at Jerusalem, about twelve years of age,
He began to be conscious of the suggestions of the Spirit within Him,
that he had a work to do in the world for His Father, and hence allowed
the caravan with which He had come from distant Galilee to Judea to
start upon the return journey without Him, much to the perplexity and
sorrow of His supposed father, Joseph, and His mother, Mary. They
missing Him, returned and found Him in the temple disputing with the
doctors and lawyers. They reprimanded Him, as they would reprimand any
boy guilty of similar conduct; but when they reproved Him, He answered,
"Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business." He began to
understand His mission. The spirit promptings were at work in His
soul. And while ultimately the spirit was given without measure unto
Him (John iii:24), it was not so at first, for "He received not of the
fulness at the first, but received grace for grace." (Doc. and Cov.,
Sec. 93: 12, 13.) The child Jesus "grew, and waxed strong in spirit,
filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. * * * And Jesus
increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." (Luke
ii; 40, 52.) But notwithstanding, Jesus, at twelve years of age, and
earlier, began to experience the operations of the Spirit calling
His soul to His mission, still we are told that He returned with His
parents to Galilee, "and was subject unto them," He who had given the
law, "Honor thy father and thy mother," in this act exemplified the
honor that He entertained for that law, in His practice of it.
We next see Him coming to the banks of Jordan, where a prophet of God
is baptizing--one of those strange, eccentric men, who lived for the
most part in the wilderness, whose food was locusts and wild honey,
and whose clothing was the skins of wild animals; and yet through all
this eccentricity, through all this oddness of character, shone the
divine powers of God in this messenger, and multitudes of people were
gathered by his preaching to the Jordan, where he baptized them for the
remission of their sins. By and by, Jesus comes and demands baptism at
this man's hands; and as he enters the water, the prophet stays Him,
and says, "I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?"
Already, doubtless, shining through this "expression of God,"--this
Jesus of Nazareth,--the servant of the Lord, in attune, through the
spirit of inspiration, with the very God who was approaching Him,
felt the divinity of His presence, and would fain acknowledge His own
inferiority. What was the reply? "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it
becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." He Who had said that men
must be baptized for the remission of sins, though Himself sinless,
would honor that law by obedience unto it. Thus we learn that God not
only gives law, but He obeys law.
3. _The Compassion and Impartiality of God:_ Jesus was possessed
of infinite compassion. The incidents that I shall relate to you, in
support of this statement, are in quotations that are free, and yet,
I think, justified by the spirit of the several occasions. After all,
it is the spirit that giveth life; the letter killeth; so let us look
at these things in the spirit of them. You see Him one day with some
of His disciples approaching the little village of Nain, "His raiment
dusty and His sandals worn." As they draw near, the gate is opened and
a funeral procession marches out. The mother of the young man whose
body is being borne by his neighbors to the final resting place, walks
feebly and weeping beside the bier, desolate in her loneliness. As
Jesus saw that poor woman in the midst of her sorrow, His heart--I pray
you think of it, for we are speaking of God when we speak of Jesus
Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth--the heart of God is moved with
compassion towards this woman. He stops the bier, takes the dead by
the hand, and says, "Young man, I say unto you, Arise." And he arose.
Jesus Christ gave this woman back her son. It was an act of beautiful
compassion, one of many, which illustrates how tender and sympathetic
is the heart of our God!
Nor was His ministry confined exclusively to the poor, to the widows,
to the lonely. He despised not rulers, nor the rich, because they were
rich; but was willing, if only they could put themselves in a position
to receive the manifestations of His compassion--He was willing to
minister unto them. This is proved in the case of Jairus, one of the
rulers of the Jews, and a man of great wealth. You will remember that
he came running to the Master with his sorrow--his daughter was lying
dangerously ill at home; and such was his faith that if the Master
would but speak the word, she would be healed. While yet he spake, one
of his servants came running, saying, "Thy daughter is dead: trouble
not the Master." But Jesus heeded not the word of the servant. He had
heard Jairus' cry of faith, and responsive to that faith-cry, he made
His way to the home of the ruler, put out those who were unbelieving,
and taking the maid by the hand, gave her back to the gladness of life,
into the arms of the joyous father. The faith of that rich man was as
great as the faith of any we meet with in all the ministry of the Lord.
So, wealth is not necessarily a hindrance to faith. God is as close
to the faithful rich as to the faithful poor, and as ready to grant
them his mercy, according to their faith. I sometimes think we make a
mistake when we would flout those who are rich and put them outside the
pale of God's mercy and compassion because of what may be nothing but a
prejudice--which in reality may be envy--of the rich.
While on the way to the ruler's house, another incident happened that
is very remarkable. A woman in the throng, a long time afflicted with
a grievous ailment, said in her heart as she saw Him pass, "If I may
but touch His garment, I shall be whole." Accordingly, she crowded her
way forward, dropped upon her knee, clutched the garment, and received
the divine power from Him which cleansed her body and healed her
completely. Jesus, observing that something had happened to him, turned
to the apostles, and said, "Who touched Me?" They replied, "Master,
the multitude throng Thee and press Thee, and sayest thou, Who touched
ME?" as if that was not to be expected in such a crowd. But, said
Jesus, but "I perceive that virtue is gone out of me." What was it?
Simply that through this poor woman's faith--who supposed herself so
far removed from God that she dare not come into His presence and ask
for the blessing she desired, but undertook to obtain it by indirect
means--through her faith and touching the garment of the Lord--the
healing virtues passed from God to her in such a tangible manner that
He felt their departure, just as some of you elders, when administering
to one who was full of faith have felt your spiritual strength and
life go out from you, leaving you weak and almost helpless, but giving
healthful life to the afflicted. I speak to men who have experience in
these things, and I know that scores of you could bear witness to the
truth of this phenomenon. If our lives can but touch the life of God,
such is His nature that we shall partake of the virtues that go out
from Him.
What shall I say of lepers that crowded into Messiah's presence, and
who, notwithstanding the loathsomeness of their disease, found sympathy
and help from contact with him? What of the blind, the lame, the halt?
Why, let us not speak of them; for though it is a great thing that
their bodies should be healed, and they should go through the community
singing the praises of Him who had restored them, there are better
things to speak of--the healing of men's souls, the purifying of their
spirits.
4. _God's Treatment of Sinners:_ Let us ask, rather, how did Jesus
Christ--God--deal with sinners? I take one incident that has always
appealed very strongly to me, and illustrates the spirit in which
Christ deals with sinners; for this God of ours is peculiarly the
friend of sinners, not because of their sins, however, but in spite of
them; and because of His compassion upon those so unfortunate as to
be under the bondage of sin. The over-righteous Pharisees of Christ's
time would not on any account come in contact with sinful men, lest
they themselves should be polluted. They gathered the robes of their
sanctity about them, and considered themselves in such close relation
with God that they could afford to despise His poor, unfortunate,
sinful children, instead of holding out the hand that would bring
them from the kingdom of darkness into the brightness and glory of
the kingdom of God. But not so with Jesus Christ. When He was accused
by this class of men of mingling with publicans and sinners, His
answer to them was, "They that are whole need not a physician; but
they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to
repentance." As if He had said, you who are righteous and have no need
of healing for sin, stand by yourselves; My mission is not to you,
but to those who have need of God's help. Such was the spirit of His
answer. The incident to which I refer as illustrative of His compassion
for sinners, is this: The Jews were always on the alert to entrap the
Messiah's feet and bring Him into contradiction with the law of Moses.
The law of Moses, as first given to Israel, was that if any should
be found in adultery they should be stoned to death; but the Rabbis,
by nice discriminations of words, practically had rendered that law
a dead letter, by reason of which the adulterers in Israel escaped
the punishment that God had decreed against them. Therefore, they
thought if they could take a person who unquestionably had been guilty
of this crime and bring him or her into the presence of Jesus, they
would either bring Him in conflict with the law of Moses, or with the
tradition of the elders, and in either case would have sufficient cause
to denounce Him before the people. So they found a woman, caught in the
act; they dragged her through the streets, and cast her at His feet.
"Master," said they, "this woman was taken in adultery, in the very
act. Now Moses, in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned;
but what sayest Thou?" He replied, "He that is without sin among you,
let him first cast a stone at her." One by one they slunk away, until
the woman was left alone with Jesus. When Jesus looked around and saw
none but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are thine accusers?
hath no man condemned thee?" "No man, Lord," she said. Then Jesus said:
"Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more." That is how God deals
with sinners. It is written that God cannot look upon sin with the
least degree of allowance, and that is true, he cannot; but how about
the sinner? Why, He may look upon the sinner with infinite compassion.
While sin must always be hateful, yet will He help and love the sinner,
if he will but go his way and sin no more. Such is our human weakness,
and so nearly the level upon which we all move, that there is none of
us but will plead mightily for mercy; and, thank God, we shall not
plead in vain; for, while our Judge cannot look upon sin with any
degree of allowance, his heart goes out in compassion and love to men,
and He will help them to overcome sin, to fight a good fight, to keep
the faith, and at last enable them to win the crown of righteousness in
the kingdom of God.
5. _God's Toleration:_ Jesus, moreover, was tolerant. You will
recall the circumstance of His having to go through Samaria, and you
remember that the Samaritans hated the Jews, and Jesus was a Jew. Some
of His disciples went into a village of Samaria, through which Jesus
would have to pass, and sought to make arrangements for the Master to
stay over night; but the Samaritans closed their doors against Him.
They had heard of Him; He was a Jew; and in the narrowness of their
minds they would not admit the hated Jew into their homes. This very
much angered the disciple John, who loved Jesus dearly. He was one of
the "sons of thunder," and possessed of a spirit that could love; and
being strong in love, as is often the case--I was going to say as is
always the case--he was likewise strong in hating. He was the type of
man that does both heartily. Hence, he went to the Master and asked Him
if he might not call down fire from heaven upon those Samaritans for
thus rejecting the Master. Jesus replied: "Ye know not what spirit ye
are of. The Son of Man came to save, not to destroy." A broadness, a
liberality truly glorious.
Jesus was properly broad minded--liberal. On one occasion some of the
disciples found one casting out devils in the name of Jesus, and they
forbade him, because he followed not the Master. When they came into
the presence of Jesus, they reported this case and told what they had
done. Jesus said, "Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do
a miracle in My name, that can lightly speak evil of me." Then He gave
the other half of that truth, "He that is not for Me is against Me," by
saying, "For he that is not against us is for us." Thus He corrected
the narrow-mindedness of His own apostles.
6. _The Love of God:_ "He that loveth not, knoweth not God: for
God is love:--and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God and God in
him." (I John iv: 8-16).
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should
not perish, but have eternal life. 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." (John iii: 14-18).
I can think of no greater evidence of God's love than that exhibited
in the act of permitting his Son, Jesus Christ, to come to the earth
and suffer as He did for the sins of the world, that they might not
suffer if they would but conform to His laws, and thus accept the
terms of Salvation. (Doc. & Cov., Sec. 19). It would seem, too, that
the same attribute of love exists in the breast of the Son, for the
sacrifice He made for the redemption of the world was a voluntary act.
He was not compelled to make the Atonement, but of His own free will
He volunteered to become our ransom. (Pearl of Great Price, p. 41.) He
himself testified: "Therefore doth My Father love me, because I lay
down My life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but
I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power
to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father." (John
x: 17, 18.)
Thus, the atonement of Jesus, for the children of men, was a voluntary
act; and His death and suffering for the world, was the strongest
expression of love it is possible to conceive--"Greater love hath no
man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John xv:
13).
7. _The Justice and the Severity of God:_ "Justice and judgment are
the habitation of Thy Throne." (Psalms lxxxix:14.) "A just God and a
Savior." (Isaiah xlv: 21). "Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold thy
king cometh unto thee: He is just and having salvation." (Zach. ix:9).
"A God of Truth, and without iniquity, just and right is He." (Deut.
xxxii:4).
Notwithstanding all God's mercy, as manifested through the Christ,
His tolerance, His patience and gentleness, there were times when He
Who was so infinitely merciful, could also be infinitely just; He
Who was so infinitely compassionate, could be infinitely severe. I
give you an instance of it. He had struggled long and hard with those
hypocrites, the Scribes and Pharisees; and finally the voice of justice
and reproof, as it is to be found in God, speaks forth through Jesus
Christ, and this is what He said: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye
neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to
go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour
widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: therefore ye
shall receive the greater damnation." (Matt. xxiii:13, 14.)
That is not so gentle: Listen again: "Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one
proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child
of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say,
Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever
shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and
blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth
the gold? And, whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing;
but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye
fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that
sanctifieth the gift? * * * Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat,
and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees! for ye make
clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are
full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that
which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be
clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are
like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward,
but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even
so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are
full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the
sepulchres of the righteous, and say, if we had been in the days of our
fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of
the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are
the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up, then, the
measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can
ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. xxiii:15-33).
And this from that gentle, compassionate man! The voice of God in its
severity speaks through these tones, and bids us understand that it
must be a terrible thing to fall under the displeasure of God. Think of
the infinite difference between that sweet compassion which He has for
the penitent sinner, and this severe but just arraignment of those who
persist in their sins! A warning to all men to beware of the justice of
God, when once it shall be aroused!
8. _God Completely Revealed Through Christ:_ Jesus Christ is God
manifested in the flesh, proved to be so from the scripture; the
character of God is revealed in the wonderful life that Jesus, the Son
of God, lived on earth; in it we see God in action; and from it we see
the gentleness, the compassion, the love, and also the justice and
severity of God. Jesus Christ is God; and He is also man; but I deplore
those sectarian refinements which try to tell us about the humanity
of Jesus being separate from the divinity of Jesus. He Himself made
no such distinctions. He was divine, spirit and body, and spirit and
body was exalted to the throne of His Father, and sits there now with
all the powers of the Godhead residing in Him bodily, an immortal,
glorified, exalted man! The express image and likeness God of the
Father; for as the Son is, so is the Father. Yet when the Latter Day
Saints announce to the world that we believe God to be an exalted man,
we are told that we are blasphemers. But as long as the throne of Jesus
Christ stands sure, so long as His spirit remains in His immortal
body of flesh and bones, glorified and everlasting, shall keep His
place by the side of the Father, so long will the doctrine that God
is an exalted man hold its place against the idle sophistries of the
learned world. The doctrine is true. It cannot be unthroned. A truth
is a solemn thing. Not the mockery of ages, not the lampooning of the
schoolmen, not the derision of the multitude, not the blasphemy of the
world, can affect it; it will always remain true. And this doctrine,
announced by Joseph Smith to the world, that God is an exalted man,
that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God to the world and that He is
just like his Father, and that those who are His brethren may become as
He is, when they have walked in His footsteps--that is a doctrine that
will stand sure and fast as the throne of God itself. For Jesus Christ
was God manifested in the flesh. He was the revelation of God to the
world. He was and is and ever will remain an exalted man. He is, and
always will remain, God.
LESSON XXXV.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_THE GODHEAD._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. Plurality of Persons in the Godhead._ The notes of this Lesson
and Scriptural references
_II. Plurality of Divine Intelligences._ in the notes, 1 to 5.
The references in
Richards and Little's
Compendium, Art. "Plurality
of Gods," p. 184.
The notes, and Scripture
citations within
them, this Lesson.
Also "Avatars of
God," Improvement Era
for March, 1910.
_SPECIAL TEXT: "God standeth in the congregations of the mighty; he
judgeth among the Gods. * * * I have said ye are Gods; and all of you
are children of the Most High."_
_NOTES._
The notes of this Lesson are taken from two discourses by the Author:
one the "Mormon Doctrine of Deity"; the other, "Jesus Christ, the
Revelation of God," hence the personal character and direct address
style that appears in the notes. The discourses referred to will be
found in "Mormon Doctrine of Deity."
1. _The Three Persons of the Godhead Revealed--The Father:_ It is
to be observed in passing that Jesus Himself came with no abstract
definition of God. Nowhere in His teachings can you find any argument
about the existence of God. That He takes for granted; assumes as
true; and from that basis proceeds as a teacher of men. Nay, more; He
claims God as His Father. It is not necessary to quote texts in proof
of this statement; the New Testament is replete with declarations
of that character. What may be of more importance for us at the
present moment is to call attention to the fact that God Himself also
acknowledged the relationship which Jesus claimed. Most emphatically
did He do so on the memorable occasion of the baptism of Jesus in the
river Jordan. You remember how the scriptures, according to Matthew,
tell us that as Jesus came up out of the water from His baptism, the
heavens were opened, and the Spirit of God descended like a dove upon
Him; and at the same moment, out of the stillness came the voice of
God, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." On
another occasion the Father acknowledges the relationship--at the
transfiguration of Jesus in the mount, in the presence of three of His
apostles, Peter and James and John, and the angels Moses and Elias.
The company was overshadowed by a glorious light, and the voice of
God was heard to say of Jesus, "This is My beloved Son; hear him." Of
this, the apostles in subsequent years testified, and we have on record
their testimony. So that the existence of God the Father, and the
relationship of Jesus to Him, is most clearly shown in these scriptures.
2. _The Son:_ Jesus, Himself, claimed to be the Son of God, and in
this connection there is clearly claimed for Him divinity, that is to
say, Godship. Let me read to you a direct passage upon that subject;
it is to be found in the gospel according to St. John, and reads as
follows: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. * * * And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father), full of grace and truth." (John i:1-3.)
The identity between Jesus of Nazareth--"The Word made flesh"--and the
"Word" that was "with God in the beginning," and that "was God," is so
clear that it cannot possibly be doubted. So the Son is God, as well
as the Father. Other evidences go to establish the fact that Jesus had
the Godlike power of creation. In the very passage I have just read,
it is said: "All things were made by Him [that is, by the Word, Who is
Jesus]; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was
life; and the life was the light of men." (John i: 3-4.)
One other scripture of like import, but perhaps even more emphatic than
the foregoing, is that saying of Paul's in the epistle to the Hebrews:
"God, Who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto
the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by
His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He
made the worlds." (Heb. i: 1-3.)
Not only one world, but many "worlds," for the word is used in the
plural. So that we find that the Son of God was God the Father's agent
in the work of creation, and that under the Father's direction He
created many worlds. There can be no question then as to the divinity,
the Godship, of Jesus of Nazareth, since He is not only God the Son,
but God the Creator also--of course, under the direction of the Father.
3. _The Holy Spirit:_ Again, the Holy Ghost is spoken of in the
scriptures as God. I think, perchance, the clearest verification of
that statement is to be found in connection with the circumstance of
Ananias and his wife attempting to deceive the apostles with reference
to the price for which they had sold a certain parcel of land they
owned, which price they proposed putting into the common fund of the
Church; but selfishness asserted itself, and they concluded to lie as
to the price of the land, and only consecrate a part to the common
fund. It was an attempt to get credit for a full consecration of what
they possessed, on what was a partial dedication of their goods. They
proposed to live a lie, and to tell one, if necessary, to cover the
lie they proposed to live. When Ananias stood in the presence of the
apostles, Peter put this very pointed question to him: "Why hath Satan
filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" * * * "Thou hast not lied
unto men, but unto God." (Acts v.) To lie to the Holy Ghost is to lie
to God, because the Holy Ghost is God. And frequently in the scriptures
the Holy Spirit is spoken of in this way.
4. _The Holy Trinity:_ These three, the father, Son, and the Holy
Ghost, it is true, are spoken of in the most definite manner as being
God--one; but the distinction of one from the other is also clearly
marked in the scriptures. Take that circumstance to which I have
already alluded--note 1--the baptism of Jesus. There we may see the
three distinct personalities most clearly. The Son coming up out of
the water from His baptism; the heavens opening and the Holy Spirit
descending upon Him; while out of heaven the voice of God the Father
is heard saying, "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased."
Here three Gods are distinctly apparent. They are seen to be distinct
from each other. They appear simultaneously, not as one, but as three,
each one being a different person, so that however completely they may
be one in spirit, in purpose, in will, they are clearly distinct as
persons--as individuals.
5. _Each of the Three Equal in Dignity:_ In several instances in
the scriptures these three personages are accorded equal dignity in
the Godhead. An example is found in the commission which Jesus gave to
His disciples after His resurrection, when He sent them out into the
world to preach the gospel to all nations. He stood in the presence
of the eleven, and said: "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in
earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt.
xxviii:18-20.)
Each of the three is here given equal dignity in the Godhead. Again, in
the apostolic benediction: "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all."
In one particular, at least, Jesus came very nearly exalting the
Holy Ghost to a seeming superiority over the other personages in
the Godhead; for He said: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not
be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of
Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in
the world to come." (Matt. xii:31, 32.)
I take it, however, that this seeming superior dignity accorded to
the Holy Ghost by the Son of God, is owing to the nature of the third
personage in the Trinity, and the kind of testimony He can impart unto
the soul of man because of His being a personage of spirit--a testimony
that is better than the seeing of the eye, more sure than the hearing
of the ear, because it is spirit testifying to spirit--soul communing
with soul--it is the soul of God imparting to the soul of man; and if
men, after receiving that Witness from God, shall blaspheme against
Him, farewell hope of forgiveness for such a sin, in this world or in
the world to come!
These three personages, then, are of equal dignity in the Godhead,
according to the teachings of the New Testament. Each is equally
divine--equally God; hence Jesus is God equally with God the Father,
and with God the Holy Ghost.
This simple Christian teaching respecting the Godhead gave birth to
what, in ecclesiastical history, is called "The Apostles' Creed." A
vague tradition has it that before the Apostles dispersed to go into
the world to preach the gospel, they formulated a creed with respect of
the Church's belief in God. Whether that tradition be true or not, I do
not know, and for matter of that, it makes little difference. Suffice
it to say that the so-called "Apostles' Creed," for two centuries,
expressed the faith of the early Christians upon the question of God,
and is as follows: "I believe in God, the Father, Almighty; and in
Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son, our Lord, Who was born of the
Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost, was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
buried, arose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the heavens,
and sits at the right hand of the Father, whence He will come, to judge
the living and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost."
6. _Plurality of Divine Intelligences:_ We have already shown that
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct
persons, and, so far as personality is concerned, are three Gods. Their
"oneness" consists in being possessed of the same mind; they are one,
too, in wisdom, in knowledge, in will and purpose; but as individuals
they are three, each separate and distinct from the other, and three
is plural. Now, that is a long way on the road towards proving the
plurality of Gods. But, in addition to this, I would like to know from
our friends--the critical sectarian ministers who complain of this
part of our faith--the meaning of the following expressions, carefully
selected from the scriptures:
"The Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords." (Deut. x:17.)
That is from Moses.
"The Lord God of Gods, the Lord God of Gods, He knoweth, and Israel He
shall know." (Josh. xxii:22.) That is from Joshua.
"O give thanks unto the God of Gods! * * * O give thanks to the Lord of
Lords!" (Psalm cxxxvi: 2, 3.) That is David.
"And shall speak marvelous things against the God of Gods." (Daniel xi:
36.) That is Daniel.
"The Lamb shall overcome them; for He is Lord of Lords, and King of
Kings." (Rev. xvii:14.) That is the beloved disciple of Jesus--John the
Revelator.
Had I taken such expressions from the lips of the pagan kings or false
prophets, who are sometimes represented as speaking in the scriptures,
you might question the propriety of making such quotations in support
of the doctrine I teach; but since these expressions come from prophets
and recognized servants of God, I ask those who criticize our faith in
the matter of a plurality of Gods, to explain away those expressions of
the scriptures. Furthermore, there is Paul's language, in his letter
to the Corinthians, already quoted, where he says, "that there be Gods
many and Lords many, whether in heaven or in earth." Had his expression
been confined to those that are called gods in earth, it is possible
that there might be some good ground for claiming that he had reference
to the heathen gods, and not true Gods; but he speaks of those that
"are Gods in heaven" as well as gods in earth. Right in line with this
idea is the following passage from the Psalms of the Prophet David:
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the
Gods." (Psalm lxxxii:1.) These, undoubtedly, are the Gods in heaven to
whom Paul alludes, among whom the God referred to stands; among whom He
judges. This is no reference to the heathen gods, but to the Gods in
heaven, the true Gods.
In this same Psalm, too, is the passage which seems to introduce some
telling evidence from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, viz.: "I have said
ye are Gods, and all of you are the children of the Most High." You
remember how on one occasion the Jews took up stones to stone Jesus,
and He called a halt for just a moment, for He wanted to reason with
them about it. He said: "Many good works have I shown you from the
Father; for which of these works do ye stone me?"
Their answer was: "For a good work we stone Thee not; but for
blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God."
What an opportunity here for Jesus to teach them that there was but one
God! But He did not do that. On the contrary, He affirmed the doctrine
of a plurality of Gods. He said to them: "Is it not written in your
law, I said, Ye are Gods? If He called them Gods, unto whom the word
of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of Him, Whom
the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest;
because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My
Father, believe Me not. But if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe
the works."
Higher authority on this question cannot be quoted than the Son of God
Himself.
7. _Further Evidence for a Plurality of Divine Intelligences:_ I
find a word on the subject fitly spoken by the late Orson Pratt, in a
discourse delivered in 1855, in Salt Lake City. He said: There is one
revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think
it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church
History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question
is, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says,
"Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman, the
greatest of all the parts of God, excepting Ahman." "What is the name
of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in
the pure language?" "Anglo--man." The revelation goes on to say that
Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son
Ahman, and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts
of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman and Ahman, showing that the
angels are a little lower than man.[1] What is the conclusion to be
drawn from this? It is that these intelligent beings are all parts of
God. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 342.)
This, it will be said, is a bold doctrine; and indeed it is bold. I
love it for its boldness, but not so much for that, as for the reason
that it is true. It is in harmony with another revelation given through
Joseph Smith, wherein it is said:
"Man was also [as well as Jesus] in the beginning with God.
Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither
indeed can be. * * * For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and
spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy;
and when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements
are the tabernacle of God; yea, man in the tabernacle of God, even
temples" (Doc. and Cov., sec. 93: 29-35).
Nor is the doctrine less in harmony with the Jewish scriptures:
"For it became him, for whom are all things and by whom are all
things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their
salvation perfect through suffering. For both he that sanctifieth and
they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not
ashamed to call them brethren."
In this same chapter of Hebrews, Jesus, as well as man, is spoken of
as being made "a little while inferior to the angels" (verses 7 and 9
marginal reading); and he is spoken of by the same apostle in another
place as being but "the first born among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29).
Also in his great discourse in Mars Hill, Paul not only declares that
God "hath made of one blood all nations of men"--but he also quoted
with approval the Greek poet Aratus,[2] where the latter says: "For
we are also his [God's] offspring;" and to this the apostle adds:
"For as much, then, as we are the offspring of God [hence of the same
race and nature], we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto
gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art after man's device" (Acts 17:
26-30). The nature of our own being, one might add, in continuation of
the apostle's reasoning, should teach those who recognize men as the
offspring of God, better than to think of the Godhead as of gold, or
silver, or stone, graven by art after man's device, since the nature of
the offspring partakes of the nature of the parent; and our own nature
teaches us that men are not as stocks and stones, though the latter be
graven by art after the devices of men.
Paul might also have quoted the great Hebrew poet: "God standeth in the
congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods. * * * I have
said ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High" (Ps.
82: 1, 6, 7); and though he adds, "But ye shall die like men, and fall
like one of the princes," it does not detract from the assertion, "and
all of you are children of the Most High;" for Jesus died, even as men
die; but he was the Son of God, nevertheless, and he himself a Deity.
The matter is clear, then, men and Gods are of the same race; Jesus
is the Son of God, and so, too, are all men the offspring of God, and
Jesus but the first born of many brethren. Eternal Intelligences are
begotten of God, spirits, and hence are sons of God--a dignity that
never leaves them. "Beloved," said one of old, "now are we the sons of
God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when
he [Christ] shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as
he is" (I John 3:2). For additional matter on this point see "Avatars
of God" in March and April Nos. of Improvement Era, 1910.
8. _Of God the Spirit of the Gods:_ From the presence of the Gods
goes out the influence and power men sometimes call God, or the Spirit
of God; from whose presence David could not flee:
"If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell,
behold thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in
the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and
thy right hand shall hold me. Yea the darkness hideth not from thee;
but the light shineth as the day; the darkness and the light are both
alike to thee" (Ps. 139: 7-12).
This Spirit is that "Something sacred and sublime," which men recognize
as moving "wool-shod" behind the worlds; "weighing the stars; weighing
the deeds of men." (Edward Markham.) This that Spirit that permeates
all space; that makes all presence bright; all motion guides; the Power
"unchanged through time's all-devastating flight;" that upholds and
sustains all worlds. Hence it is said, in one of the most beautiful of
the revelations God has given in this last dispensation:
"As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power
thereof by which it was made. As also the light of the stars and the
power thereof by which they were made. And the earth also and the power
thereof; even the earth upon which you stand. And the light which now
shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your
eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the
immensity of space. The light which is in all things; which giveth
light to all things; which is the law by which all things are governed:
even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom
of eternity, who is in the midst of all things; * * * The earth rolls
upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon
giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they
roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.
* * * Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any
or the least of these, hath seen God moving in his majesty and power"
(Doc. and Cov., sec. 88 8-13 and 45, 47).
This, then, is God, who is not far removed from every one of us; in
whom we live, and move, and have our being. This is God immanent in
nature.
And as we dwell in him, so, too, dwells he in us; and, as man more
expands towards divinity, more and more of the divine enters into his
being, until he attains unto a fullness of light and truth; of power
and glory; until he becomes perfectly one in God, and God in him. This
the meaning of the Messiah's prayer, made for all those who become his
disciples--"That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I
in thee: that they also may be one in us" (John 17: 21).
To the same effect Paul also prayed:
"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named that
he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be
strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may
dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in
love, may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth,
and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ which
passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fullness of God"
(Eph. 3: 14-19).
Then again he said: Let this mind be in you which was also in Jesus
Christ: who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God (Philippians 2: 5, 6).
It is possible for the mind of God to be in man, to will and to do, as
seemeth [God] good. The nature of the Whole clings to the Parts, and
they may carry with them the light and truth and glory of the Whole.
Moreover, by appointment, any One or Three of the unit Intelligences
may become the embodiment and representative of all the power and
glory and authority of the sum total of the Divine Intelligences; in
which capacity either the One or the Three would no longer stand only
in their individual characters as Gods, but they would stand also as
the sign and symbol of all that is divine--and would act as and be
to all intents and purposes The One God. And so in every inhabited
world, and in every system of worlds, a God presides. Deity in his
own right and person, and by virtue of the essence of him; and also
by virtue of his being the sign and symbol of the Collectivity of
the Divine Intelligences of the universe. Having access to all the
councils of the Gods, each individual Deity becomes a partaker of the
collective knowledge, wisdom, honor, power, majesty, and glory of the
Body Divine--in a word, the embodiment of the Spirit of the Gods whose
influence permeates the universe.
This doctrine of Deity teaches a divine government for the world that
is in harmony with our modern knowledge of the universe; for, as I
have remarked elsewhere in effect: (New Witness for God, pp. 473-5.)
An infinitude of worlds and systems of worlds rising one above another
in ever-increasing splendor, in limitless space and eternal duration,
have, as a concomitant, an endless line of exalted, divine men to
preside over and within them, as Priests, Kings, Patriarchs, Gods! Nor
is there confusion, disorder, or strife in their vast dominions; for
they all govern upon the same righteous principles that characterize
the government of God everywhere. These Divine Intelligences have
attained unto the excellence that Jesus prayed for in behalf of his
apostles, and those who might believe on their word, when he said:
"Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given
me, that they may be one as we are." I say Divine Intelligences have
attained unto the excellence of oneness that Jesus prayed his disciples
might possess, and since they have attained unto it, and all govern
their worlds and systems of worlds by the same spirit, and by the same
principles, there is a unity in their government that makes it one even
as they are one. Let worlds and systems of worlds galaxies of systems
and universes, extend as they may throughout limitless space, Joseph
Smith has revealed the existence of a divine government which, while
characterized by unity, is co-extensive with all these worlds and
world-systems.
Footnotes
1. It may be thought, at the first reading of this statement, "the
angels are a little lower than man," is in conflict with the scripture,
"Thou madest him [man] a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2: 7).
But I call attention to the marginal rendering of the passage in
King James' translation, "Thou madest him a little while inferior to
the angels." Without stopping here to consider which is the better
translation of the passage, it may be said of the latter that it is in
better harmony with the context of the passage as it stands here in
Hebrews, and also in Psalms, than the preferred rendering of it in the
regular text; for in both places it says of man, "Thou crownedst him
with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands;
thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he
put all things in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put
under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him." Moreover,
we see the same thing is said of Jesus that is said of man: "We see
Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of
death, crowned with glory and honor" (Heb. 2: 9). Surely "made a little
lower than the angels," when said of Jesus could be but for "a little
while inferior to," etc.; and that only in the matter of "the suffering
of death." So, too, with man; he is made "a little while inferior to
the angels," after which period he would rise to the dignity of his
place, when it would be seen, as said in the text with which this note
deals, "the angels are a little lower than man," that is, of course,
when man shall have attained unto his exaltation and glory.
2. He was a poet of Cilicia, of which province Tarsus, Paul's native
city, was the capital. He wrote about four hundred years before Paul's
time.
LESSON XXXVI.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF DEITY._
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_I. God Is a Spirit, Hence Not Material--Without The Mormon Doctrine
Form or Body._ of Deity--Roberts-Van Der Donckt
Discussion.
_II. God Is Invisible--Hence Immaterial, Chs. i, ii, iii and the
Without Body or Form._ notes of this Lesson.
_III. Anthromorphic Appearances and Descriptions Also Chapter v in the
of God Only Used to above work. It is a
Make Plain Spiritual Things._ Collection of Passages
from leading Elders of
_IV. The Answers._ the Church, setting
forth "Mormon Views of the Deity."
_SPECIAL TEXT: Stephen, "being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up
steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing
on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened,
and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." Acts vii: 55, 56._
_NOTES._
These notes are taken from the Roberts-Van Der Donkt Discussion on
Deity. The Catholic Father states the objections and presents the
argument for them; Elder Roberts gives the answers, and argues for
their accuracy and efficiency. The debate in full is found in "Mormon
Doctrine of Deity," chs. ii and iii.
1. _The First Objection--God is a Spirit--Hence Immaterial:_ "God
is a Spirit" (John iv., 24). "Another strong and explicit statement
is: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood hath
not revealed it unto thee, but My Father who is in heaven.' (Matt.
xvi). "As the Christ has asked, what[1] do men say the Son of Man
is (Matt. xvi, 16, 17), there is an evident antithesis and contrast
between the opinions of men and the profession of Peter, which is based
upon revelation. The striking opposition between _men, flesh and
blood_, and the Father, evidently conveys the sense that God hath
not flesh and blood like man, but is a Spirit (Roberts-Van Der Donckt
Discussion--Mormon Doctrine of Deity--p. 45).
2. _God is Invisible, Hence Immaterial:_ It is also held that God
is described as being "invisible," in the Bible. Then it is added:
"All material beings are visible. Absolute invisible beings are
immaterial or bodiless: God is absolutely invisible, therefore God
is immaterial or bodiless. * * * * * * Tertullian, (A. D. 160-245),
Ambrose (330-397), Augustine (354-430) and other Fathers, whose deep
scholarship is acknowledged by Protestants and Catholics alike, informs
us that God the Father is called invisible because He never appeared
to bodily eyes; whereas the Son manifested Himself as an angel, or
through an angel, and as man, after His incarnation. He is the eternal
revelation of the Father. It is necessary to remark that whenever the
eternal Son of God, or angels at God's behest, showed themselves to
man, they became visible only through a body or a material garb assumed
for the occasion (see Cardinal Newman's "Development of Christian
Doctrine," 9th edition, pp. 136 and 138)." (Ibid.)
3. _The Purpose of Anthropomorphic Appearances and Descriptions of
God:_ "Again, Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but
against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits
of this wickedness"--Eph. vi: 12--Could plainer words be found to teach
that angels both good and bad, are spirits devoid of bodies. Now, the
Creator is certainly more perfect than His creatures, and pure minds
are more perfect than minds united to bodies (men). ["The corruptible
body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down
the mind" (Wis 9:15.) "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?"
(St. Paul).] Therefore, the Creator is a pure spirit.
"It is a well known fact that all men, after the example of
the inspired Writings, make frequent use of the figure called
anthropomorphism, attributing to the Deity a human body, human members,
human passions, etc.; and that is done, not to imply that God is
possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things or
certain truths more intelligible to man, who, while he tarries in this
world, can perceive things and even ideas only through his senses or
through bodily organs." (Ibid).
4. _The Answers:_ The whole fabric of this objection and argument,
is built upon the assumption that "spirit" is immaterial. I say
"assumption," because it is nowhere declared in revelation that
"spirit" is immaterial. On the other hand, whenever spirits have been
seen, or God has been revealed, they have appeared to the eyes of
the beholder in human form. They were tangible to human sight; they
had configuration; they occupied space; and as form and extension
are qualities of matter, spirits must be material, albeit of finer
substance than the bodies tangible to the senses in normal states
of consciousness. The argument quoted in the preceding notes of the
lesson, were treated in part in the following manner:
5. _Of God Being a Spirit:_ "Mr. Van Der Donckt's first premise
is that "God is a Spirit," quoting the words of the Savior (John 4:
24); and Paul's words, "The Lord is a spirit," (II Cor. 3: 17.) He
then argues that a spirit is different from a man, and quotes the
remark of Jesus to His disciples, when He appeared to them after His
resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have"
(Luke 24: 37-39). Also the words of Jesus to Peter, "Flesh and blood
hath not revealed it [that is, that Jesus is the Christ] unto thee,
but My Father Who is in heaven." (Matt. 16: 17.) The gentleman, in all
this, sees a striking contrast between men, flesh and blood, and the
Father; which "conveys the sense that God hath not flesh and blood like
man, but is a spirit." * * * * With reference to the passage--"Flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in
heaven," and the Reverend gentleman's remarks thereon, I wish to say,
in passing, that the antithesis between man and God in the passage,
extends merely to the fact that the source of Peter's revelation was
God, not man; and is no attempt at defining a difference between the
nature of God and the nature of man. Here, also, I may say, that the
Latter-day Saints do not hold that God is a personage of flesh and
blood, but a personage of flesh and bone, inhabited by a spirit, just
as Jesus was after His resurrection. Joseph Smith taught, concerning
the resurrection, that "all [men] will be raised by the power of God,
having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." Again, in speaking of
the general assembly and church of the first-born in heaven (Heb.
12:23), he said: "Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and
bones, quickened by the Spirit of God, can." So it must be remembered,
throughout this discussion, that the Latter-day Saints do not believe
that God is a personage of flesh and blood; but a personage of flesh
and bone and spirit, united. * * * * * * * * But now for the "Mormon"
exposition of the text. Is Jesus Christ God? Was He God as He stood
there among His disciples in His glorious and, to use Mr. V's own
word, "sacred," resurrected body? There is but one answer that the
Reverend Catholic gentleman or any orthodox Protestant can give, and
that is in the affirmative--"yes, Jesus is God." But "God is a spirit!"
True, He is; but Jesus is a spirit inside a body--inside an immortal,
indestructible body of flesh and bone; therefore, if Jesus is God,
and God is a spirit, He is an embodied spirit, just as the Latter-day
Saints teach.
Mr. Van Der Donckt endeavors to anticipate the "Mormon" answer to
this argument by saying: "I am well aware that the Latter-day Saints
interpret those texts as meaning a spirit clothed with a body, but what
nearly the whole of mankind, Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans, have
believed for ages, cannot be upset by the gratuitous assertions of a
religious innovator of this last century."
At this point, I will not appeal to or quote the "gratuitous assertions
of a religious innovator of this last century"--meaning Joseph Smith.
There is no need of that. If I were an unbeliever in the true Deity of
Christ, I might take up the gentleman's argument in this way: You say
God is a spirit, and hence bodiless, immaterial? His answer must be,
"Yes." But Jesus says, "a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me
have."--Hence Jesus is not God, because He is a personage of flesh and
bone, in the form of man--not bodiless or immaterial. (This refers to
the Christ after his resurrection when he was a resurrected man and
immortal in that state). This, of course, is not my point. I merely
refer to it in the beaten way of good fellowship, and by way of caution
to my Catholic friend, who, I am sure, in his way, is as anxious to
maintain the true Deity of the Nazarene as I am; but his method of
handling the text, "God is a spirit," might lead him into serious
difficulty in upholding the truth that Jesus was and is true Deity, if
in argument with an infidel.
6. _Of God Being Invisible:_ Mr. Van Der Donckt thinks he sees
further proof of God's being a "Spirit," and therefore immaterial
or bodiless, in the fact that He is spoken of in the Bible as being
"invisible." Moses "was strong as seeing Him that is invisible," (Heb.
11:27); "No man hath seen God at any time" (I John 4: 12). "The King
of kings--whom no man hath seen nor can see," (I Tim. 6: 16); are the
passages he relies upon for the proof of his contention.
Of course, Mr. V. is aware of the fact--for he mentions it--that these
passages are confronted with the explicit statement of scripture
that God has been seen by men. Moses saw Him. At one stage of his
experience, the great Hebrew prophet was told that he could not see
God's face; "for," said the Lord, "there shall no man see Me and live."
But even at that time, Moses was placed in a cleft of the rock, "and
thou shalt see My back parts," said the Lord to him; "but My face shall
not be seen" (Exodus 23: 18-23). On another occasion, Moses, Aaron,
Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, saw God. "And
they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet as it were, a
paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his
clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not
his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink." (Ex. 24: 9-11).
Isaiah saw Him: 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted
up, and His train filled the temple.' At the same time the seraphims
proclaimed His holiness, saying, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of
hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory." Then said Isaiah: "Woe is
me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell
in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the
King, the Lord of hosts." (Isaiah 6: 1-5).
To harmonize these apparitions of God to men with his theory of the
invisibility of God, Mr. V. appeals to the writings of some of the
Christian fathers, and Cardinal Newman, from whose teachings he
concludes that God the Father is called "invisible" because "he never
appeared to bodily eyes; whereas the Son manifested Himself as an
angel, and as a man after His incarnation. * * * Whenever the Eternal
Son of God, or angels at God's behest, showed themselves to man, they
became visible only through a body, or a material garb assumed for the
occasion!" "Surely Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, the great English
Cardinal of the Roman church, and Mr. V. are in sore straits when they
must needs take refuge in the belief of such jugglery with matter as
this, in order to reconcile apparently conflicting scriptures. And
what a shuffling off and on of material garbs there must have been,
as from time to time hosts of angels and spirits appeared unto men!
It is but the materialization of the spiritualist mediums on a little
larger scale. But there is a better way of harmonizing the seeming
contradictions; and better authority for the conclusion to be reached
than the Christian fathers and Cardinal Newman. I mean the scriptures
themselves." (The argument in illustration of the last statement is
too extended to quote here. See Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion, pp.
80-84.)
7. _Of Anthropomorphism and Understanding the Bible Literally:_
I must say a word upon Mr. V's remarks respecting the plain
anthropomorphism of the Bible, and the matter of understanding that
sacred book literally. With reference to the first he says: "All men,
after the example of the inspired writings, make frequent use of the
figure called anthropomorphism, attributing to the Deity a human
body, human members, human passions, etc., and that is done, not to
imply that God is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make
spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man."
I would like to know upon what authority Mr. V. adjudges the "inspired
writings" not to imply that God is really possessed of form, limbs,
passions, etc., after attributing them to Him in the clearest manner.
The "inspired writings" plainly and most forcibly attribute to Deity
a form like man's, with limbs, organs, etc., but the Bible does not
teach that this ascription of form, limbs, organs and passions to God,
is unreal, and "simply to make spiritual things or certain truths
more intelligible to man." On the contrary, the Bible emphasizes the
doctrine of anthropomorphism by declaring in its very first chapter
that man was created in the image of God: "So God created man in His
own image, in the image of God created he him." The explanation is
offered that it was necessary to attribute human form, members and
passions, to God, in order to make spiritual things intelligible to
man; but what is the reason for ascribing the divine form to man, as in
the passage just quoted? Was that done to make human beings or certain
truths more intelligible to God? Or was it placed in the word of God
because it is simply true?
The truth that God in form is like man, is further emphasized by the
fact that Jesus is declared to have been in "the express image" of the
Father's person (Heb. 1: 3); and until Mr. V. or some other person of
his school of thought, can prove very clearly that the word of God
supports his theory of the unreality of the Bible's ascription of form,
organs, proportions, passions and feelings, to God and other heavenly
beings, the truth that God in form is like man, will stand secure on
the foundation of the revelations it has pleased God to give of His own
being and nature.
8. _"The Morbid Terror of Anthropomorphism":_ Dean Mansel, in his
"Limits of Religious Thought," administers a scathing reproof to the
German philosophers Kant and Fichte (and also to Professor Jowett,
in his note xxii in Lecture 1) for what he calls "that morbid terror
of what they are pleased to call anthropomorphism, which poisons the
speculation of so many modern philosophers, when they attempt to be
wise above what is written, and seek for a metaphysical exposition of
God's nature and attributes." These philosophers, while holding in
abhorrence the idea that God has a form such as man's--or any form
whatsoever--parts, organs, affections, sympathies, passions or any
attributes seen in man's spirit, are, nevertheless, under the necessity
of representing God as conscious, as knowing, as determining; all of
which, as pointed out by Dean Mansel in the passage which follows,
are, after all, qualities of the human mind as well as attributes of
Deity; and hence the philosophers, after all their labor, have not
escaped from anthropomorphism, but have merely represented Deity to
our consciousness, shorn of some of the higher qualities of the human
mind, which God is represented in the scriptures as possessing in their
perfection--such as love, mercy, justice. (The very extended passage
from Mansel's work will be found as foot note in "Mormon Doctrine of
Deity," pp. 85-88.)
9. _Angels Bodiless Beings:_ According to Mr. Van Der Donckt's
doctrine, "Angels as well as God are bodiless beings." Angels, both
good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies. The Creator is more
perfect than His creatures, and pure minds [minds separated from
bodies] are more perfect than minds united to bodies. * * * Therefore
the Creator is a pure spirit." But where does this leave Jesus? Was
and is Jesus God--true Deity? Yes. But Jesus is a spirit and body
united into one glorious personage. His mind was and is now united
to and dwelling in a body. Our Catholic friend says, "pure minds [i.
e., minds not united to bodies] are more perfect than minds united to
bodies." He also says, "Angels, both good and bad, are spirits (i. e.,
minds) devoid of bodies." Therefore, it must follow from his premises
and argument, that angels are superior to Jesus, since His spirit is
united to a body, while they are minds not united to bodies! I will
not press the point, that the same conclusions could be drawn from his
premises and argument with reference even to bad spirits, whom he says
are bodiless, and hence, upon his theory, superior to minds or spirits
united to bodies, for that would be ungenerous upon my part, and would
lay upon his faulty argument the imputation of awful blasphemy, which I
am sure was not intended, and would be as revolting to him as it would
be to myself. Mr. V., I am sure, would contend as earnestly as I would
that Jesus is superior to the angels, though it is perfectly clear that
He is a spirit united to a body.
Footnotes
1. The Catholic priest, Van Der Donckt, who is stating this objection,
uses the word "what," although that word is not used in either the
common English version, nor in the Douay (Catholic) Bible. "Whom do men
say that I the Son of man am?" Then to the apostles "But whom say ye
that I am? (Matt. xvi, 13-14). This is from the common English version.
The Douay Bible gives the same passages, "Who do men say that the son
of man is?" and "Who do you say that I am?" So really the question is
not _what_ the son of man is, but _who_; hence there is no
significance added to the matter from the questions asked.
LESSON XXXVII.
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
_SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF DEITY. (Continued.)_
_ANALYSIS._ _REFERENCES._
_V. Objection: The Unity of God Excludes The same as in Lesson
the Idea of Plurality of xxxvi.
Gods._
_VI. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost
Are One and the Same Identical
Divine Essence of Being--Not
Three Separate Individuals._
_VII. The Answers._
_SPECIAL TEXT: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." II Cor.
xiii:14_.
_NOTES._
These notes are taken from the Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion on
Deity. The Catholic Father states the objections and presents the
argument for them; Elder Roberts gives the answers and argues for
their accuracy and efficiency. The Debate in full is found in "Mormon
Doctrine of Deity," Chs. ii and iii.
1. _Unity of God:_ Mr. Van Der Donckt says: The first chapter of
the Bible reveals the supreme fact that there is One Only and Living
God, the Creator and moral Governor of the universe. As Moses opened
the sacred Writings by proclaiming Him, so the Jew, in all subsequent
generations, has continued to witness for Him, till from the household
of Abraham, faith in the one only living and true God has spread
through Jerusalem, Christianity and Mahometanism well-nigh over the
earth.[1] Primeval revelations of God had everywhere become corrupted
in the days of Moses, save among the chosen people. Therefore, the
first leaf of the Mosaic record, as Jean Paul says, has more weight
than all the folies of men of science and philosophers.
While all nations over the earth have developed a religious tendency
which acknowledged a higher than human power in the universe, Israel is
the only one which has risen to the grandeur of conceiving this power
as the One Only Living God. If we are asked how it was that Abraham
possessed not only the primitive conception of the Divinity, as He had
revealed Himself to all mankind, but passed through the denial of all
other gods, to the knowledge of the One God, we are content to answer,
that it was by a special divine revelation.[2]
The record of this divine revelation is to be found in the Bible:
"Hear, Israel: Our God is one Lord." "I alone am, and there is no other
God besides me" (Deut. 6:4 and 32:39). "I am the first and I am the
last, and after me there shall be none" (Isaiah 44:6; 43:10.) "I will
not give my glory to another" (Isaiah 42: 8; 45: 5, etc., etc.)
And as Mr. Roberts admits that our conception of God must be in harmony
with the New Testament, it as well as the Old witnesses continually to
One True God. Suffice it to quote: "One is good, God" (Matthew 19: 17;)
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" (Luke 10: 27); "My Father of whom
you say that he is your God" (John 8: 54). Here Christ testified that
the Jews believed in only one God.
"The Lord is a God of all Knowledge" (I Kings 2). ("Mormon" Catechism
v. Q. 10 and 11). "Of that day and hour no one knoweth, no not the
angels of heaven, but the Father alone" (Matthew 24: 36). No one
knoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke 10: 22). Therefore, no one
is God but one, the Heavenly Father.
In another form: The All-knowing alone is God. The Father alone is
all-knowing. Therefore the Father alone is God[3]
From these clear statements of the Divine Book it is evident that all
the texts quoted by Mr. Roberts do not bear the inference he draws from
them; on the contrary, they directly make against him, plainly proving
the unity of God.
First, then, if God so emphatically declares, both in the Old and in
the New Testament, that there is but one God, has anyone the right to
contradict Him and to say that there are several or many Gods? But Mr.
Roberts insists that the Bible contradicts the Bible; in other words,
that God, the author of the Bible, contradicts Himself. To say such a
thing is downright blasphemy.
The liability of self-contradiction is characteristic of human frailty.
It is incompatible with God's infinite perfections. Therefore, I most
emphatically protest that there is no real contradiction in the Bible,
though here and there may exist an apparent one."
2. _"The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost Are One and the Same
Identical Divine Essence or Being:_ 'I and the Father are one.' (John
10-30.) Christ asserts His physical, not merely moral, unity with the
Father.
"My sheep hear My voice * * * and I give them everlasting life; and
they shall not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of My
hand."
The following argument, by which Christ proves that no man shall pluck
His sheep from His hand, proves His consubstantiality, or the unity of
His nature or essence with His Father's:
"My Father who gave Me the sheep is greater than all men or creatures
(v. 29), and therefore no one can snatch the sheep or aught else from
His hand. (Supreme or almighty power is here predicated of the Father.)
"Now, I and the Father are one (thing, one being), (v. 30). (Therefore,
no one can snatch the sheep or aught else from My hand.)
To perceive the full meaning and strength of Jesus' argument, one must
read and understand the original text of St. John's Gospel, that is,
the Greek; or the Latin translation: Ego et Pater unum sumus.
If Christ had meant one in mind, or one morally, and not substantially,
He would have used the masculine gender, Greek eis, (unus)--and not
the neuter en, (unum)--as He did. No better interpreters of our Lord's
meaning can be found than His own hearers. Had He simply declared His
moral union with the Father, the Jews would not have taken up stones in
protest against His making Himself God, and asserting His identity with
the Father. Far from retracting His statement or correcting the Jews'
impression, Jesus insists that as He is the Son of God, He has far
more right to declare Himself God than the scripture had to call mere
human judges gods, and He corroborates His affirmation of His physical
unity with His Father by saying: 'The Father is in Me, and I am in the
Father,' which evidently signifies the same as verse 30: 'I and the
Father are one and the same individual being, the One God.'
The preceding argument is reinforced by John xiv:8-11: 'Philip saith to
him: Lord, show us the Father. * * * Jesus saith: So long a time have
I been with you and thou hast not known Me. Philip, he that seeth Me
seeth the Father also. How sayest thou: Show us the Father. Do you not
believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I
speak, I speak not of Myself. But the Father Who abideth in Me, He doth
the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me.
What things soever the Father doth, these the Son also doth likewise.
(John v:19.)
These words are a clear assertion of the physical unity of the Son and
the Father. It is plain from the context that Christ means more than
a physical resemblance, no matter how complete, between Him and His
Father. Of mere resemblance and moral union could never be said that
one is the other, and that the words uttered by one are actually spoken
by the other. To see the Son and the Father at the same time in the
Son, the Son and the Father must be numerically one Being. Now, Christ
says: 'He that seeth the Father.' Therefore, He and the Father are
numerically one Being."
3. _The Holy Ghost:_ There remains to prove that the Holy Ghost
is inseparably one with the Father and the Son. There are three who
give testimony in heaven, and these three are one. (1 John v:8.) As
Christ proved His identity and unity with the Father by texts quoted:
'The words that I speak, I speak not of Myself. But the Father Who
abideth in Me, He doth the works,' so He now shows His unity with the
Holy Ghost by almost the selfsame sentences: 'When the Spirit of Truth
will have come, He will teach you all truth; for He will not speak of
Himself, but He will speak whatever He will hear, and will announce to
you the things to come. He will glorify Me, because He will receive of
mine and announce to you: whatever the Father hath are Mine. Therefore,
I said: because He will receive of Mine and announce it to you.' (John
xvi:13-15.)
That the Holy Ghost is one with the Son, or Jesus, is proved also by
the fact that the Christian baptism is indiscriminately called the
Baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Baptism in or with the Holy Ghost and
the Baptism of or in Jesus: 'He [Christ] shall baptize in the Holy
Ghost and fire' (that is, the Holy Ghost acting as purifying fire)
(Matthew iii:11); 'have you received the Holy Ghost? We have not so
much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost.' He said: 'In what, then
[in whose name, then] were you baptized?' Who said: 'In John's baptism
* * * Having the instrument of the Father? heard these things they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 2:9). All we who are
baptized in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 6:3).
4. _The Answers: Of the Unity of God:_ The Latter-day Saints
believe in the unity of the creative and governing force or power of
the universe as absolutely as any orthodox Christian sect in the world.
One cannot help being profoundly impressed with the great truth that
creation, throughout its whole extent, bears evidence of being one
system, presents at every point unity of design, and harmony in its
government. Nor am I unmindful of the force there is in the deduction
usually drawn from these premises, viz.: that the Creator and Governor
of the universe must necessarily be one. But I am also profoundly
impressed by another fact that comes within the experience of man,
at least to a limited extent, viz.: the possibility of intelligences
arriving at perfect agreement, so as to act in absolute unity. We see
manifestations of this principle in human governments, and other human
associations of various kinds. And this, too, is observable, viz.:
that the greater and more perfect the intelligence, the more perfect
can the unity of purpose and of effort become: so that one needs only
the existence of perfect intelligences to operate together in order to
secure perfect oneness, whence shall come the one system evident in
the universe, exhibiting at every point unity of design, and perfect
harmony in its government. In other words, "oneness" can be the result
of perfect agreement among Many Intelligences, as surely as it can
be the result of the existence of One Only Intelligence. Also, the
decrees and purposes of the perfectly united Many can be as absolute
as the decrees and purposes of the One Only Intelligence. One is also
confronted with the undeniable fact that inclines him to the latter
view as the reasonable explanation of the "Oneness" that is evidently
in control of the universe--the fact that there are in existence many
Intelligences, and, endowed as they are with free will, it cannot be
denied that they influence, to some extent, the course of events and
the conditions that obtain. Moreover, it will be found, on careful
inquiry, that the explanation of the "Oneness" controlling in the
universe, on the theory that it results from the perfect agreement or
unity of Many Intelligences,[4] is more in harmony with the revelations
of God on the subject than the theory that there is but One Only
Personal Intelligence that enters into its government. This theory Mr.
Van Der Donckt, of course, denies, and this is the issue between us
that remains to be tested.
5. _The Meaning of Elohim:_ The Reverend gentleman affirms that the
first chapter of the Bible "reveals the supreme fact that there is but
One Only and Living God." This I deny; and affirm the fact that the
first chapter of the Bible reveals the existence of a plurality of Gods.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the word translated "God" in
the first chapter of our English version of the Bible, in the Hebrew,
is Elohim--plural of Eloah--and should be rendered "Gods"--so as to
read, "In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth,"
etc. * * * The Gods said, "Let there be light." * * * The Gods said,
"Let us make man," etc., etc. So notorious is the fact that the Hebrew
plural, Elohim, is used by Moses, that a variety of devices have been
employed to make the first chapter of Genesis conform to the "One Only
God" idea. Some Jews, in explanation of it, and in defense of their
belief in One Only God, hold that there are several Hebrew words which
have a plural form but singular meaning--of which Elohim is one--and
they quote as proof of this the word maim, meaning water, shamaim,
meaning heaven, and panim, meaning the face or surface of a person or
thing. "But," says a Christian Jewish scholar,[5] "if we examine these
words, we shall find that though apparently they may have a singular
meaning, yet, in reality, they have a plural or collective one; thus,
for instance, 'maim,' water, means a collection of waters, forming
one collective whole; and thus again 'shamaim,' heaven, is also, in
reality as well as form, of the plural number, meaning what we call in
a similar way in English 'the heavens'; comprehending all the various
regions which are included under that title."
Other Jewish scholars content themselves in accounting for this
inconvenient plural in the opening chapter of Genesis, by saying that
in the Hebrew, Elohim better represents the idea of "Strong," "Mighty,"
than the singular form would, and for this reason it was used--a view
accepted by not a few Christians. (The argument on the plural Elohim
continues through eight more pages in "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," from
p. 139 to p. 147. It is too elaborate to be reproduced here.)
6. _Of the Father Alone Being God:_ Referring to the admission in
my discourse that conceptions of God, to be true, must be in harmony
with the New Testament, Mr. Van Der Donckt proceeds to quote passages
from the New Testament, in support of the idea that there is but one
God:
"One is good, God (Matt. xix:17). Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
(Luke x:27). My Father, of whom you say that He is your God (John
viii:54). Here Christ testified that the Jews believed in only one God.
The Lord is a God of all knowledge (1 Kings ii). ("Mormon" Catechism
V. Q. 10 and 2, 11). Of that day and hour no one knoweth, no, not
the angels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matthew xxiv:36). No one
knoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke x:22). Therefore, no one
is God but one, the Heavenly Father. In another form: the All-knowing
alone is God. The Father alone is all-knowing. Therefore, the Father
alone is God."
In the conclusion of the syllogism, "Therefore, the Father alone is
God," Mr. V. himself seems to have become suddenly conscious of having
stumbled upon a difficulty which he ineffectually seeks to remove in
a foot note. If it be true, as Mr. V. asserts it is, that the Father
alone is God, then it must follow that the Son of God, Jesus Christ,
is not God; that the Holy Ghost is not God! Yet the New Testament, in
representing the Father as addressing Jesus, says--"Thy throne, O God,
is forever and forever" (Heb. i:8). Here is the positive word of the
Father that Jesus, the Son, is God; for He addresses Him as such. To
say, then, that the Father alone is God, is to contradict the Father.
Slightly paraphrasing the rather stern language of Mr. V., I might ask:
If God the Father so emphatically declares that Jesus is God, has any
one the right to contradict him by affirming that the Father alone is
God? But Mr. V. insists that the Bible contradicts the Bible; in other
words, that God, the author of the Bible, contradicts himself: "To
say such a thing, is downright blasphemy!" But Mr. V. will say he has
explained all that in his foot note. Has he? Let us see. "Therefore,
the Father alone is God," is the conclusion of his syllogism; and the
foot note--"To the exclusion of another or separate divine being, but
not to the denial of the distinct divine personalities of the Son
and the Holy Ghost in the One Divine Being." But that is the mere
assumption of my Catholic friend. When he says that the Father alone
is God, it must be to the exclusion of every other being, or part of
being, or person, and everything else, or language means nothing. Mr.
V.'s foot note helps him out of his difficulty not at all.
7. _"The All-Knowing Alone is God":_ (See note 1 this Lesson). The
creed to which Mr. Van Der Donckt subscribes--the Athanasian--says: "So
the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God." Now, if
the quality of "all-knowing" is essential to the attributes of true
Deity, then Jesus and the Holy Ghost must be all-knowing, or else not
true deity.
But what of the difficulty presented by Mr. V's contention: "The
All-knowing alone is God, the Father alone is All-knowing, therefore,
the Father alone is God?" Mr. V. constructs this mighty syllogism
upon a very precarious basis. It reminds one of a pyramid standing on
its apex. He starts with the premise that "The Lord is a God of all
knowledge:" then he discovers that there is one thing that Jesus, the
Son of God does not know--the day and hour when Jesus will come to
earth in his glory--"Of that day and hour no one knoweth; no, not the
angels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matt. 24: 36)--therefore, the
Father alone is God!" In consideration of facts such as are included
in Mr. V's middle term, one is bound, in the nature of things, to take
into account time, place and circumstances. In the case in question,
the Twelve disciples had come to Jesus, and among other questions asked
him what should be the sign of his own glorious coming to earth again.
The Master told them the signs, but said of the day and hour of that
coming no one knew, but his Father only. Hence, Jesus did not know,
hence Jesus did not possess all knowledge, hence, according to Mr. V.,
Jesus was not God! But Jesus was referring to the state of matters at
the particular time when he was speaking; and it does not follow that
the Father would exclude his Son Jesus forever, or for any considerable
time, from the knowledge of the time of the glorious advent of the Son
of God to the earth. As Jesus rose to the possession of all power "in
heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28: 18), so also, doubtless, he rose to the
possession of all knowledge in heaven and in earth; "For the Father
loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that he himself doeth" (John
5: 20), and, in sharing with the Son his power, and his purposes, would
doubtless make known to him the day and hour of the glorious advent of
Christ to the earth.
8. _Of the Oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Is it Physical
Identity:_ I next consider Mr. Van Der Donckt's argument concerning
the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost being "the same identical Divine
Essence." Mr. V. bases this part of his argument on the words of
Messiah--"I and my Father are one (John 10:30); and claims that here
"Christ asserts his physical, not merely moral, union with the Father."
* * * * * * I shall test Mr. V's exegesis of the passage in question,
by the examination of another passage involving the same ideas, the
same expressions; and this in the Latin as well as in the English.
Jesus prayed for His disciples as follows:
"Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given
Me, that they may be one, as We are. * * * * Neither pray I for these
[the disciples] alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me
through their word; that they all may be one: * * * that they may be
one, even as we are one." (St. John 17:11, 20, 21, 22.)
In Latin, the clauses written in the above, stand: Ut sint unum, sicut
et nos (verse 11), "that they may be one, just as We." So in verse 22:
Ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus; "that they may be one in Us,
even as We one are." Here unum, "one," is used in the same manner as
it is in St. John, 10:30--"Ego et Pater unum sumus." "I and Father one
are." Mr. V. says that unum in the last sentence means, "one thing,"
one essence; hence, Christ's physical union, or identity of substance,
with the Father; not agreement of mind, or concord of purpose, or moral
union. Very well, for the moment let us adopt his exposition, and see
where it will lead us. If unum in the sentence, Ego et Pater unum
sumus, means "one thing," "one substance, or essence," and denotes the
physical union of the Father and Son in one substance, then it means
the same in the sentence--ut sint unum, sicut et nos; that is, "that
they [the disciples] may be one [unum] just as We are." So in the other
passage before quoted where the same words occur.
Again, to Messiah's statement: "Ego et Pater unum sumus"--"I and my
Father are one."--Mr. V. thinks his view of this passage--that it
asserts the identity or physical union of the Father and the Son--is
strengthened by the fact that it is followed with these remarks of
Jesus: "The Father is in Me, and I am in the Father." "Which evidently
signifies," says Mr. V., "the same as verse 30 (John 10); I and the
Father are one and the same individual being, the one God."
But the passage from the prayer of Jesus concerning the oneness of the
disciples with the Father and the Son, is emphasized by well-nigh the
same words in the context, as those which occur in John 10:30 and upon
which Mr. V. lays so much stress as sustaining his exposition of the
physical union, viz: "The Father is in Me, and I in Him" (verse 38).
"Which evidently signifies," Mr. V. remarks, "the same as verse 30: I
and my Father are one." Good; then listen: "Holy Father, keep through
Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one as
We are: * * as thou Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they may
be one in Us." There can be no doubt now but what the union between
the disciples and the Father and Son, is to be of the same nature as
that subsisting between the Father and Son. If the Father and Son are
physically one substance or essence, so, too, if the prayer of Jesus
is to be realized--as surely it will be--then the disciples are to be
physically united with God, in one essence or substance--not just the
Twelve disciples, either, for whom Jesus immediately prayed, but those,
also, in all generations who shall believe on Christ through the words
of His first disciples; that is, all the faithful believers, through
all generations, are to become physically united with God, become
the same substance or essence as God Himself! Is Mr. Van Der Donckt
prepared to accept the inevitable conclusion of his own exposition
of John 10:30? If so, then what advantage has the Christian over
the Hindoo, whom he has called a heathen, for so many generations?
The sincerest desire of the Hindoo is to be "physically united with
God," even if that involve "a blowing out," or the attainment of
Nirvana--annihilation--to encompass it.[6] Of course, we had all hoped
for better things from the Christian religion. We had hoped for the
immortality of the individual man; for his persistence through the
ages as an individual entity, associated with God in loving converse
and dearest relations of moral union; but not absorbed, or lost, in
absolute physical union with Him. But if Mr. V's exposition of John
10:30 be correct, and a physical union is meant by the words--"I and my
Father are one," then all Christians are to be made physically one with
God under the prayer of Christ--"That they may be one, as we are"--i.
e., as the Father and Son are one. * * * * * *
My point is, that the text, "I and my Father are one," refers to a
moral union--to a perfect union of purpose and will--not to a unity
or identity of substance, or essence: and any other view than this is
shown from the argument to be absurd.
But Mr. Van Der Donckt would cry out against the physical union
of man with God. Both his interpretation of scripture and his
philosophy--especially the latter--would require it. Man and God, in
his philosophy, are not of the same nature. God is not physical, while
man is. God is not material, but spiritual, that is, according to Mr.
V., immaterial, while man is material. Man is finite, God infinite;
nothing can be added to the infinite, therefore, man cannot be added
to the infinite in physical union. "The nature of the parts would
cling to the whole," and the infinity of God would be marred by the
physical union of finite parts to Him; hence, the oneness of Christians
with Christ and God the Father, is not a physical oneness. But if the
union of the Christians with Christ and God is not to be physical,
then neither is the union of Christ and God the Father physical, for
the oneness in the one case, is to be the same as the oneness in the
other--"that they all may be one; as thou Father, are in me, and I in
thee, that they may also be one in us * * * * that they may be one even
as We are one." (John 17:21, 22).
The doctrine of physical union between the Father and the Son,
contended for by Mr. V., must be abandoned. There is no help for it,
unless he is prepared to admit also the physical union of all the
disciples with God--a thing most repugnant to Mr. V's principles. With
the doctrine of physical identity gone, the "oneness" of the Father
and the Son, that Mr. V. contends for, goes also, and two separate and
distinct personalities, or Gods, are seen, in the Father and the Son,
whose oneness consists not of physical identity, but of agreement of
mind, concord of will, and unity of purpose [the same holds also as to
the Holy Ghost]; a oneness born of perfect knowledge, equality of power
and dominion. But if a perfect oneness, as above set forth, may subsist
between two persons, [or three] it may subsist with equal consistency
among any number of persons capable of attaining to the same degree of
intelligence and power, and thus there would appear some reason for
the prayer of the Christ, that all His disciples might be one, even
as He and the Father are one. And thus one may account for the saying
of David: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: He judgeth
among the Gods" (Psalm 82: 1); for such congregations existed in heaven
before the foundations of the earth were laid; and such a congregation
may yet be made up of the redeemed from our own earth, when they attain
to perfect union with God and Christ.
Footnotes
1. "Hours with the Bible," by Geikie, Vol. I, Chapters i, ii.
2. "Chips From a German Workshop," by Max Muller, vol. 1, pp. 345-372.
3. 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.
4. John Stuart Mill, in his Essay on Theism, in speaking of the evident
unity in nature, which suggests that nature is governed by One Being,
comes very near stating the exact truth in an alternative statement
to his first remark, viz.: "At least, if a plurality be supposed, it
is necessary to assume so complete a concert of action and unity of
will among them, that the difference is, for most purposes, immaterial
between such a theory and that of the absolute unity of the Godhead."
(Essays on Religion--Theism, p. 133.)
5. This is Rev. H. Highton, M. A., and Fellow of Queen's College,
Oxford. I quote from his lecture on "God a Unity and Plurality,"
published in a Christian Jewish periodical called "The Voice of
Israel," February number, 1844.
6. Max Muller, "Chips From a German Workshop," Vol. 1, p. 285.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Seventy's Course in Theology
(Third Year), by B. H. Roberts
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SEVENTY'S COURSE IN THEOLOGY (3RD YEAR) ***
***** This file should be named 60575.txt or 60575.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/6/0/5/7/60575/
Produced by the Mormon Texts Project
(https://mormontextsproject.org/), with thanks to Renah
Holmes
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country outside the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
are located before using this ebook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
provided that
* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation."
* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
works.
* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
