{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_60575/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_60575","id":"gutenberg_60575","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60575","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Teaching & Education","Latter Day Saint churches -- Doctrines","Latter Day Saints"],"text":"THE\n\nSeventy's Course in Theology\n\nTHIRD YEAR\n\nThe Doctrine of Deity\n\n\nCompiled and Edited by\n\nB. H. ROBERTS\n\nOf the First Council of The Seventy\n\n\n_\"And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the Only True\nGod, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent.\"--Jesus._\n\n_\"It is the First Principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the\nCharacter of God.\"--Joseph Smith._\n\n\nSalt Lake City\n\n1910\n\n\n\n_SEVENTY'S YEAR BOOK NO. III._\n\n_INTRODUCTION._\n\nThe Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, treats directly of\nthe Doctrine of Deity. In structure and treatment of the theme, it\nfollows the general plan of the First and Second Year Books. Therefore\nwhat was said in the Introduction to the First Year Book to \"Class\nTeachers;\" and on the \"Manner of Lesson Treatment;\" \"Home Reading and\nPreparation;\" \"Scripture Reading and Special Texts;\" and on \"Lectures,\"\nwill be available here. As quite a number of the Quorum members will\nnot have First and Second Year Books, it is recommended that the\nPresidents or Class Teachers bring the suggestions under the above\nheadings to the attention of the classes, and read them in class. An\nentire class session indeed, could be well spent in consideration of\nmethods of work.\n\nOne modification only is suggested in methods of work. Where the\nSeventies meet in classes that are only fragments of quorums, in\ninstances where the number of meetings does not average more than from\nthree to six or eight, it is thought that better results would be\nobtained if such a class would convert the occasion into a lesson-study\nmeeting, for three lessons in the month, and instead of trying to\ndeliver the lesson statement in lecture form, remain seated around the\ntable and read the lesson, hunt up the citations given, and discuss the\nnotes--in a word study the lesson together and profit by each other's\nassistance. Then, on the fourth lesson of the month--when the Seventies\nare supposed to meet in quorum capacity, the usual quorum methods could\nbe followed.\n\n_The importance of the Subject, \"The Doctrine of Deity:\"_ Of the\nimportance of the subject treated in this present Year Book, but\nlittle need be said, as its importance is largely self-evident; but to\nminds that do not so conceive it, perhaps its importance will be made\napparent by such expressions as these:\n\n_\"This is life eternal that they might know Thee, the only true God,\nand Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.\"--Jesus, the Christ_.\n\n_\"It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the\nCharacter of God; and to know that we may converse with Him as one man\nconverses with another.\"--Joseph Smith, the Prophet_.\n\nFar be it from me to hold that faith in God, and participation in\nsalvation, depends upon a scientific knowledge of the being, and the\nkind of being, God is. The Soul of man, self-conscious of the being\nof God, and enlightened, if only in a general way--in a way far from\nwhat would be regarded as well-arranged knowledge--may yet have faith\nin God. So that I am not holding that the very definite knowledge we\nare seeking through this treatise, is necessary to first steps in what\nmust always be a progressive faith. I do not address the men for whom\nthese Lessons are prepared from the standpoint that I would have them\nunderstand in order that they may believe; but rather that they may\nunderstand--as clearly as I can help them to understand--that which\nthey already believe. Also that they may more distinctly teach that\nwhich they believe, for surely well-ordered knowledge can have no other\neffect upon faith than to increase it, to strengthen it.\n\nIn any event it would be neglect of duty in men if, after coming to\nbelief, they did not study to understand what they believe. It would\nbe doubly a neglect of duty on the part of men who are consecrated by\nsolemn ordination to teach the true doctrine about God, and stand as\nWitness for him, if they should be indifferent to an understanding of\nthe nature and character of God. The pleas that are sometimes made\non the ground of incomprehensibility of the subject, resulting in\nrecommendations that the nature and attributes of Deity had best be\nleft hidden in the mystery supposed to enshroud them; and that God be\nheld as an object of faith rather than of understanding--analyzed, you\nshall find such views bottomed rather on indifference than in grace or\ntrue modesty. What has been revealed about God may be known; beyond\nthat our treatise does not seek to go, except where the treatise deals\nhistorically with the doctrines and speculations of theologians and\nphilosophers. If this part of the treatise deals at times with \"Thin\nThought\" and difficult abstractions, two things at least can be said\nfor it, namely: (1) It will furnish good mental exercise; and (2) It\nwill have the effect of making more clear by contrast the simple and\nbeautiful doctrine of Deity as revealed in the person and character of\nJesus, the Christ.\n\nSPECIAL LESSONS.\n\nThere are five special lessons in the course, viz., Lessons V, X,\nXV, XXIV and XXXI, designed to be given in the form of discourses\nor lectures, by one or more speakers to each subject as shall be\ndetermined upon by the Presidents and Class Teachers. As suggested in\nprevious Year Books these Lessons should be made special occasions by\nthe Quorums; and in order that the work shall be well done, plenty of\ntime should be allowed for preparation by making the assignment for the\ndiscourse or lecture, several weeks in advance. For example, at the\nsecond session of the classes assignments should be made for Lesson\nV., and so for each special Lesson, allowing from two to three weeks\nfor preparation, having it understood that something like thorough and\nintelligent handling of the subject will be expected.\n\nIt is further suggested that not more than forty-five or at the outside\nsixty minutes be devoted to the main question, and then that fifteen or\ntwenty minutes be allowed for criticism and the asking of questions,\nto be answered by the principal speaker or speakers who have had the\nsubject in hand.\n\nIn these special Lessons, and quite aside from the main theme of which\nthey treat are parts of two other lessons, to which the whole class\nshould be required to give attention. These two lessons are first,\nDelivering a Discourse; and second, On Strength of Expression. The\nfirst subject runs through the five special lessons, the second through\nbut four. It has been the aim of the writer to give one lesson on each\nof these subjects in the five and four parts respectively, into which\nthe lessons are divided; and he entertains the hope that they will\nbe helpful, at least to those just beginning their efforts at public\nspeech.\n\n_SUGGESTIONS AS TO PART III._\n\nIn Lessons under Part III, \"Conceptions of God,\" it is suggested\nthat the effort of the classes be, simply to master the information\ncontained in the lessons. It will not be found feasible to undertake a\ndiscussion of the various conceptions of God presented with any view\nto reconciliation with each other or with the scripture. Strive only\nfor an understanding of what these conceptions are as presented by the\nadvocates of them.\n\n_DIVISION OF LESSONS._\n\nWhere the Lessons are thought to contain too much matter for one\nsession of the class it is quite within the province of the Presidents\nor Class Teachers to divide them; and it is especially recommended that\nthey do so in Lessons xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv.\n\nBOOKS OF REFERENCE.\n\nThe books of reference used in the following lessons would make an\nextended list, and in some cases the volumes named could only be\nfound in reference libraries, as they are now out of print; it would\ntherefore be of no advantage to give a complete enumeration of them\nhere. I have given copious and extended notes upon many subdivisions of\nthe lessons, especially where the books quoted would be difficult to\nobtain. The following named works, however, can be obtained and some of\nthem are indispensable:\n\n_The Seventy's Indispensable Library,_ consisting of the Bible,\nBook of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Richards\nand Little Compendium--this set of books in special and uniform\nbindings can be obtained; and we suggest that it would be a good thing\nfor prospective missionaries among the Seventies to get these books in\nconvenient form and durable bindings, so that when going upon missions\nthey can take books with them with which they are familiar through\nfrequent handling and reading.\n\n_Some Standard Dictionary of the English Language,_ such as is used\nin high schools and academies, where unabridged Standard Dictionaries\ncannot be obtained.\n\n_A Dictionary of the Bible._ (Dr. Wm. Smith's \"Dictionary of the\nBible,\" the four-volume edition by Prof. H. B. Hackett, contains, it is\nsaid, \"the fruit of the ripest biblical scholarship of England\").\n\n_Smith's Smaller Dictionary of the Bible_ (one volume) is the same\nwork condensed. In somewhat the same line, owing to its very valuable\nintroductory articles (thirty in number, one of which, \"Belief in\nGod,\" we were permitted by the publishers to reproduce in the January\nand February numbers of the Era) is _Dummelow's \"One-Volume Bible\nCommentary,\"_ published by the MacMillan Company, New York.\n\nSome _Standard Ecclesiastical_ or _Church History,_ such as\nMosheim's or Dr. Neander's. The former can be had both in one or three\nvolumes. The latter is in six volumes. In this line, and in preference\nto any other Church histories--after Mosheim's and Neander's--that have\nfallen under my notice, I recommend for the period it covers--the first\nten centuries--Dr. Philip Smith's \"History of the Christian Church,\"\ntwo volumes. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, covering\nthe first three and one half--nearly--Christian centuries; and the\nEarly Christian Literature Primers, four books, covering the first\nseven and a half centuries.\n\n_The History of Christianity._ This is a collection from the\nwritings of Gibbon, chiefly selected chapters from the author's\ncelebrated \"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,\" edited and annotated\nby Peter Eckler. It is published in one volume, and as a history of\nChristianity's struggle with Pagan philosophy, and of the paganization\nof Christianity in the Early Christian Centuries, it is a valuable work.\n\n_\"A History of Christian Doctrine,\"_ by Wm. G. T. Shedd (two\nvolumes), is a valuable work. Written from a sympathetic view-point of\northodox Christianity, but valuable for its history of the development\nof the orthodox doctrine.\n\n_The Nicene Creed,_ by J. J. Lias, gives detailed analysis of that\nsomewhat famous \"symbol of the Christian faith,\" as it is sometimes\ncalled (one volume).\n\n_\"Story of the World's Worship,\"_ by Frank S. Dobbins--1901--(one\nvolume).\n\n_\"Ten Great Religions,\"_ by James Freeman Clarke (two volumes).\nThis work on the general subject, Conceptions of God, would be the best\nhere enumerated.\n\n_\"History of the Warfare of Science with Theology,\"_ by Andrew\nDixon White (two volumes).\n\n_\"Conflict Between Religion and Science,\"_ John William Draper (one\nvolume). By the same Author, _\"Intellectual Development of Europe\"_\n(two volumes).\n\n_\"Science of Religion,\"_ by Max Muller (one volume). By the same\nAuthor, _\"Chips from a German Workshop\"_ (two volumes).\n\n_The Philosophers:_ To name the works of the philosophers from\nPlato to modern times would be to uselessly enumerate a library. The\nfollowing works, however, could perhaps be obtained by the quorums if\nnot by individuals:\n\n_Outlines of Lectures on the History of Philosophy,_ by Elmendorf\n(one volume). It is in the nature of an amplified index to the subject,\nand presupposes some general knowledge of it.\n\nMaurice's _\"Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy\"_ (two volumes, 1395\npages), a noble work.\n\n_\"Typical Modern Conceptions of God,\"_ Leighton (one volume), 1901.\n\nCicero's _\"Tusculan Disputations,\"_ (one volume), translated by\nYonge.\n\nSpencer's _\"First Principles,\"_ (one volume).\n\nJohn Fiske's _\"Studies in Religion\"_ (one volume).\n\n_\"The Truth of Thought,\"_ Poland, (one volume).\n\n_\"Scientific Aspects of Mormonism,\"_ Prof. N. L. Nelson, of Brigham\nYoung University (one volume). A work not yet fully appreciated.\n\nOrson Pratt's Works, _\"The Kingdom of God.\"_\n\n_\"Mormon Doctrine of Deity\"_ (Roberts).\n\nJoseph Smith, _The Prophet-Teacher._ (Roberts).\n\n_The Seventy's Course in Theology,_ Numbers I and II. They can be\nobtained bound together in cloth, 75c. General Seventy's office.\n\n_The Current Volume of the Improvement Era._ The organ of the\nPriesthood Quorums.\n\n\n\n_The Seventy's Course in Theology._\n\nTHIRD YEAR.\n\n__The Doctrine of Deity_._\n\n\n\n_PART I._\n\n_The Sources of Man's Knowledge of God._\n\n\n\nLESSON I.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_I.--TRADITION._\n\n  _ANALYSIS_                                            _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. Adamic Tradition._                                 Doc. & Cov.[1] Lectures\n                                                             on Faith, No. II.\n\n  _II. Antediluvian._[2]                                 \"The Gospel\" (Roberts).\n                                                             Ch. ix, 3d Edition.\n\n  _III. Postdiluvian._[3]                                Note 1.\n\n  _IV. Tradition Reversed--Child to Parent,                Note 3. Consider\n         back to Adam._                                    notes 4, 5, 6.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"Can'st thou by searching find out God? Can'st thou find\nout the Almighty unto perfection?\" Job xi: 7_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Tradition as a Source of the Knowledge of God:_ The first\nevidence men have of the existence of God comes from tradition, from\nthe testimony of their fathers; and this has been the case from\nthat event known in history as the Fall, until the present. Nor is\nthis evidence unworthy of serious attention; it rests upon a surer\nfoundation than is usually accorded it. Suppose we go back to its\nbeginning, to its first introduction into the world, and observe how\nwell founded it is.\n\nAccording to the account given by Moses in Genesis, previous to the\nFall. Adam associated with God; conversed with Him respecting the\nworks of creation, and gave names to the cattle and all living things\nupon the earth. How long continued, or how intimate this association\nwas, we are not informed in Genesis; but at all events, it was long\nenough continued, and sufficiently intimate to fix definitely in the\nminds of Adam the fact of God's existence. Then when Adam and his wife\ntransgressed God's law, their recollection of his existence did not\nvanish, but they tried to hide from his presence; and were afterwards\nvisited by the Lord, who reproved them for their sin and pronounced\nthe penalty which would overtake them for their transgression. All I\nwish to call attention to in this is the fact that they knew positively\nof the Lord's existence before their transgression, and they did not\nforget his existence after that event; but, on the contrary, had a\nlively recollection of what they had seen and heard before they fell.\nThis they related, undoubtedly, to their children, who, in turn,\ntransmitted the knowledge to their children, and so from generation to\ngeneration the tradition of God's existence has been handed down until\nthe present time.\n\n2. _Antediluvian Tradition of God:_ It will be remembered that Adam\nand all the patriarchs previous to the Flood lived to a very great\nage. Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years, and during that time\nSeth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, and Lamech,\nthe father of Noah, were born. Indeed, the last named patriarch was\nfifty-six years old when Adam died; so that for a number of years he\nmust have had the pleasure of Adam's acquaintance; while the patriarchs\nbetween Adam and Lamech all associated with him for hundreds of years,\nand would learn well the story that the grand Patriarch of our race\nwould have to tell respecting Eden before the Fall.\n\n3. _Postdiluvian Tradition of God:_ We are told in Genesis that\nwhen Lamech was one hundred and eighty-two years old he begat Noah;\nand since Lamech was fifty-six years old when Adam died, Adam had been\ndead but one hundred and twenty-six years when Noah was born. After the\nbirth of Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, so that\nNoah associated with his father, who had seen Adam, for more than five\nhundred years; and also with a number of the other patriarchs--with\nEnos, the grandson of Adam, and son of Seth--with Cainan, Mahalaleel,\nJared and Methuselah. Then, the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth,\nall of whom were born before the Flood, would likewise be acquainted\nwith a number of these worthies who had lived with Adam and heard his\ntestimony of God's existence.\n\nAgain, Noah lived three hundred and fifty years after the Flood; that\nwould give him ample time and opportunity to teach his posterity\nfor several generations the tradition respecting God, which he had\nreceived from a number of patriarchs, who lived previous to the Flood,\nand thus the said tradition became firmly fixed in the minds of men.\nThe chronology here followed is that of the authorized version of the\nEnglish Bible as summarized in the Second Lecture on Faith. Doctrine\nand Covenants.\n\n4. _The Bible Here Regarded as a Body of Tradition:_ It may be\nthought that in the foregoing notes, dealing with tradition, we have\nbeen really appealing to Revelation, the Bible--the product of a divine\ninspiration resting upon men, hence Revelation--not tradition as men\ncommonly understand tradition, viz: something handed down from age to\nage by oral communication without the aid of written memorials. But the\nBible is sometimes regarded in more than one aspect. Commonly it is\nheld to be a volume of inspired writings, revelation indeed; but it is\nalso regarded as a body of traditions crystalized into writing. As such\nit has been used in preparing the foregoing notes.\n\n5. _Reversed Order of Tradition:_ By this title I ask you to\nreverse the order of considering tradition. Instead of beginning with\nAdam and coming down through the generations to our own times, begin\nwith the child of today and go up through the generations of men to\nAdam. How do children of our generation get their first idea of God?\nOrdinarily from their fathers. In Christian lands they obtain the\n\"God idea\" in childhood at their mothers' knee. And these mothers and\nfathers from the preceding generation of fathers and mothers; and\nthese again from a preceding generation of fathers and mothers, and so\nfollowing until the stream of tradition is traced to its source, which\nthe Bible, considered as a body of tradition, now of long standing,\nrepresents to be Adam, who was \"the first man.\" It is interesting to\nnote, in passing, that the Bible tradition--when we consider the Bible\nat no higher value than a volume of tradition--is confirmed in many\nrespects by the tradition of other people than the Hebrews; namely, the\nChaldeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians and Egyptians. (See the\nSeventy's First Year Book, note 2 pp. 24, 25.[4])\n\n6. _How True Traditions Degenerated Into Mythology:_ Traces of\nthat tradition, (of the existence of God) and of these patriarchs\nconnected with it, may be found in nearly all, and so far as I know,\nin all the mythologies of the world, as well in ancient as in modern\ntimes; as well in the mythology of the civilized Greeks and Romans,\nas in that of India, China, Egypt, and that of the American Indians.\nThe tradition has evidently been corrupted, added to and twisted into\nfantastic shapes by the idle fancies of corrupt minds, but despite\nall the changes made in it, traces of this tradition are discoverable\nin the mythology of all lands. I believe, too, with Crabb, \"That the\nfictions of mythology were not invented, (always) in ignorance of\ndivine truth, but with a wilful intention to pervert it; not made only\nby men of profligate lives and daring impiety, who preferred darkness\nto light, because their deeds were evil, but by men of refinement and\ncultivation, from the opposition of science, falsely so-called; not\nmade, as some are pleased to think, by priests only, for interested\npurposes, but by poets and philosophers among the laity, who, careless\nof truth of falsehood, were pleased with nothing but their own corrupt\nimaginations and vain conceits.\"\n\nThus the tradition of the patriarchs was, in time, degraded, by some\nbranches of their posterity, to mythology--a muddy, troubled pool,\nwhich like a mirror shattered into a thousand fragments, reflects while\nit distorts into fantastic shapes the objects on its banks. Still,\nunder all the rubbish of human invention may be found the leading\nidea--God's existence; and that fact alone, however mis-shapen it may\nbe, proves how firmly fixed in the human mind is the tradition of the\nfathers; while the universality of that tradition goes very far towards\nproving its truth. Scriptural evidences that traditions are sometimes\nmade to distort truth, revealed or received from the fathers, may be\nlearned from the following passages: Matt. XV:2; Mark VII:5, 9, 13;\nCol. 11:8; II Thes. III:6; I Peter 1:18.\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. The abbreviations stand for Doctrine and Covenants throughout. It is\nexpected that the whole lecture will be read as a preparation for the\nlesson.\n\n2. What is the meaning of Antediluvian?\n\n3. What of Postdiluvian?\n\n4. References to past Year Books will occasionally be made throughout\nour course, and it should be the desire of every Seventy to have a\ncomplete set of these Year Books. Numbers One and Two bound together,\nin strong cloth, can now be had by application to the General Secretary\nof the Seventies, price 75c, post paid.\n\n\n\nLESSON II.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_II.--CREATION--THE WORKS OF GOD._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. The extent and greatness of               Psalms xix: 1-6.[1]\n  Creation._                                    Rom. 1:18. \"Evidences of\n                                                  Theism,\" pp. 167-175.[2]\n                                                  Dummelow's \"Commentary\n                                                  on the Bible.\"\n                                                  p. xcix-cv.[3]\n\n  _II. The Evidence of Design in Creation._   (1) See Seventy's Second\n                                                  Year Book, Lesson VI,\n                                                  Note 2, for sources\n                                                  of Information.[4]\n                                                  Also Notes 1, 2, 3, this\n                                                  lesson.\n\n  _III. Incompleteness of the Evidences         (2) Notes 4, 5.\n  from Creation and Design._                    (3) Note 6.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high,\nI cannot attain unto it...Marvelous are Thy works, and that my soul\nknoweth right well.\" Ps. cxxxix_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Testimony of the Creation to the Existence of God:_ When\nonce the idea of the existence of God is suggested to the mind of man\nby the testimony of the fathers, and represented as he is by that\ntradition, as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and also as the\ngreat governing and guiding power throughout the universe--very much is\ndiscovered in the marvelous works of nature to strengthen and confirm,\nalmost to a certainty, the truth of that tradition.\n\nMan is conscious of his own existence, and that existence is a\nstupendous miracle of itself; he is conscious, too, of other facts.\nHe looks out into space in the stillness of night, and sees the deep\nvault of heaven inlaid with suns, the centers, doubtless of planetary\nsystems, all moving in exact order and harmony, in such regularity that\nhe cannot doubt that Intelligence brought them into being, and now\nsustains and directs the forces that preserve them. Thus the heavens\ndeclare the existence of God as well as His glory. This thought is\nin harmony with the tradition of his fathers, and he recognizes the\nidentity between the Intelligence that he knows must control the\nuniverse, and the God of whom his fathers testify.\n\nNor is this all: but in the mysterious changes which take place on our\nown planet, in the gentle Spring, luxuriant Summer, fruitful Autumn\nand nature-resting Winter, with its storms and frosts--the \"mysterious\nround\" which brings us our seed time and harvest, and clothes the earth\nwith vegetation and flowers, perpetuating that wonderful power we call\nlife,--the strangest fact in all the works of nature--in these mighty\nchanges so essential and beneficent, man recognizes the wisdom and\npower of God of whom his fathers bear record.\n\nAs the heavens declare God's existence and glory, so, likewise, do\nthese changes and a thousand other things, connected without earth,\nuntil lost in wonder and admiration, one exclaims with Paul,\n\n\"The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly\nseen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal\npower and godhead.\" (Rom. 1:20.)\n\nOr else He calls to mind another Scripture, still more sublime--\n\n\"The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day,\nand the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their\nlight, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of\nthe power of God. * * * Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man\nwho hath seen any or the least of these, hath seen God moving in his\nmajesty and power.\" (Doc. & Cov. Sec. 88.)\n\n  \"But wandering oft, with brute unconscious gaze,\n  Man marks not thee; marks not The Mighty hand,\n  That, ever busy, wheels the silent speres!\"--Thompson.\n\nThis much we may say, in conclusion, tradition confirmed by the works\nof creation, lays a broad foundation for an intelligent belief in God's\nexistence, intelligence, power, and glory.\n\n2. _The Law of Substance and the Universe._ \"Through all eternity\nthe infinite universe has been, and is, subject to the law of\nsubstance: * * * * *\n\n1. \"The extent of the universe is infinite and unbounded; it is empty\nin no part, but everywhere filled with substance.\"\n\n2. \"The Duration of the world (i. e. universe) is equally infinite and\nunbounded; it has no beginning and no end; it is eternity.\"\n\n3. \"Substance is everywhere and always in uninterrupted movement and\ntransformation; nowhere is there perfect repose and rigidity; yet the\ninfinite quantity of matter and of eternally changing force remains\nconstant.\" (\"Riddle of the Universe.\" Ernest Haeckel p. 242. Harper &\nBrothers, 1900. See his whole chapter xii, on the \"Law of Substance.\"\nAlso Seventy's Second Year Book, Lesson V.)\n\n2. _Extent and Greatness of the Universe--The Solar System:_ The\nheavenly bodies belong to two classes, the one comprising a vast\nmultitude of stars, which always preserved their relative positions,\nas if they were set in a sphere of crystal, while the others moved,\neach in its own orbit, according to laws which have been described. We\nnow know that these moving bodies, or planets, form a sort of family\nby themselves, known as the Solar System. This system consists of the\nsun as its center, with a number of primary planets revolving around\nit, and satellites, or secondary planets, revolving around them. Before\nthe invention of the telescope but six primary planets were known,\nincluding the earth, and one satellite, the moon. By the aid of that\ninstrument, two great primary planets, outside the orbit of Saturn,\nand an immense swarm of smaller ones between the orbits of Mars and\nJupiter, have been discovered; while the four outer planets--Jupiter,\nSaturn, Uranus and Neptune--are each the center of motion of one or\nmore satellites. The sun is distinguished from the planets, not only by\nhis immense mass, which is several hundred times that of all the other\nbodies of his system combined, but by the fact that he shines by his\nown light, while the planets and satellites are dark bodies, shining\nonly by reflecting the light of the sun.\n\n\"A remarkable symmetry of structure is seen in this system, in that\nall the large planets and all the satellites revolve in orbits which\nare nearly circular, and, the satellites of the two outer planets\nexcepted, nearly in the same plane. This family of planets are all\nbound together, and kept each in its respective orbit, by the law of\ngravitation, the action of which is of such a nature that each planet\nmay make countless revolutions without the structure of the system\nundergoing any change.\" (Newcomb's Popular Astronomy, School Edition,\npp. 103-4. Part III of Newcomb's work which deals at length with the\nSolar System could also be considered with profit.)\n\n3. _Number and Distances of the Fixed Stars:_ \"Turning our\nattention from this system to the thousands of fixed stars which\nstud the heavens, the first thing to be considered is their enormous\ndistance asunder, compared with the dimensions of the Solar System,\nthough the latter are themselves inconceivably great. To give an idea\nof the relative distances, suppose a voyager through the celestial\nspaces could travel from the sun to the outermost planet of our system\nin twenty-four hours. So enormous would be his velocity, that it would\ncarry him across the Atlantic ocean, from New York to Liverpool, in\nless than a tenth of a second of the clock. Starting from the sun with\nthis velocity, he would cross the orbits of the inner planets in rapid\nsuccession, and the other ones more slowly, until, at the end of a\nsingle day, he would reach the confines of our system, crossing the\norbit of Neptune. But, though he passed eight planets the first day,\nhe would pass none the next, for he would have to journey eighteen\nor twenty years, without diminution of speed, before he would reach\nthe nearest star, and would then have to continue his journey as far\nagain before he could reach another. All the planets of our system\nwould have vanished in the distance, in the course of the first three\ndays, and the sun would be but an insignificant star in the firmament.\nThe conclusion is, that our sun is one of an enormous number of\nself-luminous bodies scattered at such distances that years would be\nrequired to traverse the space between them, even when the voyager went\nat the rate we have supposed.\" (Newcomb's Astronomy p. 104.) * * * * *\n\n\"The total number of stars in the celestial sphere visible with the\naverage naked eye may be estimated, in round numbers, as 5000. The\nnumber varies so much with the perfection and training of the eye,\nand with the atmospheric conditions, that it cannot be stated very\ndefinitely. When the telescope is pointed at the heavens, it is found\nthat for every star visible to the naked eye there are hundreds, or\neven thousands, too minute to be seen without artificial aid. From the\ncounts of stars made by Herschel, Struve has estimated that the total\nnumber of stars visible with Herschel's twenty-foot telescope was about\n20,000,000. The great telescopes of modern times would, no doubt, show\na yet larger number; but a reliable estimate has not been made. The\nnumber is probably somewhere between 30,000,000 and 50,000,000.\" (Ibid.\np. 422.)\n\n4. _The Design Argument:_ \"The Design Argument is wholly grounded\non experience. Certain qualities, it is alleged, are found to be\ncharacteristic of such things as are made by an intelligent mind for a\npurpose. The order of Nature, or some considerable parts of it, exhibit\nthese qualities in a remarkable degree. We are entitled, from this\ngreat similarity in the effects, to infer similarity in the cause, and\nto believe that things which it is beyond the power of man to make, but\nwhich resemble the works of man in all but power, must also have been\nmade by intelligence, armed with a power greater than human.\" (John\nStuart Mill. Essay on \"Theism,\" see \"Three Essays on Religion,\" p. 167.\nThe whole essay, if possible, should be read.)\n\n5. _The Evidence of a Designer:_ \"The consideration of the external\nworld around him, even in its broadest aspect, leads man up to the\nthought of an Eternal Cause; the study of its phenomena in detail\nwith its marvelous intricacy of harmonious interaction produces the\nimpression of design, and leads to the thought of a Designer--i. e., of\nan Eternal Cause that is intelligent and free. * * * * *\n\n\"The Design Argument is perhaps the most ancient and the most popular\nof all. It is never actually formulated in the Bible, for the Bible, as\nwe have seen, never treats God's existence as the subject of argument.\nBut its basis, the marvelous harmony of the created world, is the theme\nof more than one of the Psalms (cf. e. g. Pss. 19, 104, 147, 148); and\nSt. Paul comes very near to stating the argument in so many words,\nwhen he says (Rom. 1, 20) in depreciation of pagan superstitions and\nimmortality, that the 'everlasting power and divinity' of the Creator\nare clearly discernible from His works.\n\n\"Granted that the very existence of the world implies an Eternal Cause,\nwhat can we learn about that Cause? The nearest thing to a true first\nCause of which I have experience, is my own personality; hence there\nis a presumption that the world's first Cause will be at least what we\nknow as personal. But that presumption is not all we have to go upon.\nThere are definite indications in nature, when more closely observed,\nthat make it impossible to regard the Eternal Cause as a merely\nmechanical originator of the world-process, that stamp it--or rather\nHim--as intelligent and free, a nature like my own rational nature,\nonly far above and beyond it.\n\n\"Everywhere in nature we see the teleological principle (as it is\ncalled) at work, i. e., we see means adapted to ends, and the present\nsubordinated to the future. This adaptation of means to ends manifests\nitself in a bewilderingly complex way--in each individual member of\nthe great organism, in the lesser and greater groups, and in the\nwhole. Everywhere, in fact, I see traces of purpose and design--for\nsuch adaptation speaks to me irresistibly of these. My only direct\nexperience of like phenomena is in my own personality, and so I am led\nto infer a Designer.\" (\"Commentary on the Holy Bible.\" Dummelow, 1909,\nArt. Belief in God, pp. ci, cii.)\n\n6. _Incompleteness of the Evidences from Creation:_ Some extol\nthe evidences for the existence of God found in creation, out of all\nproportion to their merit. \"The wonderful structure of the universe,\"\nsaid Thomas Paine, \"and everything that we behold in the system of the\ncreation prove to us far better than books can do, the existence of\nGod and at the same time proclaim his attributes. It is by exercise\nof our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in his works and\nimitate him in his ways. When we see his care and kindness extended\nover all his creatures it teaches us our duty towards each other, while\nit calls forth our gratitude to Him.\" And again, \"the Almighty Lecturer\n(Deity) by displaying the principles of science in the structure of\nthe universe, has invited man to study and to imitation. It is as if\nhe had said to the inhabitants of this globe we call ours, I have\nmade an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry\nheavens visible to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide\nfor his comfort, and learn from my munificence to all, to be kind to\neach other.\" Far be it from me to say any word that would detract from\nany class of evidence for the truth of God's existence; and for the\nevidence to be found in the works of creation, I have the profoundest\nesteem. They do indeed testify of the existence of intelligence\nhigher than of man and these creations do convey to the mind not\nonly the idea of the existence of these higher intelligences but to\nsome extent they reveal their greatness and majesty and power; and\nalso to some extent the munificence and beneficence of their nature.\nBut the evidences of the works of nature are defective in that they\nscarcely indicate the relationship of these divine intelligences to\nman, or man's relationship to them, or the purpose and destiny of the\ncreation. Standing alone on these evidences of the creation one asks\nin vain for a complete manifestation of God to man. Not so much as to\nhis being--bare existence--but as to the kind of being he is. Is He\npersonal or impersonal? Merely \"a power outside ourselves\"? or, Is He\nnot only a power outside ourselves, but a power outside ourselves that\nmakes for righteousness? and does He hold personal relations to man,\nand men definite and personal relations to Him? Why should man obey\nGod? And what is man that God is mindful of him? On these questions\nthe revelations from the works of nature are unsatisfactory, and\ncertainly need the supplemental knowledge that comes from the direct\nrevelations of God to man. Both John Stuart Mill and Dummelow state\nthe weakness or incompleteness of this Design Argument. The former\nin his \"Theism\"--\"Three Essays\" pp. 167 et. seq., and the latter in\nhis \"Belief in God.\" Nearly all our modern writers on the subject of\nthe \"design argument\" depreciate the treatment of it by Paley in his\n\"Natural Theology.\"\n\nFootnotes.\n\n1. Cf. Abbreviation of the latin Confere, i. e. \"Compare.\"\n\n2. John Stuart Mill, the above title is a subdivision in his \"Three\nEssays on Religion.\" (1874 Edition.)\n\n3. This Commentary is a fine one-volume work, and gives the very latest\nresults of Modern Scholarship in reference to Bible interpretation. Its\narticle on \"Belief in God,\" cited above, will be published in the Era\nfor January.\n\n4. See foot note from note 5, Lesson I of this Year Book.\n\n\n\nLESSON III.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_III.--MISCELLANEOUS EVIDENCES AND ARGUMENTS FOR THE DIVINE\nEXISTENCE._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                           _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. The Soul's Innate Consciousness      A History of Christian\n  of God._                                 Doctrine (Shedd), Vol. I,\n                                             Book III, pp. 223-240.\n\n                                             General History of the\n                                             Christian Religion (Neander),\n                                             Vol. I Appendix,\n                                             pp. 557-560.\n\n  _II. The Argument from \"The General      Confessions of St. Augustine\n  Consent of Mankind.\"_                    (Oxford Translation),\n                                             Book X, pp. 186-188.\n                                             \"Theism\" (Mill), pp. 161-166[1]\n\n                                             (1) Luke x:21, 22;\n                                             John xvii.\n\n                                             (2) Acts xvii: 22-28.\n                                             Notes 4, 5, 6, 7.\n\n_Special Text: \"I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand\nat the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms shall\ndestroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.\" Job xix:25_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Patristic Arguments:_ \"The Patristic arguments for the Divine\nExistence rest mainly upon the innate consciousness of the human\nmind. They magnify the internal evidence for this doctrine. * * *\n* God was conceived as directly manifesting himself to the moral\nsense, through that Divine Word or Reason who, in their phraseology,\nwas the manifested Deity. In their view, God proved his existence by\nhis presence to the mind. In the Western Church, particularly, this\nimmediate manifestation and consequent proof of the Divine Existence\nwas much insisted upon. Augustine in his Confessions implies that\nthe Deity evinces His being and attributes by a direct operation--an\nimpinging, as it were, of Himself, upon the rational soul of His\ncreatures.\" (History of Christian Doctrine (Shedd) Vol. I, pp. 229-30.)\n\n2. _The \"Heart\" Knowledge of God:_ \"This _heart knowledge_\nis, after all, to each individual who has it, the most direct form\nof evidence for the existence of God--the personal intercourse with\nHim of our personal spirit--the communion in virtue of which we can\nsay, 'I know that there is a God because I know him. I experience in\nprayer and sacrament and meditation a conviction of His reality and His\npresence which is quite as real to me as is the conviction that those\nthings exist which I can touch and see. This conviction is clearest\nand strongest when I am at my best, and I attribute all that is best\nand highest in my character to such communion, as thousands have done\nbefore me.'\n\n\"This is the kind of Knowledge of God that cries aloud to us from the\nPsalms and Prophecies, and underlies the other writings of the Old\nTestament. And the perfection of this communion is to be found in Jesus\nChrist as portrayed for us in the Synoptic Gospels (Lk. 10:22; cf. Mk.\n13:32), but especially in St. John (5:19 cf. 10:15, 30; cf. 14:11,\netc.) and reaches its climax in the great high-priestly prayer of Jn.\n17. After our Lord's Ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit, it\ntakes the form, for Christ's members, of a fellowship with the blessed\nTrinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. (2 Cor. 13:14; cf. 1 Jn. 1:3.)\n\n\"Being, however, in one sense, a purely personal and individual matter,\nthis sense of communion is commonly thought to be too subjective to\nbe adduced as an argument for the existence of God. It is always open\nto an objector to say, 'You assert that you have this feeling; I am\nwilling to admit your sincerity, but you may be the victim of illusion.\nAll I can say is that I have no such feeling myself.' To such an\nassertion it seems perhaps inadequate to reply, 'If you will but assume\nfirst provisionally (as we have to assume many things in practical\nlife,) that existence which you cannot demonstrate, and then act upon\nthe assumption, conviction will come with experience.' Yet such a reply\nmay be enforced and corroborated with all the weight of more than\nnineteen centuries of personal experience. Generation after generation\nof martyrs and saints have testified in the strongest possible manner\nto their conviction that God is, and is a rewarder of them that\ndiligently seek him.' (Heb. 11:6); and have been ready to seal the\nconviction with their life's blood. (\"Belief in God,\" Dummelow's\nCommentary, p. c.)\n\n_The General Sense of the Divine Existence Deepened by\nChristianity:_ \"The consciousness of the God in whom we live, move\nand have our being. This, too, [by reason of Christianity] became,\nin believers, a more living, a more profound sentiment. They [the\nChristians] felt more strongly and vividly the all-pervading presence\nof that God who made himself to be felt by them in nature, and whose\nexistence to the spirit is undeniable. It was to this undeniable\nfact of consciousness, indeed, they appealed, in endeavoring to lead\nthe pagans away from the gods which they themselves had made to the\nacknowledgment of the only true God. This appears to us as the one\ncommon feature in the mode of expressing themselves on this subject,\nwhich prevailed among the church fathers, amid all the differences of\nform between those whose education had led them through the Platonic\nphilosophy, and such men as Tertullian, who--a stranger and an enemy to\nphilosophical culture--witnessed, in an original manner, of that which\nhad penetrated deeply into the vigorous but stern individuality of his\ncharacter.\" (History of the Christian Religion (Neander), Vol. I, pp.\n55-66.)\n\n2. _The Spirit of Man Intuitively Conscious of Truth:_ Somewhat\nakin to this \"Heart Knowledge\" of God is the following very remarkable\npassage in one of the revelations of God through Joseph Smith:\n\"Intelligence or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither\nindeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God\nhas placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise\nhere is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is\nthe condemnation of man, because that which was from the beginning is\nplainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every\nman whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation, for man\nis spirit.\" (Doc. & Cov., Sec. xciii.) As if the Lord would say: Truth\nis native to the spirit of man, when unrestrained by man's perverse\nwill--when he has not reached the point where he chooses darkness\nrather than light because his deeds are evil--then Truth is native to\nthe spirit of man and will, when unrestrained, intuitively rise to meet\nit as flame leaps toward its kindred flame and unites with it. And it\nis because the spirit of man refuses to live true to this quality of\nhis spirit that he comes under condemnation when rejecting the truth.\n\nThe Prophet Joseph emphasized this doctrine in his public teachings.\nOn one occasion he said: \"Every word that proceedeth from the mouth\nof Jehovah has such an influence over the human mind--the logical\nmind--that it is convincing without other testimony. Faith cometh by\nhearing.\" (Hist. of the Ch. Vol. V, p. 526.)\n\n3. _Defect of \"Soul Consciousness\" Argument:_ \"They [who accept the\nsoul conscious argument] labor under the common infirmity that one man\ncannot by proclaiming with ever so much confidence that he perceives\nan object, convince other people that they see it too. If, indeed, he\nlaid claim to a divine faculty of vision, vouchsafed to him alone, and\nmaking him cognizant of things which men, not thus assisted, have not\nthe capacity to see, the case might be different. Men have been able\nto get such claims admitted; and other people can only require of them\nto show their credentials. But when no claim is set up to any peculiar\ngift, but we are told that all of us are as capable as the prophet of\nseeing what he sees, feeling what he feels, nay, that we actually do\nso, and when the utmost effort of which we are capable fails to make us\naware of what we are told we perceive, this supposed universal faculty\nof intuition is but\n\n    'The dark lantern of the spirit\n    Which none see by but those who bear it;'\n\nand the bearers may fairly be asked to consider whether it is not more\nlikely that they are mistaken as to the origin of an impression in\ntheir minds, than that others are ignorant of the very existence of an\nimpression in theirs.\" \"Theism\" (Mill, p. 162.)\n\nThe proper answer to this argument is found in Note 2, this lesson.\n\n4. _The Consent of Mankind:_ \"As far back as Cicero in the first\ncentury B. C. or even earlier, pagan thinkers had observed that\nreligion in some form or other is a universal trait in human nature.\nAnd though in modern days apparent exceptions of 'atheistical tribes'\nhave been adduced to prove the contrary, the trend of anthropological\nscience may be said on the whole to support the judgment of antiquity.\nThere may indeed be savages (though the point has not been proved)\namong whom no definite trace of religious observance can be discerned;\nbut are they normal representatives even of undeveloped humanity?\nIs there no such thing as degradation? And have not even these poor\nsavages some vestige at least of the religious faculty? For that is\nall our argument really requires. The world-wide progress of Christian\nmissions to the heathen seems to testify quite triumphantly that no\nrace or tribe of men, however degraded and apparently atheistic, lacks\nthat spark of religious capacity which may be fanned and fed into a\nmighty flame.\n\n\"Granted, then, that the religious faculty is practically universal\namong mankind, what is the significance of this fact? From ancient\ntimes it has been regarded as an argument--often (wrongly) as a proof\nthat God exists. It is called the argument 'from the general consent of\nmankind.'\" (Belief in God, Dummelow's Commentary, p. ci.)\n\n5. _Existence of Gods by Universal Consent:_ \"In the question now\nbefore us, the greater part of mankind have united to acknowledge\nthat which is most probable, namely, that there are Gods. * * * *\n* * Here, then, you see the foundation of this question clearly\nlaid; for since it is the constant and universal opinion of mankind,\nindependent of education, custom, or law, that there are Gods, it\nmust necessarily follow that this knowledge is implanted in our\nminds, or, rather, innate in us. That opinion respecting which there\nis a general agreement in universal nature must infallibly be true;\ntherefore it must be allowed that there are Gods; for in this we have\nthe concurrence, not only of almost all philosophers, but likewise of\nthe ignorant and illiterate. It must be also confessed that the point\nis established that we have naturally this idea, and as I said before,\nor prenotion, of the existence of the Gods.\" (Tusculan Disputations\n(Cicero) Yonge's Translation, pp. 225-6.)\n\n6. _Cotta's Comment:_ On the matter of the foregoing note Cicero\nrepresents \"Cotta\" the Academician, as commenting as follows:\n\n\"You have said that the general assent of men of all nations and all\ndegrees is an argument strong enough to induce us to acknowledge the\nbeing of Gods. This is not only a weak, but a false, argument; for,\nfirst of all, how do you know the opinions of all nations? I really\nbelieve there are many people so savage that they have no thoughts of a\nDeity.\" (Ibid. p. 231.)\n\n7. _Spencer's Comment on Universality of Religious Ideas:_\n\"Religious ideas of one kind or other are almost universal. Admitting\nthat in many places there are tribes who have no theory of creation,\nno word for a deity, no propitiatory acts, no ideas of another\nlife--admitting that only when a certain phase of intelligence is\nreached do the most rudimentary of such theories make their appearance;\nthe implication is practically the same. Grant that among all races\nwho have passed a certain stage of intellectual development there\nare found vague notions concerning the origin and hidden nature of\nsurrounding things; and there arises the inference that such notions\nare necessary products of progressing intelligence. Their endless\nvariety serves but to strengthen this conclusion; showing as it does a\nmore or less independent genesis--showing how, in different places and\ntimes, like conditions have led to similar trains of thought, ending\nin analogous results. That these countless different, and yet allied,\nphenomena presented by all religions are accidental or factitious, is\nan untenable supposition. A candid examination of the evidence quite\nnegatives the doctrine maintained by some that creeds are priestly\ninventions.\" (\"First Principles,\" Appleton & Co.'s Edition of 1896, pp.\n13, 14.)\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. As these works of reference may be somewhat difficult to obtain,\ncopious notes are made for this lesson.\n\n\n\nLESSON IV.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_III. MISCELLANEOUS EVIDENCES AND ARGUMENTS FOR THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.\n(Continued.)_\n\n_I. THE ARGUMENT FROM \"A FIRST CAUSE.\"_\n\n  _ANALYSIS_                          _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. Definition of Cause._            \"Theism\" (Mill)\n                                           \"Three Essays on Religion.\"\n                                           pp. 142-154.\n\n  _ II. Necessity of Causation to       John Fisk's \"Cosmic\n  Account for the External World._      Philosophy.\" Vol. I,\n                                          Chapter vi on \"Causation.\"\n                                          \"First Principles,\"\n                                          Herbert Spencer, pp. 37-44\n  _ III. Mind as the Originator            and pp. 95-96.\n  of Force._\n\n  _ IV. The Substitution of \"Eternal    (1) Note 1.\n  Cause\" for \"First Cause.\"_\n                                          (2) Notes 2 and 3.\n\n                                          (3) Notes 4, 5, 6, 7.\n\n                                          (4) Notes 8, 9.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: Intelligence, or the Light of Truth, was not created or\nmade, neither indeed can be. (Doc. & Cov., Section cxiii, 30_)\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Definition of Cause:_ \"The power or efficient agent producing\nanything or event; agent or agency; as gravitation is the cause of the\nstone's falling; malice is a cause of crime. * * * In a comprehensive\nsense, all the circumstances, (powers, occasions, actions, and\nconditions) necessary for an event and necessarily followed by it; the\nentire antecedent of an event. _Efficient Cause,_ the power or\nagency producing anything or event; _Material Cause,_ the material\nout of which by the efficient causes anything is made; _Formal\nCause,_ the pattern, place, or form according to which anything is\nproduced by the operation of efficient causes; _Final Cause,_--God\nas uncaused and as the original source of all power, change, motion,\nand life. Styled by Plato and Aristotle the \"Prime Mover.\" (Standard\nDictionary, Funk and Wagnall.) The four last forms of the definition\nare known as \"Aristotelian Causes.\"\n\n2. _Evidence of Causation in the External World:_ \"The\nconsideration of the external world around him, even in its broadest\naspect, leads man up to the thought of an Eternal Cause; the study of\nits phenomena in detail with its marvelous intricacy of harmonious\ninteraction produces the impression of design, and leads to the thought\nof a Designer--i. e., of an Eternal Cause that is intelligent and free.\n\n\"Man finds in himself a principle of causality in the light of which he\ninterprets the external world. He cannot help regarding the succession\nof phenomena which he observes as effects--attributing each to some\ncause, When he examines that again he discovers it to be no true or\nabsolute cause, but itself the effect of something further back, and so\non. He finds in himself the nearest approach to a _vera causa._ Yet\nhe would recognize the absurdity of calling himself self-caused. And\nthe mind cannot rest in an endless chain of cause-effects. There must\nbe, he feels, if you go far enough back, a real cause, akin, in some\nway, to man's own power of origination, yet transcending it--a cause\nthat owns no cause--no source of being--but itself.\" (Belief in God,\nDummelow's Commentary, p. ci.)\n\n3. _The Mind and the Necessity of Causation:_ \"The mind is\ncompelled to believe in the necessity of causation, and that the\ncultivated mind, which can realize all the essential conditions of\nthe cause, is compelled to believe in its universality. For what is\nthe belief in the necessity and universality of causation? It is the\nbelief that every event must be determined by some preceding event and\nmust itself determine some succeeding event. And what is an event?\nIt is a manifestation of force. The falling of a stone, the union of\ntwo gases, the blowing of a wind, the breaking of wood or glass, the\nvibration of a cord, the expansion of a heated body, the sprouting of\na seed, the circulation of blood, the development of inflammation, the\ncontracting of a muscle, the thinking of a thought, the excitement of\nan emotion,--all these are manifestations of force. To speak of an\nevent which is not a manifestation of force, is to use language which\nis empty of significance. Therefore, our belief is that necessity and\nuniversality of causation is the belief that every manifestation of\nforce must be preceded and succeeded by some equivalent manifestation.\nOr, in an ultimate analysis, it is the belief that force, as manifested\nto our consciousness, can neither arise out of nothing nor lapse into\nnothing--can neither be created nor annihilated. And the negation of\nthis belief is unthinkable; since to think it would be to perform\nthe impossible task of establishing in thought an equation between\nsomething and nothing.\"\n\n4. _The \"Eternal Cause\":_ \"The argument for a First Cause admits of\nbeing (existence), and is, presented as a conclusion from the whole of\nhuman experience. Everything that we know (it is argued) had a cause,\nand owed its existence to that cause. How, then, can it be but that the\nworld, which is but a name for the aggregate of all that we know, has a\ncause to which it is indebted for its existence?\n\n\"The fact of experience, however, when correctly expressed, turns out\nto be, not that everything which we know derives its existence from a\ncause, but only every event or change. There is in nature a permanent\nelement, and also a changeable; the changes are always the effects of\nprevious changes; the permanent existences, so far as we know, are not\neffects at all.[1] It is true we are accustomed to say not only of\nevents, but of objects, that they are produced by causes, as water by\nthe union of hydrogen and oxygen. But by this we only mean that when\nthey begin to exist, their beginning is the effect of a cause. But\ntheir beginning to exist is not an object, it is an event, i. e., the\nuniting of the elements that make the water. If it be objected that\nthe cause of a thing's beginning to exist may be said with propriety\nto be the cause of the thing itself, I shall not quarrel with the\nexpression. But that which in an object begins to exist, is that in it\nwhich belongs to the changeable element in nature; and the outward form\nand the properties depending on mechanical or chemical combinations of\nits component parts. There is in every object another and a permanent\nelement, viz., the specific elementary substance or substances of which\nit consists and their inherent properties. These are not known to us\nas beginning to exist; within the range of human knowledge they had no\nbeginning, consequently no cause; though they themselves are causes\nor con-causes of everything that takes place. Experience, therefore,\naffords no evidences, not even analogies, to justify our extending\nto the apparently unmutable, a generalization grounded only on our\nobservation of the changeable.\n\n\"As a fact of experience, then, causation cannot legitimately be\nextended to the material universe itself, but only to its changeable\nphenomena; of these, indeed, causes may be affirmed without any\nexception. But what causes? The cause of every change is a prior\nchange, and such it cannot but be; for if there were no new antecedent,\nthere would not be a new consequent. If the state of facts which brings\nthe phenomenon into existence, had existed always or for an indefinite\nduration, the effect also would have existed always or been produced\nan indefinite time ago. It is thus a necessary part of the fact of\ncausation, within the sphere of our experience, that the causes as well\nas the effects had a beginning in time, and were themselves caused.\nIt would seem, therefore, that our experience, instead of furnishing\nan argument for a first cause, is repugnant to it; and that the very\nessence of causation as it exists within the limits of our knowledge,\nis incompatible with a First Cause.\n\n\"But it is necessary to look more particularly into the matter, and\nanalyze more closely the nature of the causes of which mankind have\nexperience. For if it should turn out that though all causes have a\nbeginning, there is in all of them a permanent element which had no\nbeginning, this permanent element may, with some justice, be termed a\nfirst or universal cause, inasmuch as though not sufficient of itself\nto cause anything, it enters as a _con_-cause into all causation.\nNow it happens that the last result of physical inquiry, derived from\nthe converging evidences of all branches of physical science, does,\nif it holds good, land us, so far as the material world is concerned,\nin a result of this sort. Whenever a physical phenomenon is traced to\nits cause, that cause when analyzed, is found to be a certain quantum\nof Force, combined with certain collocations. And the last great\ngeneralization of science, the 'Conservation of Force,' teaches us that\nthe variety in the effects depends partly upon the amount of the force,\nand partly upon the diversity of the collocations. The force itself\nis essentially one and the same; and there exists of it in nature a\nfixed quantity, which, (if the theory be true), is never increased\nor diminished. Here, then, we find, even in the changes of material\nnature, a permanent element; to all appearances the very one of which\nwe were in quest. This it is apparently to which, if to anything, we\nmust assign the character of First Cause, the cause of the material\nuniverse. For all effects may be traced up to it, while it cannot be\ntraced up, by our experience, to anything beyond; its transformations\nalone can be so traced, and of them the cause always includes the\nforce itself; the same quantity of force, in some previous form. It\nwould seem, then, that in the only sense in which experience supports\nin any shape the doctrine of a First Cause, viz, as the primaeval and\nuniversal element in all causes, the First Cause can be no other than\nForce.\" (\"Theism\" Mill. \"Three Essays on Religion,\" pp. 142-145.)\n\n5. _Of Mind as Originating Force:_ Mr. Mill in his treatise on\nTheism, from which the foregoing note is quoted, recognizes the fact\nthat the conclusion with which our quotation ends, is not the last\nword on the subject. On the contrary, he recognizes the fact that the\ngreatest stress of the argument comes forward at that point. \"For,\"\nMr. Mill goes on to say, \"it is maintained that _mind_ is the only\npossible cause of Force; or rather, perhaps, that Mind is a force, and\nthat all other forces must be derived from it inasmuch as mind is the\nonly thing which is capable of originating change. This is said to be\nthe lesson of human experience. In the phenomena of inanimate nature\nthe force which works is always a pre-existing force, not originated,\nbut transferred. One physical object moves another by giving out\nto it the force by which it has first been itself moved. The wind\ncommunicates to the waves, or to a windmill, or a ship, part of the\nmotion which has been given to itself by some other agent. In voluntary\naction alone we see a commencement, an origination of motion; since\nall other causes appear incapable of this origination, experience is\nin favor of the conclusion that all the motion in existence owed its\nbeginning to this one cause, viz, _voluntary agency,_ if not that\nof man, then of a more powerful Being.\" (\"Theism\" (Mill) p. 146.) The\nfact is, however, that mind, spirit, intelligence (representing one\nthing) is eternal, not first, since there can be no first. (See Notes 8\nand 9.)\n\n6. _Mind not the Sole Originator of Force:_ \"This argument,\" our\nauthor suggests, \"is a very old one, going back at least as far as\nPlato, and is still a favorite argument with certain metaphysical\ndefenders of natural theology.\" But Mr. Mill holds that \"if there be\ntruth in the doctrine that the total amount of force in the universe\nremains constant, i. e., is not diminished nor increased, but remains\nalways the same (the fact is usually called the conservation of\nforce)--then \"This doctrine does not change from true to false when it\nreaches the field of voluntary agency.\" \"The will,\" he goes on to say,\n\"does not any more than any other causes, create force; granting that\nit originates motion, it has no means of doing so but by converting\ninto that particular manifestation a portion of force which already\nexisted in other forms. It is known that the source from which this\nportion of force is derived, is chiefly, or entirely, the force evolved\nin the processes of chemical composition and decomposition which\nconstitute the body of nutrition; the force so liberated becomes a\nfund upon which every muscular and even every merely nervous action,\nas of the brain in thought, is a draft. It is in this sense only, that\naccording to the best lights of science, volition is an originating\ncause. Volition, therefore, does not answer to the idea of a 'First\nCause,' since Force must in every instance be assumed as prior to it;\nand there is not the slightest color, derived from experience, for\nsupposing force itself to have been created by a volition. As far as\nanything can be concluded from human experience force has all the\nattributes of a thing eternal and uncreated.\n\n7. _Volition Does Not Answer the Idea of a First Cause:_ Observe\nthe statement in the above note (6), \"Volition, therefore, does\nnot answer to the idea of a First Cause; since force must in every\ninstance be assumed as prior to it.\" But why must Force \"in every\ninstance be assumed as prior\" to volition? May not eternal things\nexist together as the two eternal things, matter and force, co-exist;\nas duration and space co-exist? Indeed Mr. Mill in a tentative way\nsuggests the co-eternity of will and force as a possibility. \"Whatever\nverdict experience can give in the case,\" he remarks, \"is against the\npossibility that will ever originates force; yet if we can be assured\nthat neither does force originate will, will must be held to be an\nagency, if not prior to force yet co-eternal with it; and if it be\ntrue that will can originate, not indeed force but the transformation\nof force from some other of its manifestations into that of mechanical\nmotion, and that there is within human experience no other agency\ncapable of doing so, the argument for a will as the originator, though\nnot of the universe, yet of the cosmos, or order of the universe,\nremains unanswered.\" (Theism p. 148.)\n\n8. _The \"Eternal Cause.\"_ In the passage quoted in the above\nnote, Mr. Mill is very near the truth; and if only his term \"will\"\ncould be dropped for the term \"Intelligence,\" which represents a\nlarger fact than volition merely, then Mr. Mill would be exactly\nright. Intelligence stands for consciousness, self-consciousness and\nconsciousness of not-self; for reason; for judgment, the power that\nafter ratiocination determines that this state or thing is better than\nthat state or thing; and granting also that volition is a factor of\nIntelligence, (and one sees not how it can be otherwise), grant this,\nand also that intelligence is as eternal as force and matter, and you\nhave if not every element of a first cause, at least every element of\nthe \"Eternal cause,\" which stands for the same thing--God!\n\nBut Mr. Mill insists, and very truly, that the statement last quoted\nfrom him, in so far at least as it holds that \"there is within human\nexperience no other agent capable of transforming force from some\nother of its manifestations into that of mechanical motion,\" is not\nconformable to fact. \"Whatever volition can do,\" he says, \"in the\nway of creating motion out of other forms of force, and generally of\nevolving force from a latent into a visible state, can be done by many\nother causes. Chemical action, for instance, electricity, heat, the\nmere presence of a gravitating body; all these are causes of mechanical\nmotion on a far larger scale than any volitions which experience\npresents to us; and in most of the effects thus produced the motion\ngiven by one body to another, is not, as in the ordinary cases of\nmechanical action, motion that has first been given to that other by\nsome third body. The phenomenon is not a mere passing on of mechanical\nmotion, but a creation of it out of a force previously latent or\nmanifesting itself in some other form. Volition, therefore, regarded\nas an agent in the material universe, has no exclusive privilege of\norigination.\"\n\nSo let it be. But this does not diminish the value of that\ntransformation (and in a sense origination) of force by intelligence,\nby reason of which order is brought forth from disorder--cosmos\nfrom chaos. What matters it if great spaces of matter are \"without\nform and void,\" and \"darkness is upon the face of the deep,\" if\nonly intelligence is there brooding over the mass to give purposive\ndirection to the forces there latent or blindly tumbling in chaotic\nconfusion, until light and orderly development shall bring forth worlds\nto answer noble ends. And that the 'Eternal Cause' does thus operate\nupon co-eternal force and eternal matter is witnessed by the orderly\nuniverse, everywhere giving evidence of the reign of law. It is this\nfact of an orderly universe, whose phenomena run backward through a\nchain of causes that suggest a purposive Eternal Cause, back of it.\nThis necessity for an Eternal Cause makes that cause one of the sources\nof man's knowledge of God.\n\n9. _On the Use of the Phrase \"Eternal Cause.\"_ It will be observed\nthat in the quotation made from the article \"Belief in God,\" in\nthis lesson, (Note 2) that the term \"Eternal Cause\" is used instead\nof \"First Cause.\" It is used by the author of that Article without\nexplanation. Mr. Mill uses the term \"First Cause\" and \"Eternal Cause\"\ninterchangeably. The reason for our use of \"Eternal Cause,\" instead of\n\"First Cause\" will appear in part from the quotation made from Mill in\nnote 2, where the difficulty of arriving at a cause that is not itself\nan effect to some preceding cause is pointed out; and where also it\nis shown that \"though all causes have a beginning, there is in all of\nthem a permanent element which had no beginning;\" and \"this permanent\nelement may with some justice be termed a first or universal cause.\"\nIn both Mormon Theism and Mormon philosophy, matter is eternal force,\nthe permanent element in all causation, according to the suggestion of\nMr. Mill, is eternal; and intelligence, with its power to direct force\nto purposive ends, is eternal. \"Intelligence, * * * was not created or\nmade, neither indeed can be.\" (Doc. and Cov. Sec. XCIII.) To talk of\n\"beginnings,\" then, or \"firsts,\" in any absolute sense, in the midst of\nthese eternal things, is to talk nonsense.\n\nAs Mr. Herbert Spencer remarks, \"We are no more able to form a\ncircumscribed idea of cause, than of space or time; and we are\nconsequently obliged to think of the cause which transcends the\nlimits of our thought as positive though indefinite. Just in the same\nmanner that on conceiving any bounded space there arrives a nascent\nconsciousness of space outside the bounds; so, when we think of any\ndefinite cause, there arises a nascent consciousness of a cause behind\nit; and in the one case as in the other, this nascent consciousness is\nin substance like that which suggests it, though without form.\" (First\nPrinciples, p. 95-6.)\n\nIt may be difficult, then, especially within the range of human\nexperience or even within human power of conception, to posit a cause\nthat is not itself an effect of some antecedent cause, in other words,\na \"first cause;\" but it is not difficult to apprehend an eternal cause,\nco-existing with eternal matter and force; and by the interaction of\nthese eternal things an orderly universe under the reign of law is the\noutcome. I say it is not difficult to apprehend an eternal cause. I\nmean, of course, it is no more difficult to apprehend an eternal cause\nthan it is to apprehend any other eternal thing--matter or force or\nextension.\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. Such as space, duration, matter, force. See Seventy's Second Year\nBook, all the notes of Lesson V, pp. 28-32.\n\n\n\nLESSON V.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\nSPECIAL LESSON.\n\n_ARE THE SOURCES OF MAN'S KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, APART FROM REVELATION,\nSUFFICIENT FOR AN INTELLIGENT FAITH IN GOD?_\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Reason For No Analysis:_ As in all these special lessons,\nno analysis of the subject is given in this one, the design being, that\nhelped by the analysis of other lessons, the student will exercise his\nown ingenuity in planning his treatment of the subject here presented.\n\n2. _Suggestions to the Class Teacher:_ This subject may with\nprofit be allotted to two or even more speakers. Permission should\nbe given members of the class to ask questions which the speakers in\nthese special lessons rather than the teacher should be required to\nanswer. Answering questions will be found to be a most excellent mental\nexercise.\n\n3. _Treatment of the Subject:_ From the nature of the subject\nits treatment must be argumentative. See the suggestions as to\nargumentative discourse, Seventy's Year Book No. II, pp. 68-72.\n\n4. _Introduction, Discussion, Conclusion:_ Each speaker to the\nabove important, and rich-with-opportunity question, should remember\nour old formula of the First and Second Year Book in relation to\nspeeches, lectures and discourses--viz: In what you say be sure to have\na beginning, a middle, and an end. That is to say, an introduction, a\ndiscussion and a conclusion. See Seventy's Year Book No. 1, pp. 59-60\nand also pp. 86-87.\n\n5. _Suggestions to the Speakers:_ In both the First and the Second\nSeventy's Year Book, frequent use of suggestions is made from the\nwork of Mr. Pittinger on \"Extempore Speech,\" referring therein to the\nformation of discourses, methods of preparation, gathering materials,\nthought-gatherings, and the like. In these special lessons occasion\nwill arise to quote him again on other phases of the art of expressing\nthought; and I know of nothing now that could be of more benefit to the\nyoung student than what he says in relation to the--\n\n6. _First Moment of Speech:_ \"Having completed all your\npreparations, you now anxiously await the commencement of the\nintellectual battle. This period is often a severe trial. Men who are\nphysically brave sometimes tremble in anticipation of speedily standing\nbefore an audience. The shame of failure then may appear worse than\ndeath itself. As the soldier feels more of cold and shrinking terror\nwhen listening for the peal of the first gun, than afterward, when\nthe conflict deepens into blood around him, so the speaker usually\nsuffers more in this moment of expectancy than in any that follows. You\nbehold the danger in its full magnitude, without the inspiration that\nattends it. Yet whatever effort it may cost, you must remain calm and\ncollected, for if not master of yourself, you cannot expect to rule\nothers. Your material must be kept well in hand, ready to be used at\nthe proper time, though it is not well to be continually conning over\nyour preparation. That would destroy the freshness of your matter and\nbring you to the decisive test weary and jaded. You only need such an\noccasional glance as will assure you that all your material remains\nwithin reach. It is seldom possible by any means to banish all fear,\nand it is to the speaker's advantage that he cannot. His timidity\narises from several causes, which differ widely in the effects they\nproduce. A conscious want of preparation, expecially when this arises\nfrom any neglect or indolence, is one of the most distressing sources\nof fear. A species of remorse then mingles with the embarrassment\nnatural to the moment. If the speaker has no other motive than to win\nreputation--to minister to his own vanity--he will feel terrified,\nas he realizes that shame instead of honor may be the result of his\nrashness. That man is fortunate who can say, \"I only speak because\nI feel it to be a duty which I dare not refuse--a work that I must\nperform whether well or ill. The lawyer who must defend his client, the\nminister who feels that the hour of service has arrived, the teacher in\nthe presence of his class, are examples of those who speak under the\nsame kind of compulsion that calls a field laborer out into the burning\nheat of a July noon whether he feels like it or not.\" (Extempore\nSpeech, pp. 187-8.)\n\n\n\nLESSON VI.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_IV. REVELATION._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. Definition of Revelation and             1. Seventy's Year\n        Inspiration._                          Book No. 1, pp. 140-142.\n                                                 Notes 3 and 4 of that\n  _II. The Revelation of God in the Bible._  lesson should be made\n                                                 part of this. Note 1.\n  _III. In the Book of Moses and the Book\n          of Abraham. Pearl of Great Price._   \"The Gospel\" (Roberts)\n                                                 Third Edition, Ch. x.\n  _IV. In the Book of Mormon._               (Covers all divisions\n                                                 of this lesson.)\n\n                                                 (2) Notes 2, 3, 4, 5.\n\n                                                 (3) Note 6.\n\n                                                 (4) Note 7.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth\nany man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will\nreveal him.\" Matt. xi:27_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Revelation By Divers Means:_ \"Revelation is the name of that\nact by which God makes communication to men. Inspiration is the name\nof that influence, that divine influence which operates upon the minds\nof men under which they may be said to receive divine guidance.\"\n(Cambridge Bible Helps). The inspiration may be strong or it may be\nweak. It may be so over-powering in its character that the person for\nthe time being loses largely his own individuality and becomes the\nmouthpiece of God, the organ through which the Divine speaks to the\nchildren of men. There exist all degrees of inspiration, from human\nintelligence and wisdom slightly influenced, up to that fulness of\ninspiration of which I have spoken. Revelations may be made from God to\nman in various ways. They may be made by God in his own proper person,\nspeaking for himself. On such occasions I take it that the revelation\nwould be most perfect. I know of no more beautiful or complete\nillustration of such a perfect revelation than that great revelation\nwith which the dispensation of the fulness of times began, when God the\nFather and Jesus the Christ, stood revealed in the presence of Joseph\nSmith, when every veil was removed, and the glory of God extended\nthroughout the forest in which the Prophet had prayed; when he heard\nthe Father speak to him as one friend speaks to another, saying:\n\n_\"Joseph, this is My beloved Son; hear him.\"_\n\nThen followed a conversation with this second Divine personage, to\nwhom he was thus so perfectly introduced, and from whom he received\nthe light and knowledge that laid the foundations of the great\nlatter-day work--Mormonism. There was no imperfection whatsoever in\nthat revelation; it was complete, overwhelming, and one of the most\nremarkable revelations that God has deigned to give to the children of\nmen. Revelations may be made, and have been made, by the visitation\nof angels, such as when Moroni came and revealed the existence of the\nNephite record, the American volume of scripture, the Book of Mormon;\nand who afterwards from time to time, met with the Prophet of the last\ndispensation and gave him knowledge and information as to the manner\nin which the Church should be organized, and how its affairs should be\nconducted. Then again, revelations may come through the operations of\nthe Holy Spirit upon the mind of man, as when the Prophet Joseph took\nUrim and Thummim and with them and by their aid, under the influence\nof the Holy Spirit, translated the Book of Mormon into the English\nlanguage. In a similar manner the Lord influences the minds of his\nservants when preaching the gospel, and thus delivers his word to the\nChurch and to the world.\n\nThrough all these various means God speaks, and it is our good fortune\nto be his witnesses, that he speaks in these various ways as well in\nmodern days as in ancient times.\n\n2. _The Bible Revelation of God:_ \"The knowledge of God with which\nthe Bible provides us is of a progressive character. It was revealed\n'in many parts and in many modes' as men were able to receive it. We\ntherefore find a fuller knowledge in the New Testament than in the\nOld, and among the Prophets than among the Patriarchs. Throughout the\nBible the existence of God is taken for granted; we are not supplied\nwith arguments to prove it. In earlier days men sometimes had doubts\nas to whether God felt any interest or took any part in the affairs of\nmen, but they never doubted that He exists. The Bible teaches that the\nknowledge of God is possible for us, not because he makes himself known\nunto us; i. e. we are taught that there is such a thing as Revelation,\nGod has come forth, out of the \"thick darkness\" (I K 8:12) in which he\ndwells, and has declared himself to His servants in such a way that we\nmay get a true knowledge of His character and of his purposes and of\nhis purposes for the world.\" (Cambridge Teachers Bible Dictionary.)\n(\"Seventy's Bible,\" pp. 64-65).\n\n3. _The Presence of God in the Bible:_ \"The statements about God in\nHoly Scripture are uttered with an air of authority, dogmatically; not\nas the result of a long chain of reasoning: 'The Lord said' this--did\nthat--or more emphatically, in the form of a message, 'Thus saith\nthe Lord,' the teaching of the Bible is not the result of deductive\nor inductive reasoning. No direct arguments are adduced to prove the\nexistence of God--that is assumed throughout. His attributes may\nbe the subject of argument; His existence, never. His justice, His\nwisdom, His power may be momentarily obscured by the mystery of evil\nin the world--as in the book of Job. Incidentally we may get arguments\ndealing with the nature of the Deity, as e. g. the interesting a\nfortiori argument from creature to Creator in Ps. 94. 'He that made\nthe eye, shall he not see?' etc., which logically carried out becomes\nin inference of personality in God from man's personality--there are\narguments such as these either stated or suggested in Holy Scripture,\nbut the existence of God never comes within their scope. It lies\nbehind all else; it is the fundamental conception in the light of\nwhich all else is viewed. Not only in the Pentateuch and the Prophets\nand the Psalms, but in the historical narratives--in the brief and\napparently barren records of the accession, regnal years, and death\nof the various kings, it is made clear that God's hand is at work\nthroughout the course of events, and that He is the ever-present Judge\nby whom the actions of kind and subject alike are weighed. Even in the\nBook of Esther, in which the divine name never once occurs, no doubt\nis left upon the mind as to the providential over-rulings of events\nboth great and small. Nay, in those books which are least formally\ntheological--Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, the works of the 'wise\nman,' the humanists or philosophers of Israel--the thought of God is\npresent from first to last. They do not grope and search after Him\nlike the great pagan thinkers. They set out, not to discover, but to\nrecognize Him; to learn from His dealings with nature and human nature\nmore about that divine personality who is the primary presupposition\nof all their system, and with whom their heart holds sacred communion\neven while the intellect stands baffled before the insoluble problems\ninvolved in His permission of evil in the world He rules.\" \"Belief in\nGod.\" Dummelow's Commentary, R. C.\n\n4. _The Bible \"A Picture of the World With God at Work In It:\"_\nThe Bible, as we have said, does not offer arguments to prove the\nexistence of the Deity, but it offers something which is far more\nvaluable to most of us than any abstract proof. It gives us a\nconcrete, experimental, descriptive theology. It shows us a picture\nof the world with God at work in it, which the devout, appreciative\nsoul instinctively recognizes as truth. It offers us, largely\nin the concrete form of narrative and history, a theory of the\nuniverse which, rightly understood, is found to meet the demands\nof hearts and minds alike; revealing a God whose character is such\nand whose relation to man is such that in Him both our needs and\nour aspirations find satisfaction. At the same time it incidentally\nprovides a theory of human nature (see especially Gen. 1-3) that\naffords the only satisfactory key to the raison d'etre of those needs\nand aspirations--the explanation of man's actual littleness and his\npotential greatness.\"--Ibid. D. C.\n\n5. _The Relations of the Testimony of Nature and Revelation:_\n\"In the first place, then, the indications of a Creator and of his\nattributes which we have been able to find in nature, though so much\nslighter and less conclusive even as to his existence than the pious\nmind would wish to consider them, and still more unsatisfactory in the\nformation they afford as to his attributes, are yet sufficient to give\nto the supposition of a revelation a standing point which it would not\notherwise have had. The alleged Revelation is not obliged to build up\nits case from the foundation; it has not to prove the very existence\nof the being from whom it professes to come. It claims to be a message\nfrom a being whose existence, whose power, and to a certain extent\nwhose wisdom and goodness, are, if not proved, at least indicated with\nmore or less of probability by the phenomena of nature. The sender\nof the alleged message is not a sheer invention; there are grounds\nindependent of the message itself in his reality; grounds which, though\ninsufficient for proof, are sufficient to take away all antecedent\nimprobability from the supposition that a message may really have been\nreceived from him. It is, moreover, much to the purpose to take notice,\nthat the very imperfection of the evidences which Natural Theology can\nproduce of the Divine attributes, removes some of the chief stumbling\nblocks to the belief of a revelation; since the objections grounded on\nimperfections in the revelation itself, however conclusive against it\nif it is considered as a record of the acts or an expression of the\nwisdom of a being of infinite power combined with infinite wisdom and\ngoodness, are no reason whatever against its having come from a being\nsuch as the course of nature points to, whose wisdom is possibly, his\npower certainly, limited, and whose goodness, though real, is not\nlikely to have been the only motive which actuated him in the work of\nCreation.\" \"Theism\" (Mill). From \"Three Essays on Religion.\" (1874).\n\nThe whole work can be studied with great profit as confirmation of many\nrevealed truths of our day to be found in Mr. Mill's deductions; also\nupon the same line of thought may profitably be consulted, Book III of\nShedd's \"History of Christian Doctrine,\" the chapter on \"Evidence of\nthe Divine Existence.\"\n\n6. _The Revelation of God in the Pearl of Great Price:_ The Book of\nMoses and the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price [1] follow\nthe Bible in the peculiarity of making no argument for the existence of\nGod. That existence is assumed. The opening paragraphs of the Book of\nMoses plunge one immediately into the very presence of God. Thus: \"The\nwords of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught\nup into an exceeding high mountain, and he saw God, face to face, and\nhe talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses, therefore\nMoses could endure his presence. And God spake unto Moses, saying:\nBehold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and endless is my name; for I am\nwithout beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?\nAnd, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the\nworkmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end,\nand also my words, for they never cease. Wherefore, no man can behold\nall my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all\nmy glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.\" (Chapter 1.)\n\nThe Book of Abraham with equal force assumes the existence of God, and\nits opening paragraphs deal with Abraham seeking his rights to the\nPriesthood of God, and announcing himself as one who was a \"follower of\nrighteousness,\" * * * \"and desiring to receive instruction, and to keep\nthe commandments of God;\" and so following. The existence of God is a\nsettled question; and the books here considered are chiefly of value\nbecause, like the revelations of the Bible, they unfold the nature of\nGod, and his relationship to man, rather than argue for his existence.\n\n7. _The Book of Mormon on the Existence of God:_ The Book of\nMormon, like the Bible, takes the existence of God as a thing granted;\nand only in one remembered instance is the question of God's existence\nargued. This is in the case of the controversy between Alma, the High\nPriest, and the desperate Anti-Christ, Korihor. The latter denied\nthe existence of God; Alma affirmed it. Korihor demanded a sign in\nattestation of the Divine existence. Alma appealed to the consciousness\nof God in the soul of man as manifest in his own knowledge and the\nexperience of others that were present; to the testimony of the\nprophets, to the scriptures, and to the creation, as being a witness\nto the existence of a Creator--\"all things denote there is a God; yea,\neven the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it; yea, and\nits motion; yea, and also the planets which move in their regular form,\n(order)--* * * * * witness that there is a supreme Creator.\" And from\nthis basis of testimony he affirms the existence of God, and justifies\nthe Priesthood of God, and the Church, in the course that is pursued in\nteaching faith in and obedience to God; (Alma XXX: 37-44) and the hope\nof salvation through the atonement of the Messiah.\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. For the origin, contents, and character of this collection of\nrevelations see Seventy's First Year Book, Part V, Lessons V, VI and\nVII.\n\n\n\nLESSON VII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_IV. REVELATION.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                  _REFERENCES._\n\n  _V. Revelation of God in the Doctrine           Doc. & Cov. Lectures\n  and Covenants._                                 on Faith, Lecture II,\n                                                    also Sec. xx:17-28; also\n  _VI. The Revelation of God to Joseph              Sec. lxxvi:1-24. Notes 1\n         Smith._                                  and 2.\n\n                                                    \"New Witnesses for\n                                                    God,\" Vol. I, Ch. x. \"History\n                                                    of the Mormon\n                                                    Church.\" Americana,\n                                                    Vol. iv, (1909), Ch. v.\n                                                    Pearl of Great Price,\n                                                    Writings of Joseph\n                                                    Smith, Ch. ii. Note 3.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy\nall description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto\nme calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other: \"Joseph, this\nis My beloved Son, hear Him.\" Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, p.\n85. (Edition of 1902.)_\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Doctrine and Covenants on the Existence of God:_ The\nDoctrine and Covenants in the main is a collection of Revelations\ngiven through Joseph Smith. The revelations are not a formal treatise\non theology. In all the revelations the existence of God, as would\nnaturally be expected, is assumed. \"There is a God in heaven who\nis infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the same\nunchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things that\nare in them.\" (Doc. & Cov. Sec. XX; 17). This declaration is made in\nthe revelation which directed the organization of the Church to be\nmade, on the 6th day of April, 1830. So all through the revelations,\nGod's existence is proclaimed, but never argued: \"Hear, O Ye Heavens,\nand give ear O Earth, and rejoice ye inhabitants thereof, for the\nLord is God, and beside Him there is no Savior. Great is His wisdom,\nmarvelous are His ways, and the extent of His doings none can find out.\nHis purposes fail not, neither are there any who can stay his hand;\nfrom eternity to eternity he is the same and his years never fail. *\n* * And now after the many testimonies which have been given of him,\nthis is the testimony last of all, which we give of him, that he lives;\nfor we saw Him, even on the right hand of God, and we heard the voice\nbearing record that He is the Only Begotten of the Father--that by Him,\nand through Him, and of Him the worlds are and were created and the\ninhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.\" Doc. &\nCov., Sec. LXXVI. This kind of proclamation recurs at times in other\nrevelations.\n\n2. _The Lectures on Faith:_ In the fore part of the Doctrine and\nCovenants there is a series of six lectures on faith. The lectures, of\ncourse, are not on the same level of authority with the revelations.\nThey constitute a treatise on the subject of their title drawn up by\na committee appointed from among the Elders of the Church by the High\nCouncil at Kirtland, on the 24th of September, 1834. The committee\nconsisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick\nG. Williams. (History of the Church, Vol. II, p. 165.) The lectures\nwere first delivered to a class of elders at Kirtland during the winter\nof 1834-5, under the title of \"Lectures on Theology.\" The Prophet\nalludes to the circumstance in his journal as follows, under date of\nDecember 1st, 1834: \"Our school for the Elders was now well attended,\nand with the lectures on theology, which were regularly delivered\nabsorbed for the time being, everything else of a temporal nature.\"\n(Hist. of the Church, Vol. II, pp. 175-6.) On the first of January\nfollowing he refers to the same subject as follows: \"During the month\nof January I was engaged in the school of the Elders and in preparing\nthe lectures on theology for publication in the Book of Doctrine and\nCovenants which the committee [above named] appointed last September\nwere now compiling.\"\n\nThe following is a foot note from page 176 of the History of the\nChurch, Volume II: These \"Lectures on Theology\" here referred to were\nafterwards prepared by the Prophet, (See p. 180), and published in the\nDoctrine and Covenants under the title \"Lectures on Faith.\" They are\nseven in number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the current\neditions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are not to be regarded\nas of equal authority in matters of doctrine with the revelations of\nGod in the Doctrine and Covenants, but as stated by Elder John Smith,\nwho, when the book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the\nseveral quorums of the Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17, 1835,)\nspeaking in behalf of the Kirtland High Council, \"bore record that\nthe revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were\njudicially written and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine.\"\nThe distinction which Elder John Smith here makes should be observed\nas marking the difference between the Lectures on Faith and the\nrevelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants. (See also Seventy's\nFirst Year Book, Part V, Lesson I, pp. 135-138.)\n\n3. _The Objective Reality of Joseph Smith Vision:_ Did the visions\nof Joseph Smith have objective reality, or were they purely subjective,\nmere creations of the mind? This question has been extensively debated.\nOf course, from the Mormon point of view, the visions had objective\nreality. That is to say, the Divine personages of the first vision were\ntangible, bodily persons. One of them, in fact, was the risen Christ,\nwho, when he arose from the dead left a tomb empty; who, to some of\nhis doubting disciples, on appearing to a number of them after his\nresurrection, said \"handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and\nbone as ye see me have.\" And who in further attestation of the reality\nof his bodily existence ate of a fish and honey-comb in the presence\nof these same disciples. And we have warrant even of the Athanasian\nGreed that \"such as the Father is, such is the son;\" and conversely it\nfollows of necessity that as the Son is, so is the Father! Hence the\nFather a tangible reality, a personage of flesh and bone as indeed was\nand is the Christ.\n\n_The Singularity of Joseph Smith's Vision of God:_ Joseph Smith's\nvision of God is the most singular of any given to mortal man. The\nonly other vision that approaches it is that of Stephen described in\nActs VII. \"He being full of the Holy Ghost looked up steadfastly unto\nheaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand\nof God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man\nstanding on the right hand of God.\" Then the Jews cried out with a\nloud voice, stopped their ears that they might not hear his supposed\nblasphemy, and ran upon him with one accord, and stoned him to death.\nStephens's vision of God, however, is not equal to Joseph Smith's\nvision for distinctiveness of view, and definiteness of revelation of\nthe Father's person. Hitherto it could be said--\"And no man knoweth * *\n* * the Father save the Son, and He to whomsoever the Son will reveal\nHim (Matt. xi:27); also \"No man hath seen God at any time; the only\nbegotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared\nhim.\" (John i:18.) The Father according to these sayings--except for\nthe vision of Stephen--had kept in the background of revelation; for\nthe Jehovah of the Jews--God--was but the pre-existent spirit of the\nChrist of the New Testament. (See also revelation of Moriancumer,\nthe brother of Jared, Ether III.) But when the \"dispensation of the\nFulness of Times\" was being ushered in, it was fitting that a fulness\nof knowledge of God should be revealed to the first great witness and\nprophet of that dispensation. Fitting, too, that the Father should\nintroduce the son to that witness and prophet. Nowhere else is there a\nvision of God so perfect, and glorious as in that vision with which the\ndispensation of the fulness of times opens--the dispensation in which\nit is promised that all things shall be gathered together in one--\"all\nthings in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are in earth, even\nto him. (Eph. I:10).\n\n\n\nLESSON VIII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR REVELATIONS._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                     _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. The Earth and its Relations to the             Gen. i, ii. Doc. & Cov.,\n        Universe._                                   Sec. 88:42-61. New Witnesses\n                                                       for God, Vol. I.\n  _II. The Revelations of God to Moses                 (Treatise on Joseph Smith.)\n         Limited to Our Earth and Related                 Chs. xxviii, xxix,\n         Spheres._                                     xxx. Notes 1, 2, 3, 4.\n\n                                                       Book of Moses, Chs. i,\n                                                       ii. Seventy's Year Book\n                                                       No. II, Lesson V, note\n                                                       10. Notes, this lesson,\n                                                       5, 6.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\nAnd the earth was without form, and darkness was upon the face of the\ndeep; and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.\" Gen.\ni_:1, 2.[1]\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _View of the Universe, (a) Mediaeval:_ In past ages what was\ncalled the geocentric theory, that is, earth-center theory, respecting\nthe universe prevailed. It was believed that the earth was in shape\nflat, and the immovable center of the universe; that about it circled\nsun, moon and stars in regular order. Indeed it was supposed that the\nspecific and only purpose for which the sun was formed was to give\nlight and heat to the earth; and the moon and stars were formed to give\nlight by night in the absence of the sun. Above the earth was bent the\nvast dome of the blue sky, its edges apparently resting on the supposed\ncircumfluous waters. Above the blue sky was heaven, the abode of God\nand the blest; and under the earth was the dark region of hell, into\nwhich was thrust the wicked--the damned. It was believed that God,\nabout six thousand years ago, created by a word, out of nothing, all\nthis universe--earth, sun, moon, stars, and all things in the earth.\nThat man and all living creatures were moulded from the dust, and\nthen had breathed into them the spirit of life, and so became living\ncreatures. This was the view \"authoritatively asserted by the church.\"\n(Draper.)\n\n2. _Views of the Universe, (b) Modern:_ The views expressed in\nnote 1, however, by our modern knowledge is changed. The modern view\nenforced by absolute knowledge respecting the universe is thus stated\nby John W. Draper: \"As there are other globes like our earth, so, too,\nthere are other worlds like our solar system. There are self-luminous\nsuns exceeding in number all computation. The dimensions of the earth\npass into nothingness in comparison with the dimensions of the solar\nsystem, and that system, in its turn, is only an invisible point if\nplaced in relation with the countless hosts of other systems which\nform, with it, clusters of stars. Our solar system, far from being\nalone in the universe, is only one of an extensive brotherhood, bound\nby common laws and subject to like influences. Even on the very verge\nof creation, where imagination might lay the beginning of the realms\nof chaos, we see unbounded proofs of order, a regularity in the\narrangement of inanimate things, suggesting to us that there are other\nintellectual creatures like us, the tenants of those islands in the\nabysses of space. \"Though it may take a beam of light a million years\nto bring to our view those distant worlds, the end is not yet. Far\naway in the depths of space we catch the faint gleams of other groups\nof stars like our own. The finger of a man can hide them in their\nremoteness. Their vast distances from one another have dwindled into\nnothing. They and their movements have lost all individuality; the\ninnumerable suns of which they are composed blend all their collected\nlight into one pale milky glow.\"\n\n\"Thus extending our view from the earth to the solar system, from\nthe solar system to the expanse of the group of stars to which we\nbelong, we behold a series of gigantic nebula creations rising up one\nafter another, and forming greater and greater colonies of worlds.\nNo numbers can express them, for they make the firmament a haze of\nstars. Uniformity, even though it be the uniformity of magnificence,\ntires at last, and we abandon the survey, for our eyes can only behold\na boundless prospect, and conscience tells us our own unspeakable\ninsignificance.\" Draper's Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol.\nII, p. 299. New Witnesses for God, Vol. I (Treatise on Joseph Smith)\nChapter XXVIII.\n\n3. _Larger Worlds and Larger World-Systems than Ours:_ \"These\ndistant suns are, many of them, much larger than our sun. Sirius, the\nbeautiful Dog-star, is (so far as can be judged by its amount of light)\nnearly 3,000 times larger, and therefore its system of dependent worlds\nmust be so much more important than those which form our solar system.\nIts planets may far exceed ours in size and revolve at far greater\ndistances; for such a sun would throw its beams of light and heat very\nmuch beyond a distance equal to that of our Neptune.\"--Samuel Kinns,\nPh. D., F. R. A. A. S., in \"Harmony of the Bible with Science,\" second\nedition, p. 238.\n\n\"Man when he looks upon the countless multitudes of stars--when he\nreflects that all he sees is only a small portion of those which exist,\nyet that each is a light and life-giving sun to multitudes of opaque,\nand therefore invisible worlds--when he considers the enormous size of\nthese various bodies and their immeasurable distance from one another,\nmay form an estimate of the scale on which the world (universe) is\nconstructed.\" \"Intellectual Development of Europe,\" Vol. II, p. 279.\n\n4. _The Argument Based Upon the Data of Notes One, Two and Three:_\nThe argument to be based upon the preceding notes is this: Since our\nearth, and even our solar system, as presented to us by our modern\nknowledge, is so insignificantly small and doubtless inferior to the\nmore splendid worlds and world-systems of the universe, it would\nbe ridiculous to suppose that the revelations granted to us in our\nwritten scriptures were intended to cover all things pertaining to the\nlimitless universe and its equally limitless sentient inhabitants. It\nis more reasonable to suppose that the revelations vouch-safed to us\nthrough our seers are revelations pertaining to our earth and associate\nspheres--(its heavens); our God, and those intelligences that pertain\nto our earth and that order of things with which it is associated.\n\n5. _The Vision of Moses:_ \"And it came to pass, as the voice (of\nGod) was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth,\nyea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did\nnot behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God. And he beheld also the\ninhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not;\nand he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were\ngreat, even numberless as the sands upon the sea shore. And he beheld\nmany lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants\non the face thereof. And it came to pass that Moses called upon God,\nsaying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou\nmadest them? And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that\nMoses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face.\nAnd the Lord God said unto Moses: \"For mine own purpose have I made\nthese things. Here is wisdom, and it remaineth in me. And by the word\nof my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who\nis full of grace and truth. And worlds without number have I created;\nand I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created\nthem, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I\ncalled Adam, which is many.\" (Book of Moses--Pearl of Great Price--Ch.\nI).\n\n6. _The Limits of Moses' Special Revelation:_ \"But only an account\nof this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For\nbehold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my\npower, and there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they\nunto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I\nknow them. And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying:\n'Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this\nearth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy\nservant will be content.' And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying:\n\"The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but\nthey are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall\npass away, and the heavens thereof, even so shall another come; and\nthere is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is\nmy work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life\nof man. And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this\nearth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I\nshall speak.\" (Book of Moses--Pearl of Great Price--Ch. I:35-40.)\n\n\"And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold,\nI reveal unto you concerning this Heaven, and this Earth; write the\nwords which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God;\nby mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I\ncreated the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest. And the\nearth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon\nthe face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water;\nfor I am God. And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was\nlight.\"--Thence the revelation proceeds much as in Genesis, chapters\none and two. (See Book of Moses--Pearl of Great Price--Ch. II:1-3.)\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. _\"In the Beginning:\"_ When the Bible says, \"In the beginning\nGod created the heaven and the earth\"; and \"thus the heavens and the\nearth were finished and all the hosts of them,\" it has reference not\nto any \"absolute beginning,\" or \"absolute finishing,\" but only to the\n\"beginning\" and \"finishing\" as pertaining to our earth and the order of\ncreation with which it is connected, and the \"hosts\" that pertain to\nour order of existence, not absolutely to all existences.\n\n\n\nLESSON IX.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR REVELATIONS--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                      _REFERENCES._\n\n  _III. Revelation Respecting God, Limited           I Cor. viii:5, 6.\n          to the Divine Presidency of Our              Mormon Doctrine of\n          Earth and Related Spheres.--Its              Deity, pp. 156, 159. Ibid.\n          Heavens._                                  229-233.[1] Also Sermon\n                                                       of the Prophet, June 16,\n                                                       1844. Mill. Star, Vol. 24,\n                                                       p. 108 et seq. Notes.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and\nthat there is none other God but one. For though there be that are\ncalled Gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be Gods many and\nLords many), but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are\nall things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all\nthings.\" I Cor. viii:4-6_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n[Transcriber's Note: start of this paragraph appears to be missing\ndue to a printer's error in the original.] the passage from Paul, \"We\nknow an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God\nbut one. For though there be that are called Gods whether in heaven\nor in earth (as there be Gods many and Lords many) but to us there is\nbut one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him.\" (I\nCor. VIII, 5, 6.) Commenting, I say, upon this, the Prophet said: Paul\nsays there are Gods many, and Lords many, * * * * but to us there is\nbut one God--that is, pertaining to us; and he is in all and through\nall, [i. e., His influence or spirit permeates his dominions.] But if\nJoseph Smith says there are Gods many, and Lords many, they cry:--\"Away\nwith him, crucify him, crucify him! * * * Paul, if Joseph Smith is a\nblasphemer, you are. I say there are Gods many, and Lords many, but to\nus only one; and we are to be in subjection to that one. * * * * * *\nSome say I do not interpret the Scriptures the same as they do. They\nsay it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many, and\nLords many, and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims\nof all men. You know, and I testify, that Paul had no allusion to the\nheathen gods. I have it from God. * * * I have a witness of the Holy\nGhost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in\nthe text.\" (Discourse at Nauvoo, July 16, 1844. Mill. Star, Vol. 24, p.\n108, et seq.)\n\n_2. The Argument Based on the Data of Note One:_ The argument to be\nbased upon the data of note one, and the whole subject of Lessons VIII\nand IX is this: If \"pertaining to us\" there is only one God to whom we\nare subject, then the revelations received are concerning him and his\nrelations to our race; and our race's relations to him; they concern\nthemselves with our race's past and future, and its salvation. Those\nrevelations relate to our earth and its heavens or associated spheres.\nAnd while in a far off way we may dimly know that other mighty Divine\nIntelligences exist and preside over and guide the destinies of other\nworlds, still directly associated with our world, and our race is One\nMighty Intelligence whom we recognize as the Father; another whom we\nrecognize as the Son; another intelligence, unbodied in tabernacle of\nflesh and bone, a personage of spirit, whom we recognize as the Holy\nSpirit; and these three constitute one presiding council or God-head of\nour earth and its heavens. It is no more a marvel that we should have a\nGod-head or great Presiding Council for our earth than that we should\nhave a sun for it; and our having a great Presiding Council or God-head\nfor our earth or our world-system would no more be in conflict with\nlike grand councils for other worlds and world-systems than our sun\nwould conflict, disrupt or injure other suns of other world-systems,\nsince all are of the same nature, and act under the universal reign of\nlaw that preserves the harmony and nicely balanced forces and processes\nof the universe. So, too, the divine Intelligences of the universe are\nof \"one nature in manifold persons;\" \"a system of self-acting beings\nforming a unity\"--a free harmony of individual Divine Intelligences\ngoverning their world and world-systems under the universal reign of\nmoral and spiritual laws.\n\n3. _The Three Personages of Our God-Head:_ \"Everlasting covenant\nwas made between three personages before the organization of this\nearth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth;\nthese personages, according to Abraham's record, are called God the\nfirst, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third,\nthe witness or Testator.\" (Gems, Richard and Little Compendium.)\n\nI have not been able to find this passage in any of our Church annals,\nexcept in the \"Gems\" of the \"Richard & Little Compendium.\" It stands\nthere on the authority of the late Elder Franklin D. Richards, of the\nCouncil of the Twelve, and Historian of the Church. It is also in\nharmony with the whole tenor of the Prophet's teaching on the subject\nof the God-Head, in the last year of his life.\n\n4. _The Pros and Cons of Psalms 82:6 and I Corinthians 8:5, 6:_\n\n_Mr. Van Der Donckt:_ \"Two of these texts, for instance, have the\nsignificant qualification: 'Being called gods.' A man must not be a\nlawyer to know that the fact that not a few quacks and clowns are\ncalled doctors does not make them such. \"Although there be that are\n_called gods_ either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many\nand lords many); yet to us there is but one God\" (1 Corinthians 8:5,\n6). Jesus answered, referring to Psalm 82:6, \"Is it not written in your\nlaw: I said ye are Gods? If he _called_ them gods to whom the word\nof God was spoken\" * * * (John 10:34, 35). Neither Christ nor Paul say\nthat they are or were gods, but simply that they are called gods.\n\n_Mr. Roberts' Answer:_ One wonders at this argument when he takes\ninto account the evident carefulness of Mr. V. as a writer. Jesus, whom\nhe quotes as saying, the beings referred to as Gods are but called\nGods, not that they are so, really fails to give due weight to the\nPsalm which Jesus quotes: \"I have said _ye are Gods,_ and all of\nyou are children of the Most High\" (Psalm 82: 6). Of this scripture,\nJesus says: \"Is it not written in your law, I said, _ye are Gods,\"_\nand he quotes with evident approval these inspired words of David,\nfor he adds--\"the scripture cannot be broken\" (John 10:33); that is,\nthe scripture of David saying, \"ye are Gods,\" is true, it cannot be\ngain-said. Nor is this indorsement of David's utterance weakened by\nthe subsequent remark of Jesus, \"If he called them Gods unto whom the\nword of God came,\" etc.; for, when considered in the light of all the\nPsalmist said, and all that Jesus said, the \"called them Gods\" by no\nmanner of means signifies that they were not Gods. David said, \"ye\n_are Gods,_ and all of you are children of the Most High\" (Psalm\n82:6). The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, because he had said he\nwas the son of God (John 10:36); in defense, Jesus quoted the passage\nfrom the Psalms where it is said of men, \"ye are Gods; and all of you\nare children of the Most High\"--as showing that he was but claiming\nfor himself the relationship that in the law of the Jews was accorded\nto men--sons of God, children of the Most High, and hence, he was not\na blasphemer. In other words, if the Psalmist could say to those he\naddressed, \"all of you are children of the Most High,\" why should he,\nthe Christ, be considered a blasphemer because he called himself the\nSon of God?\n\nSurely, also, the gentleman has overlooked Paul's very emphatic\ndeclaration in the parenthetical part of the sentence he quotes from\nhim, viz., \"There be Gods many and Lords many; yet to us there is\nbut one God.\" * * * * No wonder that Moses sent ringing down through\nthe centuries that clarion sentence: \"Hear, O Israel, Our God is one\nLord;\" that the Hebrew race stood as the witness of that one God, and\nfashioned their nomenclature accordingly; or that Paul said, \"Though\nthere be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth--as there\nbe Gods many, and Lords many--but to us there is but one God;\" or that\nJoseph Smith, in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, should\ntake up the same refrain as these ancient servants of God, and say,\n\"Pertaining to us, there is but one God.\" (\"Mormon Doctrine of Deity,\"\nRoberts-Van Der Donckt discussion.)\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. This reference may carry the student beyond the immediate point of\nthe subject in hand, but it will be well for him to read the pages of\nthe work indicated, and then extract from them what is there said which\nbears immediately upon the point in the lesson.\n\n\n\nLESSON X.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n(SPECIAL LESSON.)\n\n_THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS' SUPERIOR GROUNDS FOR FAITH IN THE EXISTENCE\nOF GOD._\n\n(A DISCOURSE)\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Suggestion to the Speaker:_ (a) Suggestions for constructing\na discourse or lecture will be found in the Seventy's Year Book, No.\nI, pp. 59, 60; also 86, 87; and Year Book No. II, pp. 113-115; also\n149-150.\n\n(b) The theme of this lesson will call for both expository and\nargumentative treatment. Of argumentative treatment of a subject\nsomething, and doubtless enough, has been said in Seventy's Year Book,\nNo. II, pp. 68-71, and it only remains to say a word on exposition.\n\"Exposition consists merely in explaining the meaning of a proposition\nor subject, and giving proof and reasons for the explanations made.\nIt consists in defining terms and setting forth a subject in its\nvarious relations, or \"presenting principles or rules for the purpose\nof instructing others.\" A treatise on grammar, for instance, consists\nprincipally of exposition. This Year Book is an exposition of the\n\"Doctrine of Deity.\" \"Clearness being the chief object (of exposition),\nand the nature of the subject excluding ornament, this kind of matter\nshould be presented in a neat, concise style.\" (Quackenbos Rhetoric.)\n\n2. _The First Moment of Speech:_ In our last special lesson a\nword was said in relation to the \"first moment\" of speech. Further\nsuggestions from the same authority then quoted may not be amiss\nhere. \"The most formidable and common foe of the speaker's, in these\npreliminary moments, is a general dread that can neither be analyzed\nnor accounted for. Persons who have never felt its power sometimes make\nlight of it, but experience will change their views. The soldier who\nhas never witnessed a battle, or felt the air throb with the explosion\nof cannon, or heard the awful cries of the wounded, is often a great\nbraggart; while \"the scarred veteran of a hundred fights\" never speaks\nof the carnival of blood without shuddering, and would be the last,\nbut for the call of duty, to brave the danger he knows so well. There\nmay be a few speakers who do not feel such fear, but it is because\nthey do not know what true speaking is; they have never known the full\ntide of inspiration which sometimes lifts the orator far above his\nconceptions, but which first struggles in his own bosom like the pent\nfires of a volcano. They only come forward to relieve themselves of the\ninterminable stream of twaddle that wells spontaneously to their lips,\nand can well be spared the pangs preceding the birth of a powerful and\nliving discourse.\n\n\"This kind of fear belongs to every kind of speaking, but is most\nintense on those great occasions, in presence of large audiences, when\nmen's passions run high. In mere instructive address, where the ground\nhas been repeatedly gone over and where the effort is mainly of an\nintellectual character, it is less noticeable. It resembles the awe\nfelt on the eve of all great enterprises, and when excessive, as it is\nin some highly gifted minds, it constitutes an absolute bar to public\nspeech. But in most cases it is a source of inspiration rather than of\nrepression.\" (\"Extempore Speech,\" Pittenger, pp. 188-9.)\n\nThe lesson in the above passage is that the young speaker should not\nbe discouraged because he experiences this fear--\"man-fearing spirit,\"\nit is sometimes called--at the beginning of a discourse. The more\nfrightened he is the more hope is there that, ultimately, he will\nsucceed; for his very fright, or dread, is a sure token that he has\nthe necessary nervous temperament, the sensitiveness, essential to his\nsuccess in this most wonderful accomplishment of instructive speaking.\n\n3. _Strength, Force, Emphasis:_ In the special lessons in Year Book\nNo. II, the subject of \"clearness\" in speech was dwelt upon repeatedly.\nIn this and the remaining special lessons in this Year Book, something\nwill be said of _\"strength or force\"_ in speech, and a few\nsuggestions made as to the things essential to acquire this, after\nclearness, most desirable quality of expression.\n\nThe three terms at the head of this note are used because they are\nemployed by various text books; they mean, however, the same thing.\n\nStrength, as the property of a good style in speaking or writing,\nconsists in such a use and arrangement of words as will make a deep\nimpression on the mind of the reader or hearer.\n\n\"The first requisite of strength is the rejection of all superfluous\nwords, which constitutes one of the elements of precision also.\nWhatever adds nothing to the meaning of a sentence takes from its\nstrength; and, whether it be simply a word, a clause, or a member,\nshould be rejected. In the following passage, the words in black type\nconvey no additional meaning, and, consequently, a regard for strength\nrequires their omission.\"\n\nExamples: 1. \"_Being_ satisfied with what he has achieved, he\nattempts nothing further.\"\n\n2. \"_If I had not been absent,_ if I had been here, this would not\nhave happened.\"\n\n3. \"The very first discovery of it strikes the mind with inward joy,\n_and spreads delight through all its faculties_.\"\n\nObserve the difference in strength when the unnecessary words are\neliminated:\n\n1. Satisfied with what he has achieved, he attempts nothing further.\n\n2. If I had been there, this would not have happened.\n\n3. The very first discovery of it strikes the mind with inward joy.\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\n_Conceptions of God._\n\nLESSON XI.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. Antediluvian Knowledge of God;            Genesis, Ch. iii-x.\n        Testimony of--_                         Book of Moses, Chs. iv-viii,\n        1. Adam,                                  Inclusive. Especially\n        2. Enoch,                                 v:4-9, 11, 12; vi:1; 56-58.\n        3. Noah,                                  Doc. & Cov. Lecture\n                                                  on Faith No. II, verses\n  _II. Postdiluvian Knowledge of God;            18-20; also v. 30-36.\n         Testimony of--_                        \"The Gospel\" (Roberts),\n                                                  Ch. ix (3d Edition),\n                                                  Note 1. Genesis, Chs. iii-x.\n\n                                                  Book of Moses as\n                                                  above. Lecture on Faith\n                                                  No. II, 37-56.\n                                                  Ether, Chs. I, II, III.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the\nday that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and\nfemale created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam,\nin the day when they were created.\" (Gen. v:12.)_\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Sources of Information:_ The sources of information in this\nlesson are so completely within the reach of all that notes upon the\nvarious subdivisions are not considered necessary.\n\n2. _Lecture II On Faith:_ Too much cannot be said of the value of\nthe Second Lecture on Faith in the Doctrine and Covenants. Nowhere else\nis the manner in which faith in God was brought into the world and\npreserved among men, so well worked out as in that lecture. It is a\nvery instructive bit of literature, and should be highly prized by the\nministry of the Church.\n\n3. _Parallel Between Adam and Noah:_ Each of these great patriarchs\noccupies a singular relationship to the question of faith in God. Each\nstood at the head of a great dispensation of the Gospel. Each received\nthe commandment--\"Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth,\"\n(Gen. I:28, and Gen. IX:1); and as Adam brought with him the knowledge\nof God for men from beyond the \"Fall\"--from Eden to this side Eden, so\nNoah brought the knowledge of God for men from beyond the flood to this\nside the flood, and is a great witness for God to men. Adam is Michael.\n(Doc. & Cov. Sec. cvii:54.) Noah is Gabriel. (Hist. of the Church, Vol.\nIII, p. 386); and each was the \"Father of all living\" in his day.\n\n4. _Importance of the Period Covered in this Lesson:_ To be\nwell versed in the history of the period covered by this lesson,\nis important. Especially in relation to the knowledge of God that\nthen existed among men; for the knowledge then revealed became the\nfoundation of that belief in God found in subsequent generations of\nmen in the nations of antiquity. Also in this period will be found the\nroots of those myths and fables in relation to gods, with which some\nnations and races of men were pleased to amuse, and at last deceive\nthemselves. Believe me, it is not a waste of time to study the historic\nperiod from Adam to Noah; and from Noah to Abraham.\n\n5. _Testimony of Moriancumer:_ Let the student also give more than\na passing thought to Moriancumer, the Brother of Jared, of the Book of\nMormon. He brought the knowledge of God to the Western hemisphere; and\nthe revelation of God to him (Ether: III), was most important, since it\nwas the source of the knowledge of God to that great Jaredite empire\nwhich endured for sixteen hundred years in the Western hemisphere, and\nwhich was one of the greatest nations of antiquity. (Ether i:42, 43,\nand xv:2).\n\n\n\nLESSON XII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                     _REFERENCES._\n\n  _III. The Course of Ancient Nations in             Meditation and Atonement.\n          General in Turning from God._              (President John Taylor)\n                                                       Appendix, pp. 190-205.\n  _IV. The Nations of the Euphrates Valley._       \"History of All Religions\"\n                                                       (Burder), Introduction.\n         1. Babylon.                                     Also Part VI, p. 505 et seq, Notes\n                                                       1, 2, 3.\n         2. Assyria.                                   Gen., Chs. ix, x, xi.\n                                                       Book of Abraham, Ch. 1.\n         3. Chaldea.                                   \"The World's Worship\"\n                                                       (Dobbins), Ch. v. Myers'\n         4. Babylonian and Assyrian Beliefs            \"General History,\" Ch. iv.\n            in God.                                    Burder's \"History of\n                                                       All Religions,\" pp. 511-519.\n                                                       Oxford and Cambridge\n                                                       Bible Helps and \"Bible\n                                                       Treasury,\" Articles on\n                                                       Babylonia and Assyria.\n                                                       The Book of Daniel,\n                                                       Chs. i-v.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"And I will sanctify My great name, which was profaned\namong the heathen which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the\nheathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall\nbe sanctified in you before their eyes.\" Ezekiel xxxvi:23._\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Early Corruption of the Doctrine of Deity:_ Believing that the\nknowledge of God in this world, started with the information which Adam\nbrought with him through the fall, from Eden (See Lesson I, this Book),\nand with the revelations given in his day, it is believed by the writer\nthat all traditions and conceptions of God which afterwards obtained in\nvery ancient nations were influenced more or less by that knowledge;\nand that in so far as confusion, mystery and idolatry respecting the\nbeing and character of God existed among those nations, it resulted\nfrom the early apostasy of men in ancient times from God. On this head\nthe late President John Taylor held the following strong views:\n\n\"It is an important fact, holding good of other ancient civilizations\nas well as that of Egypt, that the farther we trace back their\nreligious beliefs and mythologies, the purer does the creed become,\nthe nearer it approaches to heavenly truth, and the stronger and\nmore evident are the traces of gospel teachings. This fact alone is\nsufficient to prove that paganism had its origin in the revelations\nof heaven, from which, in its various diverse branches, it had turned\nand strayed, and by gradual growth, had become the vile, inconsistent,\ndegrading and loathsome system which is abhorred by all pure-minded,\nhonorable and intelligent people. Had the various forms of ancient,\ndominant, pagan worship been radically and entirely different, with\nonly those features in common that could reasonably be attributed to\naccident or the inter-communication of races, the inference would be\nstrong that they had different origins; but when, as is the case,\nthere is a strong family likeness, and that likeness grows stronger\nthe further it is traced back, and continually points to a common\nparentage, and that parentage is the truth as taught by the early\npatriarchs and inspired servants of heaven, our conclusions must\nnecessarily be that these correct and God-given teachings were the\nsource from whence the whole sprang, and the differences in development\narose from the varied incidents in the history, and the peculiar\nsurroundings of the various races that gave a local hue and tinge to\ntheir forms of belief.\" (Mediation and Atonement, pp. 196-7).\n\n2. _On the Great Diversity of Beliefs in God:_ \"A great diversity\nof religious opinions has prevailed in the world, and different forms\nof ceremonies have been and still are observed. The religious notions\nand practices of mankind early diverged from one another,--the 'sons of\nmen' were soon distinguished from 'the sons of God,' the impious from\nthe holy,--and notwithstanding the purgation of the world by a flood,\nand the subsequent re-establishment of one common faith no sooner did\nthe earth begin to be peopled again, than a diversity of religions\ntook place, each nation and tribe embracing some peculiarity of its\nown. Such has been the fact, through all the intervening periods of\nhistory, to the present day. Each distinct portion of the human family,\nespecially its larger divisions, has had its separate religious dogmas\nand practices, ranging from pure theism to the grossest idolatry.\"\n(Burder's History of All Religions, Introduction, p. 9).\n\n3. _On The Cause of Departure From True Conceptions of God:_ After\ndetermining, by extended discussion, that the great diversity in\nmen's beliefs respecting God does not arise from chance, nor external\ncircumstances, nor from any necessity arising from the nature of man's\nmind, nor from the want of revelation, William Burder, in his great\nwork on the \"History of All Religions,\" finds the true cause of man's\ndeparture from the knowledge of God in the radical depravity of the\nhuman heart. \"Is not that the true cause?\" he inquiries. \"It seems\nto us that it can be resolved into no other. Of the depravity of the\nhuman heart we are not permitted to doubt, in view of the decisions of\nthe Bible and the results of observation. This, existing and reigning\nin all men, by nature, would readily dispose them to a diversity of\nreligious views and practices, or rather irreligion under various\nnames. It would readily dispose them to depart from the true belief,\nand to cast off the restraints of the divine authority. They would be\nprone to invent many schemes and devices with a view to appease an\nupbraiding conscience, and to gratify that ceaseless love of novelty,\nwhich characterizes the human mind. Except in those in whom the effects\nof depravity are counteracted by divine grace, there would exist a\ncontinual propensity to depart from God and his institutions--to\nlose sight of religious truth, and become involved in gross darkness\nand superstition. In such a state, the mind is prepared for every\nabsurdity--\n\n    'Nations ignorant of God, contrive\n    A wooden one.'\n\n\"Hence have arisen the altars and demons of heathen antiquity, their\nextravagant fictions, and abominable orgies. Hence we find among the\nBabylonians and Arabians the adoration of the heavenly bodies, the\nearliest form of idolatry; among the Canaanites and Syrians, the\nworship of Baal, Tammuz, Magog and Astarte; among the Phoenicians, the\nimmolation of children to Moloch; among the Egyptians divine honors\nbestowed on animals, birds, insects, leeks, and onions; among the\nPersians, religious reverence offered to fire; and among the polished\nGreeks, the recognition in their system of faith of thirty thousand\nGods.\" (Burder's History of All Religions, p. 12).\n\n4. _Babylonia and Assyria:_ \"These were the two great Eastern\nempires before which all the old states of Syria and Palestine fell.\nWe learn their history partly from the Bible narrative, and also from\ncontemporary monuments written in cuneiform characters and recently\ndeciphered.\n\n\"Babylonia or Shinar (Gen. 10:10) is the alluvial country on the\nlower course of the Euphrates and Tigris, of which Babel or Babylon\n[the same] was the chief city. Assyria, or Asshur, occupied the\nTigris valley to the north of Babylonia. Its center lay on the left\nbank of the Tigris, where the great city of Nineveh stood, opposite\nMosul. Babylon and Nineveh were long rivals, but they had a common\ncivilization, of which the southern alluvium was the original home.\nTheir language was Semitic, but in the southern country the Semites\nseem to have been preceded by another race from whom they acquired many\nthings in their culture and religion, and to whom the origin of their\npeculiar cuneiform system of writing is generally ascribed. In process\nof time Assyria became the stronger power, and after the Egyptians\nretired from Mesopotamia, it began to push forth beyond its original\nlimits.\" (Cambridge Bible Dictionary--70's Bible--p. 14).\n\n5. _The Second Babylonian Kingdom--Or Chaldea:_ The supremacy of\nthe Assyrian Empire over the old, or first, Babylonian Monarchy, lasted\nbut little more than a century. It began 728 B. C. and was overthrown\n625 B. C. (Myers' General History, cf. pp. 33, 47.)\n\n\"Nabopolassar (625-605 B. C.) was the founder of what is known as\nthe Chaldean or New Babylonian Empire. At first a vassal king, when\ntroubles began to thicken about the Assyrian court, he revolted and\nbecame independent. Later he entered into an alliance with the Median\nking against his former suzerain. Through the overthrow of Nineveh and\nthe break-up of the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian kingdom received\nlarge accessions of territory. For a short time thereafter Babylon\nfilled a great place in history. Nabopolassar was followed by his son\nNebuchadnezzar, whose renown filled the ancient world. One important\nevent of his reign was the taking of the rebellious city of Jerusalem.\nThe temple was stripped of its sacred vessels of silver and gold, which\nwere carried away to Babylon, and the building itself was given to the\nflames; a part of the people were also carried away into the \"Great\nCaptivity, 586 B. C.\" (Myers' General History, p. 47.)\n\n6. _The fall of the Chaldean, or Second Babylonian Empire. (538\nB. C.):_ \"The glory of the New Babylonian Empire passed away with\nNebuchadnezzar. To the east of the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates\nthere had been growing up an Aryan kingdom, the Medo-Persian, which, at\nthe time now reached by us [558-529 B. C.] had become a great imperial\npower. At the head of this new empire was Cyrus, a strong, energetic,\nand ambitious sovereign. Coming into collision with the Babylonian king\nNabonidus, he defeated his army in the open field, and the gates of the\nstrongly fortified capital, Babylon, were without further resistance\nthrown open to the Persians.\" (Myers' General History, p. 48).\n\nWith the fall of Babylon the scepter of dominion, borne so long by\nSemitic princes, was given into the hands of the Aryan peoples, who\nwere destined from this time forward to shape the main course of events\nand control the affairs of civilization.\n\n7. _The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria:_ \"The religion of the\ncountry was a combination of the Shamanistic belief [1] (i. e., a\nbelief that each force of nature had its \"spirit,\" good or bad) of the\noriginal Accadian population, along with the nature-worship of the\nSemitic conquerors. Inscriptions which have been recently deciphered,\nshow that the Babylonians had accounts of the creation and deluge, in\nmany ways similar to those given in the book of Genesis.\" (Cambridge\nBible Dictionary--70's Bible--p. 17).\n\n8. _Underlying Principles of Assyrian-Babylonian Beliefs:_ \"The\nreligion of Assyria and Babylonia, was, in its essential principles,\nand in the general spirit of its conceptions, of the same character\nof the religion of Egypt, and in general as all pagan religions.\nWhen we penetrate beneath the surface which gross Polytheism has\nacquired from popular superstition, and revert to its original and\nhigher conceptions, we shall find the whole based on the idea of\nthe unity of the Deity, the last relic of the primitive revelation,\ndisfigured indeed and all but lost in the monstrous ideas of pantheism;\nconfounding the creature with the Creator; and transforming the Deity\ninto a god-world, whose manifestations are to be found in all the\nphenomena of nature. Beneath this supreme and sole God, this great\nALL, in whom all things are lost and absorbed, are ranked in an\norder of emanation corresponding to their importance, a whole race\nof secondary deities who are emanations from His very substance, who\nare mere personifications of His attributes and manifestations. The\ndifferences between the various pagan religions, is chiefly marked by\nthe differences between these secondary divine beings. * * * * The\nChaldea-Assyrian, especially devoted to astronomy, saw in the astral,\nand especially in the planetary system, a manifestation of the divine\nbeing. They considered the stars as His true external manifestation,\nand in their religious system made them the visible evidence of the\nsubordinate divine emanations from the substance of the infinite\nbeing, whom they identified with the world, his work.\" (The World's\nWorship--Dobbins--pp. 126, 127).\n\n9. _The Supreme God of the Assyrians--Ilu:_ \"The supreme god, the\nfirst and sole principle from whom all other deities were derived, was\nIlu, whose name signified God par excellence. Their idea of him was\ntoo comprehensive, too vast, to have any determined external form,\nor consequently to receive in general the adoration of the people. *\n* * * In Chaldea it does not seem that any temple was ever specially\ndedicated to him; but at Nineveh, and generally throughout Assyria, he\nseems to have received the peculiarly national name of 'Asshur' (whence\nwas derived the name of the country, Mat Asshur), and this itself seems\nrelated to the Aryan name of the deity Asura. With this title he was\ngreat god of the land, the especial protector of the Assyrians, he who\ngave victory to their arms. The inscriptions designate him as \"Master,\nor Chief of the Gods.\" He it is, perhaps, who is to be recognized in\nthe figure occasionally found on the Assyrian monuments (but probably\nadopted in later times by the Persians to represent their Ormuzd),\nrepresenting a human bust, wearing the royal tiara in the middle of\na circle borne by two large eagle wings, and with an eagle's tail.\"\n(World's Worship,--Dobbins--pp. 126, 127).\n\n10. _Doubts of a Supreme God:_ Myers doubts of there being a\nconception of a supreme God in the religion of the Bablyon-Assyrian\npeoples. \"At the earliest period made known to us by the native\nrecords, we find the pantheon to embrace many local deities (the patron\ngods of the different cities and nature gods); but at no period do we\nfind a Supreme God. The most prominent feature from first to last of\nthe popular religion was the belief in spirits, particularly in wicked\nspirits, and the practice of magic rites and incantations to avert\nthe malign influence of these demons. A second important feature of\nthe religion was what is known as astrology, or the foretelling of\nevents by the aspect of the stars. This side of the religious system\nwas most elaborately and ingeniously developed until the fame of the\nChaldean astrologers was spread throughout the ancient world.\" Yet this\nHistorian admits that, \"alongside these low beliefs and superstitious\npractices, there existed, however, higher and purer elements. This is\nbest illustrated by the so-called penitential psalms, dating, some of\nthem, from the second millennium B. C., which breathe a spirit like\nthat which pervades the penitential psalms of the Old Testament.\"\nIn confirmation of this statement, he quotes one of these psalms,\ntranslated by Jastro:\n\n    \"O, my god, who art angry with me, accept my prayer!\n\n              * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n    May my sins be forgiven, my transgressions be wiped out.\n              * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n   (May) flowing waters of the stream wash me clean!\n   Let me be pure, like the sheen of gold.\"\n                             (Myers' General History, p. 38.)\n\n\"The cuneiform writings on the tablets,\" says James Freeman Clarke,\nauthor of 'Ten Great Religions,' \"show us that the Assyrians also\nprayed.\" \"On an unpublished tablet in the British Museum, is this\nprayer of King Asshur-da-ni-pal, B. C. 650:\n\n    \"May the look of pity that shines in thine eternal face dispel my\n        griefs.\n\n    \"May I never feel the anger and wrath of the God.\n\n    \"May my omissions and my sins be wiped out.\n\n    \"May I find reconciliation with Him, for I am the servant of His\n        power, the adorer of the great gods.\n\n    \"May Thy powerful face come to my help; may it shine like\n        heaven, and bless me with happiness and abundance of riches.\n\n    \"May it bring forth in abundance, like the earth, happiness and every\n        sort of good.\" (Ten Great Religions, p. 234).\n\n10. _The Assyrian Triads--Trinities:_ \"Below Ilu, the universal and\nmysterious source of all, was placed a triad, composed of his three\nfirst external and visible manifestations, and occupying the summit of\nthe hierarchy of gods in popular worship. Anu, the Oannes of the Greek\nwriters, was the lord of darkness; Bel, the demiurgus, the organizer\nof the world; Ao, called also Bin, that is, the divine 'Son' par\nexcellence, the divine light, the intelligence penetrating, directing\nand vivifying the universe. These three divine persons esteemed as\nequal in power and consubstantial, were not held as of the same degree\nof emanation, but were regarded as having on the contrary, issued the\none from the other--Ao from Oannes, and Bel from Ao. Oannes, the \"Lord\nof the Lower World, the Lord of Darkness,\" was represented on the\nmonuments under the strange figure of a man with an eagle's tail, and\nfor his head dress an enormous fish, whose open mouth rises over his\nhead, while the body covers his shoulders. It is under this form that,\nBerosus tells us, according to Babylonian tradition, he floated on the\nsurface of the waters of Chaos. Bel, the 'Father of the Gods,' was\nusually represented under an entirely human form, attired as a king,\nwearing a tiara with bull's horns, the symbol of power. But this god\ntook many other secondary forms, the most important being Bel-Dagon, a\nhuman bust springing from the body of a fish. We do not know exactly\nthe typical figure of Ao or Bin, 'the intelligent guide, the Lord of\nthe visible world, the Lord of Knowledge, of Glory and Light.' The\nserpent seems to have been his principal symbol; though some other\nsculptured figures seem to be intended to represent Bin.\n\n\"A second triad is produced with personages no longer vague and\nindeterminate in character, like those of the first, but with a clearly\ndefined sidereal aspect, each representing a known celestial body, and\nespecially those which the Chaldeo-Assyrians saw the most striking\nexternal manifestations of the deity; these were Shamash, the sun; Sin,\nthe moon god; and a new form of Ao or Bin, inferior to the first, and\nrepresenting him as god of the atmosphere or firmament. Thus did they\nindustriously multiply deities and representations of them.\" (World's\nWorship--Dobbins--p. 128-9).\n\n11. _Observations on This Lesson:_ The notes on this lesson are\ncopious; made so because it is quite possible that the books quoted may\nnot be within reach of many of the students, and yet, of course, they\nconvey a very incomplete idea of the views of the Babylonian-Assyrians\nrespecting God. It is suggested that some of the members of the class\nmake special preparation on the subject, by a careful study of the\nauthorities cited in the references given in the analysis of the lesson\n(and other authorities), and deliver a public lecture on the subject.\nIt is really rich in points of contact with the great Latter-day work,\nwhich will suggest themselves to any well-informed Elder.\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. _Shamanism:_ \"A general name applied to the idolatrous religions\nof a number of barbarous nations. * * These nations generally believe\nin a supreme being, but to this they add the belief that the government\nof the world is in the hands of a number of secondary gods, both\nbenevolent and malevolent toward man, and that it is absolutely\nnecessary to propitiate them by magic rites and spells. The general\nbelief respecting another life appears to be that the condition of\nman will be poorer and more wretched than the present, hence death is\nregarded with great dread.\" (Century Dictionary.)\n\n\n\nLESSON XIII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                   _REFERENCES._\n\n  _V. Belief of the Egyptians:_                  Book of Abraham (P.G.P.),\n                                                     Ch. i, 16-31. Hist.\n        1. Origin of the Egyptians.                  of Ancient Egypt (Rawlinson\n                                                     1882), Ch. iii.\n        2. Egyptians a Deeply Religious              Book of Abraham, A\n           People.                                   Divine and Ancient Record\n                                                     (Reynolds), Ch. iv.\n        3. Esoteric and Exoteric Religion            Notes 1, 2.\n           in Egypt.\n                                                     Hist. Ancient Egypt\n        4. Significance of Animal Worship            (Rawlinson), Ch. x.\n           by Egyptians.                             Burder's \"Hist. of All\n                                                     Religions,\" Part vi, pp. 505\n                                                     et seq. \"Story of\n                                                     the World's Worship\"\n                                                     (Dobbins), Ch. v. Notes\n                                                     3, 4, 5.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians\nshall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation;\nyea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord and shall perform it.\" Isaiah\nxix:21._\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Origin of the Egyptians:_ Speaking of the king of Egypt, who\nwas reigning at the time the Lord called Abraham to be His witness\namong men, the patriarch said: \"Now this king of Egypt was a descendant\nfrom the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the\nCanaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and\nthus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. The land of\nEgypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham,\nand the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt,\nwhich signifies that which is forbidden. When this woman discovered\nthe land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and\nthus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.\nNow, the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the\neldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner\nof the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.\" (Book of Abraham--P.\nG. P.--Ch. 1; verses 21-26).\n\n2. _Confirmation of Statements From Book of Abraham on Origin of\nEgyptians:_ The student will find the origin of the Egyptians,\naccording to standard secular histories upon the subject--Bunsen,\nRawlinson, Wilkinson, and the Encyclopaedia Articles--wrapped in\nmystery. These facts, however, may be gathered from the authorities\nreferred to above, that tend to confirm the important information\ngiven in the Book of Abraham quoted in note 1, with reference to the\nEgyptians: \"Although located in Africa [they] were not an African\npeople (i. e., not an indigenous race). * * * * The Egyptian language,\nwhile of a peculiar type, has analogies which connect it both with the\nSemitic and with the Indo-European forms of speech, more especially\nwith the former. We must regard the Egyptians, therefore, as an\nAsiatic people, immigrants into their own territory, which they\nentered from the East.\" (History of Ancient Egypt--Rawlinson--Vol.\nI, Ch. III). The theory that the Egyptians immigrated from the\nSouth--Ethiopia--down the Nile, is discussed by these writers, but\nusually discredited. Josephus, when speaking of one of the ancient\nEgyptian kings Sethosis, says, upon the authority of Manetho, that\n\"Sethosis was called 'Egyptus,' and that the country also was called\nfrom his name, 'Egypt'\" (Against Apion, Book I:15). Which circumstance,\ndoubtless, is but a confusion of the more ancient facts related in\nthe Book of Abraham with reference to \"Egyptus,\" wife of Ham, son\nof Noah, whose descendants inhabited Egypt. Her name, \"Egyptus,\"\nsignifying \"that which is forbidden,\" proclaims her race, a descendant\nof Cain, the murderer, with whose seed the descendants of Adam,\nthrough Seth--to whom pertained the covenants and promises of the\npriesthood,--were forbidden to inter-marry. But Ham, it appears,\nviolated that injunction, and married into Cain's race. His wife's\nname was 'Egyptus,' signifying \"forbidden\"; and their daughter, who\ndiscovered the valley of the Nile and settled her sons in it, was\nalso called \"Egyptus\" (Cf. v. 23 and 25, Ch. i. Book of Abraham),\nand her name, following or, perhaps, one had better say, originating\nthe custom of ancient nations in naming lands and cities after the\npersons discovering them, or founding them, or who were prominently\nconnected with their history, (see New Witness for God, Vol. III, pp.\n139-42),--her name was given to the land she discovered and settled.\n\n3._ Ancient Egyptians Essentially A Religious People:_ The\n\"Egyptians,\" said Herodotus, writing in the middle of the fifth\ncentury before our Era--\"The Egyptians are religious to excess, far\nbeyond any other race of men.\" \"Religion permeated the whole being\nof the people,\" writes Rawlinson; and then quoting Lenormant, says:\n\"Writing was so full of sacred symbols and of allusions to mythology,\nthat it was scarcely possible to employ it on any subject which lay\noutside the religion.\" Then again: \"To understand the Egyptians, it\nis thus absolutely necessary to have something like a clear idea of\ntheir religion. The subject is, no doubt, one of great complexity\nand considerable obscurity; the views of the best authorities with\nrespect to it still differ to no small extent; but a certain number\nof characteristic features, belonging to the inner life, seem to have\nobtained general recognition while there is a still more complete\nagreement as to the outward presentation of the religion in the habits\nand actions of the people.\" (Rawlinson's History of Ancient Egypt, Vol.\nI, pp. 322-3).\n\n4. _Dual Nature of the Egyptian Religion:_ \"It appears to be\ncertain that the Egyptian religion, like most other religions in the\nancient world, had two phases or aspects: One, that in which it was\npresented to the general public or vast mass of the population. The\nother, that which it bore in the minds of the intelligent, the learned,\nthe initiated. To the former, it was a polytheism of a multitudinous,\nand, in many respects, of a gross character. To the latter it was a\nsystem combining strict monotheism with a metaphysical, speculative\nphilosophy on the two great subjects of the nature of God and the\ndestiny of man, which sought to exhaust those deep and unfathomable\nmysteries. Those who take the lowest views of the Egyptian religion,\nadmit that 'the idea of a single, self-existent deity,' was involved in\nthe conceptions which it set forth, and is to be found not unfrequently\nin the hymns and prayers of the ritual. It is impossible that this\nshould have been so, unless there were a class of persons who saw\nbehind the popular mythology, understood its symbolical or metaphysical\ncharacter, and were able in this way to reconcile their conformity\nto the established worship with the great truths of natural religion\nwhich, it is clear, they knew, and which they must have cherished in\ntheir heart of hearts.\"\n\n5. _Esoteric Doctrine of the Egyptians:_ \"The primary doctrine of\nthe esoteric religion undoubtedly was the real essential Unity of the\nDivine Nature. The sacred texts taught that there was a single Being,\n'The sole producer of all things both in heaven and earth, Himself not\nproduced of any'--'the only true, living God, self-originated'--'who\nexists from the beginning'--'who has made all things, but has not\nHimself been made.' This _'Being'_ seems never to have been\nrepresented by any material, even symbolical, form. It is thought\nthat He had no name, or, if He had, that it must have been unlawful\neither to pronounce or write it. He was a pure Spirit, perfect in every\nrespect--all-wise, almighty, supremely good.\n\n6. _The Gods of the Egyptian Popular Mythology:_ \"The gods of the\npopular mythology were understood, in the esoteric religion, to be\neither personified attributes of the Deity, or parts of the nature\nwhich He had created, considered as informed and inspired by Him Num,\nor Kneph, represented the creative mind, Phthah the creative hand,\nor act of creating; Maut represented matter, Ra the sun, Khons the\nmoon, Seb the earth, Khem the generative power in nature, Nut the\nupper hemisphere of heaven, Athor the lower world or under hemisphere;\nThoth personified the Divine wisdom; Ammon, perhaps, the Divine\nmysteriousness or incomprehensibility; Osiris (according to some) the\nDivine goodness. It is difficult, in many cases, to fix on the exact\nquality, act, or part of nature intended; but the principle admits of\nno doubt. No educated Egyptian priest certainly probably no educated\nlayman, conceived of the popular gods as really separate and distinct\nbeings. All knew that there was but one God, and understood that when\nworship was offered to Khem, or Kneph, or Phthah, or Maut, or Thoth,\nor Ammon, the one God was worshipped under some one of His forms or in\nsome one of His aspects. It does not appear that in more than a very\nfew cases did the Egyptian religion, as conceived of by the initiated,\ndeify created beings, or constitute a class of secondary gods who owed\ntheir existence to the supreme God. Ra was not a Sun-Deity with a\ndistinct and separate existence, but the supreme God acting in the sun,\nmaking His light to shine on the earth, warming, cheering, and blessing\nit; and so Ra might be worshipped with all the highest titles of honor,\nas indeed might any god, except the very few which are more properly\ncalled genii, and which corresponded to the angels of the Christian\nsystem. Such is Anubis, the conductor of souls in the lower world,\nand such probably are the four \"genii of the dead,\" Amset, Tuamutef,\nHapi (Apis), and Kebhsnauf, who performed so conspicuous a part in the\nceremonial of Amenti.\" (For Notes 4 to 6 inclusive, see Rawlinson's\nHistory of Ancient Egypt, Vol. I, pp. 323-326).\n\n7. _Significance of Animal Worship By Egyptians:_ \"To exhibit in\nsome symbol their ideas of their gods, was the very essence of Egyptian\nreligion. This brought about the grossest of superstitious worship.\nTo set forth in symbol the attributes, qualities and nature of their\ngods, the priests chose to use animals. The bull, cow, ram, cat, ape,\ncrocodile, hippopotamus, hawk, ibis, scarabaeus, were all emblems of\nthe gods. Often the head of one of these animals was joined to the\nbody of a man in the sculpture. But let it be remembered, that the\nEgyptians never worshipped images or idols. They worshipped living\nrepresentations of the gods, and not lifeless images of stone or metal.\nTheir sculptures were never made for worship. They chose animals which\ncorresponded as nearly as possible to their ideas of the gods. Each\nof these sacred creatures was carefully tended, fed, washed, dressed,\nnursed when sick, and petted during its whole life. After death, its\nbody was embalmed. Certain cities were set apart for certain animals,\nand apartments of the temples were consecrated to their use. Priests\nwere appointed to attend them. Not every animal of every kind was\nworshipped, only a few of each sacred kind were considered as sacred.\nA few of the whole number were supported at the expense of the state,\nand were attended by great personages. Certain animals were worshipped\nin parts of Egypt and detested in other parts. Thus the hippopotamus\nwas worshipped in Papaemis alone; while the Thebans worshipped the\ncrocodile; in other places they were hunted to death.\n\n\"Popularly, these animals were regarded as gods, and were really\nworshipped. By the Priests they were regarded simply as the\nrepresentatives of the gods. If a man killed certain of the sacred\nanimals, by the laws of Egypt he must die; if, however, in regard to\nsome of them the killing was accidental, then he might escape by paying\na heavy fine. (Dobbins\" \"World's Worship,\" pp. 101-2.)\n\n\"The ancient Egyptians had a tradition, that, at a certain period, men\nrebelled against the gods, and drove them out of heaven.[1] Upon this\ndisaster taking place, the gods fled into Egypt, where they concealed\nthemselves under the form of different animals; and this was the first\nreason assigned for the worship of these creatures. But there was\nanother reason assigned for the worship of these animals, namely, the\nbenefits which men often received from them, particularly in Egypt.\n\n\"Oxen, by their labor, helped to cultivate the ground; sheep clothed\nthem with their wool; dogs, among many other services, prevented their\nhouses from being robbed; the ibis, a bird somewhat resembling a stork,\nwas of great service in destroying the winged serpents with which Egypt\nabounded; the crocodile, an amphibious creature, was worshipped because\nit prevented the wild Arabs from making incursions; the ichneumon,\na little animal, was of great service to them in different ways; he\nwatches the crocodile's absence and breaks his eggs, and when he lies\ndown to sleep on the banks of the Nile, which he always does with his\nmouth open, this little creature jumps out of the mud, and leaping\ndown his throat, forces his way down to his entrails, which he gnaws,\nthen he pierces his belly, and thus triumphs over this most dreadful\nanimal.\"--(Burder's \"History of All Religion,\" pp. 507-8.)\n\n8. _Disparagement Between Moral Code and Egyptian Practice:_ \"In\nmorals, the Egyptians combined an extraordinary degree of theoretic\nperfection with an exceedingly lax and imperfect practice. It has been\nsaid that the forty-two laws of the Egyptian religion, contained in the\n125th chapter of the 'Book of the Dead,' fall short in nothing of the\nteachings of Christianity, and conjectured that Moses, in compiling his\ncode of laws, did but 'translate into Hebrew the religious precepts\nwhich he found in the sacred books' of the people among whom he had\nbeen brought up. Such expressions are no doubt exaggerated; but they\nconvey what must be allowed to be a fact, viz., that there is a very\nclose agreement between the moral law of the Egyptians and the precepts\nof the Decalogue.\" (Rawlinson's History of Ancient Egypt, Vol. I, p.\n108).\n\nThis high praise for the moral law of the Egyptian religion is borne\nout by answers that the spirit of man must make before Osiris in the\njudgment hall, where the decisive sentence is pronounced, either\nadmitting the candidate to happiness, or excluding him forever.\n\n\"The deceased is obliged to _give proof of his knowledge;_ he must\nshow that it is great enough to give him the right to be admitted\nto share the lot of glorified spirits Each of the forty-two judges,\nbearing a mystical name, questions him in turn; he is obliged to tell\neach one his name, and what it means. Nor is this all; he is obliged to\ngive an account of his whole life.\"\n\n\"I have not blasphemed,\" says the deceased; \"I have not stolen; I have\nnot smitten men privily; I have not treated any person with cruelty;\nI have not stirred up trouble; I have not been idle; I have not been\nintoxicated; I have not made unjust commandments; I have shown no\nimproper curiosity; I have not allowed my mouth to tell secrets; I have\nnot wounded anyone; I have not let envy gnaw my heart; I have spoken\nevil neither of the king nor my father; I have not falsely accused\nanyone; I have not withheld milk from the mouths of sucklings; I have\nnot practiced any shameful crime; I have not calumniated a slave to his\nmaster.\"\n\n\"The deceased does not confine himself to [merely] denying any ill\nconduct; he speaks of the good he has done in his lifetime: 'I have\nmade to the gods the offerings that were their due; I have given food\nto the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and clothes to the naked.' We may\nwell, on reading these passages, be astounded at this high morality,\nsuperior to that of all other ancient people, that the Egyptians\nhad been able to build up on such a foundation as their religion.\nWithout doubt it was this clear insight into truth, this tenderness of\nconscience, which obtained for the Egyptians the reputation for wisdom,\nechoed even by Holy Scripture.\" (Dobbin's World's Worship, pp. 110,\n111).\n\nYet notwithstanding this profound knowledge of high moral truth, \"the\npractice of the people,\" remarks Rawlinson, \"was rather below, than\nabove the common level. The Egyptian women were notoriously of loose\ncharacter; and, whether as we meet with them in history, or as they are\ndepicted in Egyptian romance, appear as immodest and licentious. The\nmen practiced impurity openly, and boasted of it in their writings;\nthey were industrious, cheerful, nay, even gay, under hardships, and\nnot wanting in family affection; but they were cruel, vindictive,\ntreacherous, avaricious, prone to superstition, and profoundly\nservile.\" (Rawlinson's History of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, p. 109).\n\nIs not the fact of this disparagement between the moral code and\nEgyptian practice, explained by the Book of Abraham, in its account of\nthe origin of the Egyptian religion?\n\n\"Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the\neldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner\nof the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a\nrighteous man, established his kingdom, and judged his people wisely\nand justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order\nestablished by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of\nthe first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of\nNoah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth,\nand with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the\nPriesthood.\" (Book of Abraham, Ch. i; 25-6).\n\nThe moral law of the Egyptian religion, then, was doubtless copied\nfrom the true religion of the Antediluvian patriarchs by this wise\nand righteous Pharaoh; but being left in the hands of a people who\nsoon fell away from righteous principles to the practice of gross\nsensualism, the divergence between moral theory and moral practice soon\nset in and drifted ever wider and wider apart, until we have the result\nobserved and commented upon by the authorities above quoted.\n\n9. _Observations on this Lesson:_ Read Note II, Lesson XII, and\naccept explanation there made as to copious notes for this lesson. Also\nadopt suggestion as to larger treatment of this lesson.\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. This is, doubtless, the \"War in heaven\" of the Hebrew Scriptures,\nwith the results reversed.\n\n\n\nLESSON XIV.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                     _REFERENCES._\n\n  _VI. Beliefs of the Phoenicians and Their         Myers \"General History.\"\n         Colonies._                                   Ch. vii. \"Mythologies\n                                                      of All Nations\"\n         1. The Phoenicians.                          (Crabb), Chs. lv and lvi.\n                                                      \"The Story of the\n         2. Their Principal Deities.                  World's Worship\" (Dobbins),\n                                                         p. 142 et seq.\n\n  _VII. Persian Ideas of God, and Worship._       Myers' \"General History,\"\n          1. The Persians.                            Ch. viii. Book of\n          2. Persian Religion and Worship.            Daniel, the Prophet.\n                                                      Burder's \"History of All\n                                                      Religions,\" p. 519 et seq.\n                                                      Ten Great Religions\n                                                      (Clarke), Ch. 1, and the\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus: * * * *\nI, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. I am\nthe Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside Me; I girded\nthee, though thou hast not known Me.\" (Isaiah xlv:1, 2, 3.)_\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Phoenicians:_ \"Ancient Phoenicia embraced a little strip\nof broken seacoast lying between the Mediterranean Sea and the ranges\nof Mount Lebanon. * * * The Phoenicians were of Semitic race. Their\nancestors lived in the neighborhood of the Persian Gulf. From their\nseats in that region they migrated westward, like the ancestors of the\nHebrews, and reached the Mediterranean before the light of history had\nfallen upon its shores. The various Phoenician cities never coalesced\nto form a true nation. They constituted merely a sort of league or\nconfederacy, the petty states of which generally acknowledged the\nleadership of Tyre or of Sidon, the two chief cities. The place of\nsupremacy in the confederation was at first held by Sidon, but later by\nTyre.\n\n\"The greatest of the Phoenician colonies was Carthage, on the northern\ncoast of Africa, founded by Dido, a Tyrian princess, 878 B. C. For\nawhile, Carthage contested the mastery of the world with Rome.\" (Myers'\nGeneral History, p. 54.)\n\n2. _The Gods of the Phoenicians:_ \"The Phoenicians had somewhat the\nsame religious notions as the Babylonians, and worshipped some of the\nsame gods, Baal for instance\" (Crabb Ch. lv.). \"Baal was the supreme\nmale divinity of the Phoenician and Canaanitish nations. Ashtoreth was\ntheir female divinity. The name Baal means lord. He was the sun-god.\nThe name is generally used in connection with other names as Baal-Gad,\nthat is Baal the Fortune-bringer; Baal-Berith or Covenant-making Baal;\nBaal-Zebub, the Fly-god. The people of Israel worshipped Baal up to the\ntime of Samuel, at whose rebuke they forsook this iniquity for nearly\na hundred years. The practice was introduced again in the time of\nSolomon, and continued to the days of the captivity.\" (Dobbin's World's\nWorship, p. 142).\n\nIt was with the priests of Baal, on Mount Carmal, that Elijah had his\ngreat contest, in which Jehovah was vindicated as God. (See I Kings,\nxviii.)\n\n3. _The Worship of Moloch:_ Saturn was most honored by the\nCarthaginians a colony of the Phoenicians, be it remembered; and Saturn\nwas the Moloch of the Jewish scripture.\n\n\"This idol was the deity to whom they offered up human sacrifices, and\nto this we owe the fable of Saturn's having devoured his own children.\nPrinces and great men, under particular calamities, used to offer up\ntheir most beloved children to this idol. Private persons imitated\nthe conduct of their princes, and thus, in time, the practice became\ngeneral; nay, to such a height did they carry their infatuation, that\nthose who had no children of their own purchased those of the poor,\nthat they might not be deprived of the benefits of such a sacrifice,\nwhich was to procure them the completion of their wishes. This horrid\ncustom prevailed long among the Phoenicians, the Tyrians, and the\nCarthaginians; and from them the Israelites borrowed it, although\nexpressly contrary to the order of God.\n\n\"The original practice was to burn these innocent children in a fiery\nfurnace, like those in the valley of Hinnom, so often mentioned in\nScripture; and sometimes they put them into a hollow brass statue\nof Saturn, flaming hot. To drown the cries of the unhappy victims,\nmusicians were ordered to play on different instruments--and\nmothers--shocking thought!--made it a sort of merit to divest\nthemselves of natural affections while they beheld the barbarous\nspectacle. If it happened that a tear dropped from the eyes of a\nmother, then the sacrifice was considered as of no effect; and the\nparent who had that remaining spark of tenderness was considered as an\nenemy to the public religion. In later times they contented themselves\nwith making their children walk between two slow fires to the statue\nof the idol; but this was only a more slow and excruciating torture,\nfor the innocent victims always perished. This is what, in Scripture,\nis called the making their sons and daughters pass through the fire to\nMoloch; and barbarous as it was, yet those very Israelites in whose\nfavor God had wrought so many wonders, demeaned themselves so low as\nto comply with it.\" (II Kings, xvi and xxi.) (Burder's History of All\nReligions, pp. 510, 511).\n\n4. _The Persians:_ \"In remote times some Aryan tribes, separating\nfrom the other members of the Aryan family, sought new abodes on the\nplateau of Iran (East of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, and between\nthe Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf). The tribes that settled in the\nsouth became known as the Persians, while those that took possession\nof the mountain regions of the northwest were called Medes. The names\nof the two peoples were always very closely associated, as in the\nfamiliar legend, 'The law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth\nnot.' The Medes were at first the leading people. But the leadership\nof the Median chieftains was of short duration. A certain Cyrus, king\nof Anshan, in Elam, overthrew their power, assumed the leadership of\nboth Medes and Persians, and soon built up an empire more extended, so\nfar as we know, than any established before his time.\" (Myers' General\nHistory p. 59).\n\n5. _Persian Literature:_ \"The literature of the ancient Persians\nwas mostly religious. Their sacred book is called the Zend-Avesta. The\nreligious system it teaches is known as Zoroastrianism, from Zoroaster,\nits supposed founder. This great reformer and teacher is believed to\nhave lived and taught about six centuries before our era.\n\n\"Zoroastrianism was a system of belief known as dualism. Opposed to\nthe \"good spirit,\" Ormazd (Ahura Mazda), there was a \"dark spirit,\"\nAhriman (Angro-Mainyus), who was constantly striving to destroy the\ngood creations of Ormazd by creating all evil things;--storm, drought,\npestilence, noxious animals, weeds and thorns in the world without, and\nevil in the heart of man within. From all eternity these two powers\nhad been contending for the mastery; in the present, neither had the\ndecided advantage, but in the near future Ormazd would triumph over\nAhriman, and evil be forever destroyed.\n\n\"The duty of man was to aid Ormazd by working with him against the\nevil-loving Ahriman. He must labor to eradicate every evil and vice\nin his own bosom, to reclaim the earth from barrenness, and to kill\nall noxious animals--frogs, toads, snakes, lizards--which Ahriman had\ncreated. Herodotus saw with amazement the priests armed with weapons\nand engaged in slaying these animals as a pious pastime.\" (Myers'\nGeneral History, p. 63).\n\n6. _The Religion of the Persians:_ \"The religion of the Medes and\nPersians was of great antiquity, and probably taught by one of the\ngrandsons of Noah, who planted colonies in those parts, soon after the\nconfusion of languages. Noah had taught his children the knowledge of\nthe true God; and that they were to trust in His mercy, through the\nmediation of a Redeemer. In Persia, the first idolaters were called\nSabians, who adored the rising sun with the profoundest veneration. To\nthat planet they consecrated a most magnificent chariot, to be drawn by\nhorses of the greatest beauty and magnitude, on every solemn festival.\nThe same ceremony was practiced by many other heathens, who undoubtedly\nlearned it from the Persian and other Eastern nations.\n\n\"In consequence of the veneration they paid to the sun, they worshipped\nthe fire, and invoked it in all their sacrifices, in their marches\nthey carried it before their kings, and none but the priests were\npermitted to touch it, because they made the people believe that it\ncame down from heaven. But their adoration was not confined to the\nsun; they worshipped the water, the earth, and the winds, as so many\ndeities. Human sacrifices were offered by them; and they burnt their\nchildren in fiery furnaces, appropriated to their idols. These Medes\nand Persians at first worshipped two gods, namely, Arimanius, the god\nof evil, and Oromasdes, the giver of all good. By some it was believed\nthat the good god was from eternity, and the evil one created; but they\nall agreed that they would continue to the end of time, and that the\ngood god would overcome the evil one. They considered darkness as the\nsymbol of the evil god, and light as the image of the good one. They\nheld Arimanius, the evil god, in such detestation that they always\nwrote his name backward. Some ancient writers have given us a very odd\naccount of the origin of this god Arimanius, which may serve to point\nout their ignorance of divine things. Oromasdes, say they, considering\nthat he was alone, said to himself, 'It I have no one to oppose me,\nwhere, then, is all my glory?' This single reflection of his created\nArimanius, who, by his everlasting opposition to the divine will,\ncontributed against inclination to the glory of Oromasdes.\" (Burder's\nHistory of All Religions, pp. 520, 521).\n\n7. _Persian Worship:_ \"The great monarchy of Persia, founded\nby Cyrus 100 years before, is now at this period (430 years before\nChrist), already tending toward its decline. A hundred years later,\nit is to fall before the triumphant march of Alexander and his\nMacedonians. But now it still retains the ancient faith of Zoroaster,\nthough modified by the developments of a thousand years. Herodotus\ndescribes it as it existed at the period of which we speak. In his\ninsatiate desire for knowledge, he had gathered up all that he could\nlearn of Persia, and says: 'It is not customary for the Persians to\nhave idols, temples, or altars. They offer sacrifices on the summits\nof mountains, not erecting altars or kindling fires, but they carry\nthe animal to a pure spot, and there the sacrificer prays for the\nprosperity of the empire, the king, and all others.' * * * * * 'The\nPersians believe fire to be a god.'\n\n\"Herodotus we find to be correct. Here are no temples, no altars,\nno idol worship of any kind. The Supreme Being is worshipped by one\nsymbol--fire, which is pure and purifies all things. The prayers are\nfor purity, the libation the juice of a plant. Ormazd has created\neverything good, and all his creatures are pure. Listen to the priest\nchanting the litany, thus: 'I invoke and celebrate Ahura Mazda,\nbrilliant, greatest, best. All perfect, all-powerful, all-wise,\nall-beautiful, only source of knowledge and happiness; he has created\nus, he has formed us, he sustains us.' 'He belongs to those who think\ngood; to those who think evil he does not belong.' He belongs to those\nwho speak good; to those who speak evil he does not belong. He belongs\nto those who do good; to those who do evil he does not belong.' This is\nthe religion of the great race who founded the Persian Empire.\n\n\"To these worshippers life did not seem to be a gay festival, as\nto the Greeks, nor a single step on the long pathway of the soul's\ntransmigration, as to the Egyptians; but a field of battle between\nmighty powers of good and evil, where Ormazd and Ahriman meet in daily\nconflict, and where the servant of God is to maintain a perpetual\nbattle against the powers of darkness, by cherishing good thoughts,\ngood words, and good actions.\" (Ten Great Religions--Clarke--pp. 11, 12)\n\n8. _Changes in the Persian Religion:_ \"The religion of the Persians\nunderwent a variety of very remarkable revolutions; for the Sabians,\nhaving fallen into disgrace, they were succeeded by another sect,\ncalled the Magi; who, on account of their pretensions to superior\nknowledge and sanctity, became extremely popular among the vulgar.\nNay, such was the respect paid to them, that no king could take\npossession of the throne till he had been first instructed in their\nprinciples; nor could they determine any affair of importance till it\nhad received their approbation. They were at the head both of religion\nand philosophy; and the education of all the youth in the kingdom was\ncommitted to their care.\n\n\"It is the general opinion, that the founder of the Magian religion\nwas one Zoroaster, who lived about the year of the world 2,900; and\nit continued to be the established religion of the country for many\nyears after. The priests kept up continual fires in their temples; and\nstanding before these fires with mitres on their heads, they daily\nrepeated a great number of prayers. The name of their chief temple was\nAmanus, or Namanus, which signifies the sun; and is the same with what\nwe find under the name of Baal in Scripture. Their great reputation\ninduced people to visit them from all parts of the known world, to\nbe instructed by them in the principles of philosophy and mythology;\nand we are assured that the great Pythagoras studied many years under\nthem.\" (Burder's History of All Religions, p. 521).\n\n\n\nLESSON XV.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_SPECIAL LESSON._\n\n_THE JAREDITE EMPIRE AND THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE PEOPLE._\n\n(A SUGGESTED LECTURE)\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Adoption of Previous Suggestions:_ The previous suggestions\nand explanations in these special lessons (Lessons V and X), may be\nadopted here both by the Teachers and those to whom this lesson shall\nbe assigned.\n\n2. _The Jaredite Empire:_ This nation was contemporary with those\nnations whose religions and gods we have been studying thus far.\nIndeed, it had its origin about the same time that Babylon, Assyria\nand Egypt had; as well as to run its course with them. It will be of\nundoubted interest to the students to bring together in the form of a\nlecture so much as may be learned of the religion and worship of this\nWestern-world-contemporary of Babylon, Assyria and Egypt.\n\n3. _Sources of Information:_ The chief source of information for\nthe proposed lecture will be Moroni's Abridgment of the writings of\nEther in the Book of Mormon, and those casual references made to the\nJaredite people in other parts of the Book of Mormon, all of which\nshould be carefully sought out, as they throw important light upon\nthe character of this ancient people and Empire of the Western world.\nAlso the student will find help by consulting Roberts' New Witnesses\nfor God, Vol. II, Ch. x; also Chs. from xxiv. to xxix; and Vol. III,\nCh. xxxi. Reynolds' Dictionary of the Book of Mormon, Art. \"Jaredite,\"\n\"Jared,\" \"Jared, Brother of,\" etc.\n\n4. _Suggestions to Speakers:_ We renew our topic, \"Suggestions to\nSpeakers,\" last dealt with in Lesson X. We are still dealing with the\n\"First Moments of Speech,\" and again quote Mr. Pittenger:\n\n_First Moments of Speech:_ \"There is a strange sensation often\nexperienced in the presence of an audience. It may proceed from the\ngaze of the many eyes that turn upon the speaker, especially if he\npermits himself to steadily return that gaze. Most speakers have been\nconscious of this in a nameless thrill, a real something, pervading the\natmosphere, tangible, evanescent, indescribable. All writers have borne\ntestimony to the power of a speaker's eye in impressing an audience.\nThis influence, which we are now considering, is the reverse of that\npicture--the power _their_ eyes may exert upon him, especially\nbefore he begins to speak; after the inward fires of oratory are fanned\ninto flame the eyes of the audience lose all terror. By dwelling on\nthe object for which we speak, and endeavoring to realize its full\nimportance, we will in a measure lose sight of our personal danger, and\nbe more likely to maintain a calm and tranquil frame of mind.\n\n\"No change should be made in the plan [of the speech] at the last\nmoment, as that is very liable to produce confusion.[1] This error is\noften committed. The mind has a natural tendency to go repeatedly over\nthe same ground, revising and testing every point, and it may make\nchanges, the consequences of which cannot be in a moment foreseen.\nBut the necessary preparation has been made, and we should now await\nthe result calmly and hopefully. Over-study is quite possible, and\nwhen accompanied by great solicitude, wearies our mind in advance, and\nstrips the subject of all freshness. If the eye is fixed too long upon\none object with a steadfast gaze, it loses the power to see at all. So\nthe mind, if exerted steadily upon a single topic for a long period,\nfails in vigor and elasticity at the moment when those qualities\nare indispensable. That profound thinker and preacher, Frederick W.\nRobertson, experienced this difficulty, and was accustomed to find\nrelief by reading some inspiring paragraphs upon some totally different\ntheme from that he intended to speak about. The energy and enthusiasm\nof our minds in the moment of speech must be raised to the highest\npitch; the delivery of a living discourse is not the dry enumeration\nof a list of particulars; but we must actually feel an immediate and\nburning interest in the topics with which we deal. This cannot be\ncounterfeited.\n\n\"To clearly arrange all thoughts that belong to the subject, lay them\naside when the work is done until the moment of speech, and then enter\nconfidently upon them with only such a momentary glance as will assure\nus that all is right--this is the method to make our strength fully\navailable. This confidence, while in waiting, seems to the beginner\nvery difficult, but experience rapidly renders it easy. M. Bautain\ndeclares that he has been repeatedly so confident in his preparation as\nto fall asleep while waiting to be summoned to the pulpit!\n\n\"Those who mis-improve the last moments by too much thought and\nsolicitude, are not the only class of offenders. Some persons, through\nmere indolence, suffer the fine lines of preparation which have been\ntraced with so much care to fade into dimness. This error is not\ninfrequently committed by those who speak a second or third time on the\nsame subject. Because they have once succeeded, they imagine that the\nsame success is always at command. No mistake could be greater. It is\nnot enough to have speech-material in a position from which it can be\ncollected by a conscious and prolonged effort, but it must be in the\nfore-ground of the mind. There is no time at the moment of delivery of\nreviving half obliterated lines of memory.\n\n\"The writer once saw a notable case of failure from this cause. A\npreacher, on a great occasion, was much engrossed with other important\nduties until the hour appointed for his sermon had arrived. With\nperfect confidence he selected a sketch from which he had preached a\nshort time before, and with the general course of which he was no doubt\nfamiliar. But when he endeavored to produce his thoughts, they were not\nready. He became embarrassed, talked at random for a short time, and\nthen had the candor to tell the audience that he could not finish, and\nto take his seat. Probably half an hour given to reviewing his plan,\nwould have made all his previous preparation fresh again, and have\nspared him the mortification of failure.\n\n\"In this last interval it is also well to care for the strength and\nvigor of the body, as its condition greatly influences all mental\noperations. It is said that the pearl-diver, before venturing into the\ndepths of the sea, always spends a few moments in deep breathing and\nother bodily preparations. In the excitement of speech, the whirl and\nhurricane of emotion, it is advisable to be well prepared for the high\ntension of nerve that is implied. Mental excitement exhausts and wears\ndown the body faster than bodily labor. We must carefully husband our\nstrength that we may be able to meet all demands upon it. * * * * * * *\n* * * * Having now done all we can in advance, nothing remains but to\nrise and speak. Preparation and precaution are passed. Actual work--the\nmost joyous, thrilling, and spiritual of all human tasks--is now to be\nentered upon.\" (Extempore Speech, pp. 190-195).\n\n5. _Another Word on Strength:_ The definition of \"Strength\" as a\nproperty of good style in speaking or writing, was given in Lesson X\n(Note 3), and the first requisite to its attainment was considered.\nWe now consider the second, which is taken from Lockwood's Lessons in\nEnglish:\n\n6. _Words of Connection:_ \"The strength of a sentence is increased\nby careful use of the words of connection.\n\n\"(a) Avoid 'stringing' clauses together loosely with _and_ as a\nconnective.\n\n\"(Example:) They were soon at home _and_ surrounded by the family,\n_and_ plied with questions as to what they had seen _and_ what\nthey had heard, _and_ soon the neighbors came in _and_ then the\nwhole story had to be told again.'\n\n\"In this sentence, there is lack of unity as well as lack of strength.\nIn a sentence containing a series of words or expressions in the same\nconstruction, insert conjunctions between each two words or expressions\nif the intention is to make the mind dwell upon each particular.\n\n\"(Example:) 'And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds\nblew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of\nit.'\n\n\"But when the author's object is to give a many-sided view of a\nsubject, or to convey the idea of rapid movement, the conjunction\nshould be omitted.\n\n\"(Example:) 'Charity beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth\nall things, endureth all things.'\n\n    'One effort, one, to break the circling host;\n    They form, unite, charge, waver,--all is lost!'\n\n\"(b) Do not weaken the sentence by the omission of the relative\npronoun. Such omissions are allowable in familiar conversation, but\nrarely in careful writing or speaking.\n\n\"(Example:) 'The idea (which) he is working on is fraught with great\npossibilities.'\n\n\"(c) Do not have two prepositions govern the same noun. This awkward\nconstruction is called _'splitting particles.'_\n\n\"(Example:) 'He ran by but did not look into the windows.' (Better)\nHe ran by the windows, but did not look into them. (Lessons in\nEnglish--Lockwood--pp. 200, 201).\n\n\"This fault occurs in the following sentence: 'Though virtue borrows no\nassistance from, yet it may often be accompanied by, the advantages of\nfortune.' No one can read these lines without perceiving their decided\nlack of strength and harmony. A slight change will greatly improve\ntheir effect: 'Though virtue borrows no assistance from the advantages\nof fortune, yet it may often be accompanied by them.'\n\n\"Avoid, on ordinary occasions, the common expletive _'there,'_ as\nused in the following sentence: 'There is nothing which disgusts us\nsooner than the empty pomp of language.' The sentiment is expressed\nmore simply and strongly thus: 'Nothing disgusts us sooner than the\nempty pomp of language.' This expletive form is proper only when used\nto introduce an important proposition.\" (Quackenbos Rhetoric, p. 295).\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. This should be understood, so far as the Elders of the Church are\nconcerned to refer only to ordinary cases of delivering announced\nlectures or discourses. But in the course of an Elder's ministry, when\npreaching the Gospel, he should respond to the promptings of the Spirit\nin his ministry, even to violating the rule here laid down by Mr.\nPittenger.\n\n\n\nLESSON XVI.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                  _REFERENCES._\n\n  _VIII. Beliefs of the Greeks and of the         Myers' \"General History,\"\n           Romans._                               Chs. x, xii, xxiv-xxvi.\n\n           1. The Origin of the Greeks and          Burder's \"Hist. of All\n              Romans.                               Religions,\" p. 527 et seq.\n                                                    \"Myths and Myth-Makers\"\n           2. Mythology of the Greeks and           (John Fiske);\n              Romans.                               \"Mythology of All Nations,\"\n                                                    Ch. i, et seq.\n           3. Classification of the Greek and       \"The World's Worship\"\n              Roman Deities.                        (Dobbins), Chs. viii and\n                                                    ix. The notes of this\n                                                    lesson.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye\nare too superstitious. For as I passed by and beheld your devotions,\nI found an altar with this inscription, 'To the Unknown God'; whom ye\nignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.\" (Acts xvii:22, 23.)_\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Greeks:_ \"The ancient people whom we call Greeks, called\nthemselves Hellenes and their land Hellas. But this term 'Hellas' as\nused by the ancient Greeks embraced much more than modern Greece.\n'Wherever were Hellenes there was Hellas.' Thus the name included\nnot only Greece proper and the islands of the adjoining seas, but\nalso the Hellenic cities in Asia Minor, in Southern Italy, and in\nSicily, besides many other Greek settlements scattered up and down the\nMediterranean and along the shores of the Hellespont and the Euxine.\nYet Greece proper was the real home-land of the Hellenes, and the\nactual center of Greek life and culture. (Myers' General History, p.\n71).\n\n\"The historic inhabitants of Greece were called by the Romans Greeks;\nbut * * * * * * they called themselves Hellenes, from their fabled ancestor\nHellen (King in Phthia in Thessaly). They were divided into four\nfamilies or tribes--the Achaeans, the Ionians, the Dorians, and the\nAeolians. The primitive inhabitants of Greece are supposed to have\nbeen the descendants of Javan, the son of Japhet (son of Noah), and\nhence Greece was called by the Hebrews, 'Javan.'\" (Anderson's General\nHistory, p. 34.)\n\n2. _The Romans:_ \"There were in early times three chief races in\nItaly--the Italians, the Etruscans, and the Greeks. The Italians, a\nbranch of the Aryan family, embraced many tribes (Latin, Umbrians,\nSabines, Samnites, etc.), that occupied nearly all Central, and a\nconsiderable part of Southern Italy. Their life was for the most part\nthat of shepherds and farmers.\n\n\"The Etruscans, a wealthy, cultured, and seafaring people of uncertain\nrace and origin, dwelt in Etruria, now called Tuscany after them.\nBefore the rise of the Roman people they were the leading race in\nthe peninsula. Certain elements in their culture lead us to believe\nthat they had learned much from the cities of _Magna Graecia._\nThe Etruscans in their turn became the teachers of the early Romans,\nand imparted to them at least some minor elements of civilization,\nincluding hints in the art of building, and various religious ideas and\nrites. Through the medium of these cultured communities, the Romans\nwere taught the use of letters, and given valuable suggestions in\nmatters of law and constitutional government. Most important of all,\nthe Italian peoples were the Latins, who dwelt in Latium, between the\nTiber and the Liris. These people, like all the Italians, were near\nkindred of the Greeks, and brought with them into Italy those customs,\nmanners, beliefs and institutions which seem to have been the early\ncommon possession of the various Aryan-speaking peoples.\" (Myers'\nGeneral History, pp. 196-7).\n\n3. _Greek and Roman Mythology:_ \"The term mythology comes from\nmythos, a fable, and logos, a discourse, signifies a fabulous account\nof things, particularly of such things as regard false gods and their\nidolatrous worship.\" (Crabb Mythology of all Nations, Introduction).\n\n\"The mythology of the Greeks was, as to the most important particulars,\nconfessedly borrowed from the Egyptians. Their philosophers,\nAnaxagoras, Phythagoras, Thales, and others, traveled into Egypt, where\nthey gathered all the notions there current concerning the gods, the\ntransmigration of souls, a future state, and other points, which they\nmodeled into a system that was afterwards enlarged and adorned by all\nthe charms and embellishments that poetry and art could furnish.\"\n\nThomas Dew, also, in his \"Digest of Laws, Customs, Manners and\nInstitutions of Ancient and Modern Nations,\" says, on the origin of\nthe Greek religion,--\"Supposed to have been derived in great measure\nfrom the religion of the Egyptians. * * * Still, large portion was of\nGrecian origin, and that even though taken from Egypt, became Grecian\nin character.\" (p. 54.) Burder in his History of All Religions,\nsays (p. 527): \"The Greeks are supposed to have derived many of\ntheir deities from the Egyptians as well as no small number of their\nreligious ceremonies. The Egyptians, no doubt, at an earlier period,\nbelieved in one Deity as supreme, and the Maker and Ruler of all\nthings; but after that they worshipped the sun, moon, and stars, under\nvarious forms, as well as living creatures and lifeless things.\"\n\n4. _Religion of Greeks and Romans Identical in Essentials:_ \"The\nbasis of the Roman religious system was the same as that of the Greek.\nAt the head of the pantheon stood Jupiter, identical in all essential\nattributes with the Hellenic Zeus. He was the special protector of the\nRoman people. To him, together with Juno and Minerva, was consecrated a\nmagnificent temple upon the summit of the Capitoline hill, overlooking\nthe city.\n\n\"Mars, the god of war, was the favorite deity and the fabled father of\nthe Roman race, who were fond of calling themselves the 'Children of\nMars.' They proved themselves worthy offspring of the war-god. Martial\ngames and festivals were celebrated in his honor during the first month\nof the Roman year, which bore, and still bears, in his honor, the name\nof March.\n\n\"Janus was a double-faced deity, to whom the month of January was\nsacred, as were also all gates and doors. The gates of his temple were\nalways kept open in time of war and shut in time of peace.\n\n\"The fire upon the household hearth was regarded as the symbol of the\ngoddess Vesta. Her worship was a favorite one with the Romans. The\nnation, too, as a single great family, had a common national hearth\nin the temple of Vesta where the sacred fires were kept burning from\ngeneration to generation by six virgins, daughters of the Roman state.\"\n(Myers' General History, pp. 203-4).\n\n\"The Greeks and Romans had many deities in common, particularly the\nsuperior gods, arising partly from adoption, on one side or the other,\nbut more especially from the circumstance that the two countries were\npeopled by different branches of the same family, descended from one\ncommon ancestor, Japhet. At the same time it is evident, from the\ndifference in the names of the Greek and Roman deities, and in their\nprimary attributes, that they drew their mythology from different\nsources, which may be easily imagined, when it is considered that\nthey were cut off from all intercourse with each other on their first\nsettlement, and mingled with different tribes in the course of their\nmigration. The Tuscans or Etrurians had, as is generally admitted,\ntheir mythology as well as their language, from their Pelasgian\nancestors, long before the Grecians and Romans were known to each\nother; but in after ages, when the intercourse between these two people\nbecame intimate, the Romans, without doubt, borrowed many of the fables\nof the Greeks, to which their poets and historians, who are very ample\nin their descriptions of the gods, added much of their own invention.\"\n(Crabb's Mythology, p. 6.)\n\n5. _The Action and Reaction Involved in the Roman Conquest of\nGreece:_ The fact of there being much in common in the religion and\nworship of the Greeks and the Romans, while accounted for in part by a\nlarge infusion of Hellenes into the south part of Italy and the Island\nof Sicily--by reason of which the ruder Latin tribes of the north were\nbrought into contact with Greek culture and civilization--still there\nwas a larger cause for this identity of religion and worship; and that\ncause arises out of the reaction of Greek learning upon the Roman\nconquerors of Greece. The Roman conquests in Western Europe was the\nsubjugation of peoples in a low state of civilization \"and destitute of\nany element of strength in their social and national life;\" and their\nconquerors treated them, for the most part, as inferiors. \"But in the\nEast the case was different. There the Romans met with a civilization\nmore advanced than their own which they had already learned to respect,\nand an elaborate system of civil government and social usages, which\ncould not be set aside without undermining the whole fabric of society.\nHence the Greeks, while subjected to the Roman administration, were\nallowed to retain a great part of their institutions, together with\ntheir property and private rights, and, from their superiority to the\nother conquered peoples, remained the dominant power in the East. Even\nin Asia the despotism of Rome was much modified by the municipal system\nof the Greek colonies and by the influence of Greek culture. Thus it\ncame to pass that, while the Western nations were assimilated to Rome,\nin the East the Roman empire became Greek, though the Greek nation in\nname became Roman. The effects of this are visible at every turn in the\nsubsequent history, and to this cause must be referred many anomalies\nwhich are traceable at the present day in the condition of Eastern\nEurope.\" (Encyclopaedia Britannica).\n\n6. _The Classification of Greek and Roman Deities:_ \"The Greek\nand Roman deities are distinguished into three classes; namely, the\nSuperior Gods, the Inferior Gods, and the Demi-gods.\n\n\"The Superior Gods otherwise called _Dii Majorum Gentium_, that is,\ngods of the superior houses or families, answering to the patricians\nor nobility of Rome, were so named because they were believed to be\nmore eminently employed in the government of the world. They were also\nstyled the 'Select Gods,' of whom twelve were admitted into the council\nof Jupiter, and on that account denominated 'Consentes.'\n\n\"The images of these twelve gods were fixed in the Forum of Rome, six\nof them being males, and six females; their names are given in the\nfollowing distich by the poet Ennius:\n\n    'Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Mars, Mercurius, Jove,\n    Neptunus, Volcanus, Apollo.'\n\n\"These twelve gods were supposed to preside over the twelve months;\nto each of them was allotted a month: January to Juno, February to\nNeptune, March to Minerva, April to Venus, May to Apollo, June to\nMercury, July to Jupiter, August to Ceres, September to Vulcan, October\nto Mars, November to Diana, December to Vesta. They likewise presided\nover the twelve celestial signs. If to these twelve be added the eight\nfollowing, namely, Janus, Saturnus, Genius, Sol, Pluto, Bacchus, Terra,\nand Luna, there will be twenty of the first class, or superior gods.\nThese superior gods were likewise distinguished, from their usual place\nof residence, into Celestial, Terrestrial, Marine, and Infernal gods.\n\n\"The Inferior Gods comprehended what Ovid called the 'Celestial\nPopulace,' answering to the plebeians among the Romans, who had no\nplace in heaven, as the Penates, Lares--rural-deities, etc.\n\n\"The third class, or Demigods, was composed of such as derived their\norigin from a god or goddess and a mortal, or such as by their valor\nand exploits had raised themselves to the rank of immortals. Of this\nclass was Hercules, Aesculapius, Castor, Pollux, Achilles, etc.\n\n\"To the list of the Roman gods, might be added a fourth class, called\n'novensiles,' which the Sabines brought to Rome by the command of King\nTatius. They were so named because, as some suppose, they were the last\nof all that were reckoned among the gods. Of this class also were the\ndeities by whose help and means, as Cicero says, men are advanced to\nheaven, and obtain a place among the gods, namely, the moral virtues,\nas mercy, chastity, piety, etc.\" (Crabb's Mythology, pp. 6, 7).\n\n\n\nLESSON XVII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                  _REFERENCES._\n\n  _IX. Origin of the Greek and Roman              \"The World's Worship,\"\n         Deities._                                Ch. xiii. \"Mythology\n                                                    of All Nations\"\n  _X. List and Character of the Chief             (Crabb), Ch. ii. \"The\n        Greek and Roman Deities._                 World's Worship\" (Dobbins),\n                                                    Chs. viii and ix.\n  _XI. The Greek and Roman Parthenon._\n                                                    Burder's \"History of\n  _XII. Greek and Roman Worship._              All Religions,\" Part vi.,\n                                                    pp. 527-575.\n\n                                                    Myers' \"General History,\"\n                                                    Chs. xii and xxvi,\n                                                    and Encyclopaedias, and\n                                                    Notes of this Lesson.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after\nwisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling\nblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness. But unto them that are called,\nboth Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.\"\n1 Cor. i:22-24._\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Generation of the Gods: (a) The Greeks:_ \"Chaos (void\nspace) was first: then came into being 'broad-breasted' Earth, the\ngloomy Tartarus and Love. Chaos produced Erebus and Night, and this\nlast bore to Erebus Day and Ether.\n\n\"Earth now produced Uranus (Heaven), of equal extent with herself,\nto envelop her, and the mountains and Pontos (Sea). She then bore to\nUranus a mighty progeny--the Titans; six males and six females. She\nalso bore Hottos, Briareus and Gyges. These children were hated by\ntheir father, who, as soon as they were born, thrust them out of sight\nin a cavern of mother Earth, who, grieved at his conduct, produced the\nsubstance of hoary steel, and, forming from it a sickle, roused her\nchildren, the Titans, to rebellion against him; but fear seized on them\nall except Kronos, who, lying in wait with the sickle with which his\nmother had armed him, mutilated his unsuspecting sire. The drops which\nfell to the earth from the wounds, gave birth to the Erinnyes, the\nGiants and the Mehan nymphs; and from what fell into the sea, sprang\nAphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty.\n\n\"Earth finally, after the overthrow of the Titans, bore by Tartaros her\nlast offspring, the hundred-headed Typhoeus, the father of storms and\nwhirlwinds, whom Zeus precipitated into Tartarus.\n\n\"Rhea was united to Kronos. Kronos, having learned from his parents,\nHeaven and Earth, that he was fated to be deprived by one of his\nsons of the kingdom which he had taken from his father, devoured his\nchildren as fast as they were born. Rhea, when about to be delivered\nof Zeus, besought her parents to teach her how she might save him.\nInstructed by Earth, she concealed him in a cavern of Crete, and gave\na stone in his stead to Kronos. This stone he afterward threw up, and\nwith it the children whom he had devoured. When Zeus was grown up,\nhe and the other children of Kronos made war on their father and the\nTitans. The scene of the conflict was Thessaly; the former fought from\nOlympus, the latter from Othrys. During ten entire years the conflict\nwas undecided; at length, by the counsel of Earth, the Kronids released\nthe Hundred-handed and called them to their aid. The war was then\nresumed with renewed vigor, and the Titans were finally vanquished and\nimprisoned in Tartarus, under the guard of the Hundred-handed. The\nKronids then, by the advice of Earth, gave the supreme power to Zeus,\nwho, in return, distributed honors and dominion among the associates of\nhis victory.\" (The World's Worship--Dobbins--pp. 154-5).\n\n(b) _The Romans:_ \"The Romans appear to have borrowed their\nfictions respecting the creation of the world from the same source as\nthe Greeks. Ovid expressly calls Chaos, _rudis indigestaque moles,_\n'a rude indigested heap'; or, as Moses says, \"The earth without form\nand void;\" after which the poet goes on in a strain very similar to\nwhat has already been set forth.\n\n\"The Etruscans, who were among the original settlers in Italy, gave,\naccording to Suidas, the following account of the creation. 'God,' says\na philosopher of that nation, 'created the universe in six thousand\nyears, and appointed the same period of time to be the extent of its\nduration. In the first period of a thousand years, God created the\nheavens and the earth; in the second, the visible firmament; in the\nthird, the sea and all the waters that are in the earth; in the fourth,\nthe sun, moon, and stars; in the fifth, every living soul of birds,\nreptiles, and quadrupeds, which have their abode either on the land, in\nthe air, or the water; and in the sixth, man alone.' Now, when it is\nconsidered that in another part of Scripture it is said, that 'one day\nis with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,'\nit is easy to explain the origin of this fiction.\" (Crabb's Mythology,\nCh. ii).\n\n2. _A Brief List of Some of the Chief Greek and Roman Deities: (a)\nJupiter:_ \"Jupiter, the father of gods and men, is said to have been\nborn in Crete, or to have been sent there in infancy for concealment.\nHe was the son of Saturn, the god of Time, and of Cybele, otherwise\ncalled Rhea. He was the most powerful of all the gods, and everything\nwas subservient to his will. His father, Saturn, had received the\nkingdom of the world from his brother Titan, on condition of destroying\nall the sons who should be born to him. Saturn, therefore, devoured his\nchildren immediately after birth. This may be considered as having an\nallegorical meaning; namely, that time destroys all things.\n\n(b) _Apollo:_ \"Apollo was the son of Jupiter and Latona, and\nbrother of the goddess Diana. He was born in the island of Delos, where\nhis mother fled to avoid the jealousy of Juno. He was the god of all\nthe fine arts; and to him is ascribed the invention of medicine, music,\npoetry and eloquence. He presided over the Muses, and had the power\nof looking into futurity. His oracles were in general repute over the\nworld. Apollo had various other surnames. He was called Delius, from\nthe island where he was born; Cynthius, from a mountain in that island;\nDelphinius, from the city of Delphi, in Boeotia; Didymaeus, from a\nGreek word, signifying twins; Nomius, which means a shepherd; Paean,\nfrom his skill in shooting arrows; and Phoebus, from the swiftness of\nhis motion.\"\n\nIt is generally supposed that by Apollo the sun is to be understood;\nfor which reason he was called Sol by the Latins.\n\n(c) _Mars:_ \"Mars was the god of war, and son of Jupiter and Juno.\nHe was educated by the god Priapus, who instructed him in every manly\nexercise. His temples were not numerous in Greece, but from the warlike\nRomans he received unbounded honors. His priests were called Salii.\n\n(d) _Mercury:_ \"Mercury was the son of Jupiter and of Maia, the\ndaughter of Atlas. He was born in Arcadia, upon Mount Cyllene, and in\nhis infancy was intrusted with the care of the seasons. He was the\nmessenger of the gods, and more especially of Jupiter. He was the\npatron of travelers and shepherds. He conducted the souls of the dead\ninto the infernal regions, and not only presided over merchants and\norators, but was also the god of thieves and of all dishonest persons.\n\n(e) _Bacchus:_ \"Bacchus was the god of wine, and the son of\nJupiter and Semele. Semele was the daughter of Cadmus, celebrated as\nthe inventor of the alphabet, and of Hermione, the daughter of Mars\nand Venus. She was destroyed by the jealous cruelty of Juno. It is\nprobable that Bacchus was an ancient conqueror and lawgiver. He was\nborn in Egypt, and educated at Nysa in Arabia. He taught the culture of\nthe grape, the art of converting its juice into wine, and the manner\nof making honey. He was on that account, honored as a god by the\nEgyptians, under the name of Osiris.\n\n(f) _Vulcan:_ \"Vulcan was the son of Juno; he was the god of fire,\nand the patron of all those artists who worked in iron or other metals.\nHe was educated in heaven; but Jupiter being offended with him, hurled\nhim from Olympus. He lighted on the island of Lemnos, and was a cripple\never after. He fixed his residence there, built himself a palace, and\nraised forges to work metals. He forged the thunderbolts of Jupiter,\nand the arms of the gods and demi-gods.\n\n(g) _Juno:_ \"Juno was the queen of heaven, the sister and wife of\nJupiter, and the daughter of Saturn and of Ops, otherwise called Rhea.\nShe was born in the isle of Samos, and resided there till her marriage\nwith Jupiter; her children were Vulcan, Mars, and Hebe. The poets\nrepresent Juno with a majesty well befitting the empress of the skies.\n\n(h) _Minerva:_ \"Minerva was the goddess of wisdom, and is said\nto have sprung, completely armed and full-grown, from the brain of\nJupiter. She was immediately admitted into the assembly of the gods,\nand became Jupiter's faithful counselor; she was the most accomplished\nof all the goddesses. The countenance of Minerva, as generally\nrepresented, was more expressive of masculine firmness than of grace or\nsoftness.\n\n(i) _Venus:_ \"Venus was the goddess of beauty, the mother of love,\nand the queen of laughter, grace and pleasure. She is said to have\nrisen from the froth of the sea, near the island of Cyprus. The Zephyrs\nwafted her to the shore, where she was received by the Seasons, the\ndaughters of Jupiter and Themis. As she walked, flowers bloomed beneath\nher feet, and the rosy Hours dressed her in divine attire.\n\n(j) _Cupid:_ \"Cupid, the son of Venus, and god of love, was\nrepresented as a beautiful boy, with wings, a bow and arrows, and\ngenerally with a bandage over his eyes. He had wings, to show his\ncaprice and desire of change. He is described as blind, because we are\napt to shut our eyes to the faults of those we love.\n\n(k) _Ceres:_ \"Ceres was the goddess of corn and harvests, and the\ndaughter of Saturn and Vesta. The most celebrated festivals in honor of\nCeres were held at Eleusis. They were called the Eleusinian Mysteries,\non account of the secrecy with which they were conducted. Those who\nwere admitted to these solemn assemblies were called the initiated.\"\n(Burder's History of All Religions, pp. 528-533).\n\n4. _The Greek Pantheon:_ \"At the head of the Greek pantheon there\nwas a council of twelve members, comprising six gods and as many\ngoddesses. The male deities were Zeus, the father of gods and men;\nPoseidon, ruler of the sea; Apollo, or Phoebus, the god of light, of\nmusic, and of prophecy; Ares, the god of war; Hephaestus, the deformed\ngod of fire, and the forger of the thunderbolts of Zeus; Hermes, the\nwing-footed herald of the celestials, the god of invention and commerce.\n\n\"The female divinities were Hera, the proud and jealous queen of\nZeus; Athena, or Pallas,--who sprang full-grown from the forehead of\nZeus,--the goddess of wisdom and the patroness of the domestic arts;\nArtemis, the goddess of the chase; Aphrodite, the goddess of love and\nbeauty born of the white sea foam; Hestia, the goddess of the hearth;\nDemeter the earth mother, the goddess of grains and harvests.\n\n\"These great deities were simply magnified human beings. They surpassed\nmortals rather in power than in size of body. Their abode was Mount\nOlympus and the airy regions above the earth.\" (Myers' General History,\np. 86).\n\n5. _The Delphian Oracle:_ \"The most precious part, perhaps, of the\nreligious heritage of the historic Greeks, from the misty Hellenic\nforetime, was the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. The Greeks believed that\nin the early ages the gods were wont to visit the earth and mingle with\nmen. But even in Homer's time, this familiar intercourse was a thing of\nthe past--a tradition of a golden age that had passed away. In historic\ntimes, though the gods often revealed their will and intentions through\nsigns and portents, still they granted a more special communication of\ncounsel through what were known as oracles. These communications, it\nwas believed, were made sometimes by Zeus, but more commonly by Apollo.\nNot everywhere, but only in chosen places, did these gods manifest\ntheir presence and communicate the divine will. These favored spots\nwere called oracles, as were also the responses there received.\n\n\"The most renowned of the Greek oracles, as we have intimated, was\nthat at Delphi, in Phocis. Here, from a deep fissure in the rocks,\narose stupefying vapors, which were thought to be the inspiring\nbreath of Apollo. Over this spot was erected a temple in honor of the\nRevealer. The communication was generally received by the Pythia,\nor priestess, seated upon a tripod placed above the orifice. As she\nbecame overpowered by the vapors, she uttered the message of the god.\nThese mutterings of the Pythia were taken down by attendant priests,\ninterpreted, and written in hexameter verse. Some of the responses of\nthe oracle contained plain and wholesome advice; but very many of them,\nparticularly those that implied a knowledge of the future, were made\nobscure and ingeniously ambiguous, so that they might correspond with\nthe event, however affairs should turn.\n\n\"The Oracle of Delphi gained a celebrity wide as the world. It was\noften consulted by the monarchs of Asia and the people of Rome in\ntimes of extreme danger and perplexity. Among the Greeks, scarcely\nany undertaking was entered upon without the will and sanction of the\nOracle being first sought.\" (Myers' General History, pp. 86, 87).\n\n6. _Oracles and Divination Among the Romans:_ \"There were no true\noracles at Rome. The Romans, therefore, often had recourse to those\namong the Greeks. Particularly in great emergencies did they seek\nadvice from the celebrated Oracle of Apollo at Delphi. From Etruria was\nintroduced the art of the haruspices, or sooth-sayers, which consisted\nin discovering the will of the gods by the appearance of the entrails\nof victims slain for the sacrifice.\" (Myers' General History, p. 204).\n\n7. _Worships and Temples:_ \"In the first ages of the world, men had\nneither temples nor statues for their gods, but worshipped in the open\nair, in the shady grove, or on the summit of the lofty mountains, whose\napparent proximity to the heavens seemed to render them peculiarly\nappropriate for religious purposes. Ignorantly transferring to the\nworks of the Supreme Being that homage which is only due to their\nAuthor, they adored the sun as a god, who, riding on his chariot of\nfire, diffused light and heat through the world; the moon, as a mild\nand beneficent divinity, who presided over night and silence, consoling\nher worshippers for the departure of the more brilliant light of day.\n\n\"It is thought that the Greeks received from the Egyptians the custom\nof building temples, which were erected, some in valleys, some in\nwoods, and others by the brink of a river, or fountain, according to\nthe deity who was destined to inhabit them; for the ancients ascribed\nthe management of every particular affair to some particular god, and\nappropriated to each a peculiar form of building, according to his or\nher peculiar character and attributes. But when temples were first\nerected, the ancients still continued to worship their gods, without\nany statue or visible representation of the divinity.\n\n\"It is supposed that the worship of idols was introduced among the\nGreeks in the time of Cecrops, the founder of Athens, in the year\n1556 B. C. At first these idols were formed of rude blocks of wood or\nstone, until, when the art of graving, or carving, was invented, these\nrough masses were changed into figures resembling living creatures.\nAfterwards, marble, and ivory, or precious stones, were used in their\nformation, and lastly, gold, silver, brass, and other metals. At\nlength, in the refined ages of Greece, all the genius of the sculptor\nwas employed in the creation of these exquisite statutes, which no\nmodern workmanship has yet surpassed. Temples, statues, and altars,\nwere considered sacred, and to many of them was granted the privilege\nof protecting offenders.\" (Burder's History of All Religions, pp.\n227-8).\n\n\n\nLESSON XVIII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                    _REFERENCES._\n\n  _XIII. The Greek and Roman Religion._           \"Outlines of Ecclesiastical\n                                                      Hist.,\" (Roberts),\n  _XIV. Roman and Greek Schools of                    Sec. ii, pp. 22-25. \"The\n          Philosophy._                                World's Worship\" (Dobbins),\n                                                      Chs. viii, ix.\n          1. Stoics.                                    Notes 1 and 2.\n\n          2. Epicureans.                              \"Moral and Metaphysical\n                                                      Philosophy\" (Maurice),\n          3. Academics.                               Vol. I, Chs. vi and\n                                                      vii. Myers' \"General\n                                                      Hist.,\" Chs. xxiii. Dr. Smith's\n                                                      \"History of\n                                                      Greece,\" Ch. xiii. \"Mormon\n                                                      Doctrine of Deity,\"\n                                                      Ch. iv.\n\n                                                      \"Cicero's Tusculan\n                                                      Disputations\" (Yonge's\n                                                      Translation), pp. 209-355.\n                                                      \"Intellectual Development\n                                                      of Europe\"\n                                                      (Draper), Chs. v and vi.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"Behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their\nown nation and tongue, to teach His word; yea, in wisdom, all that He\nseeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth\ncounsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.\" (Book of\nAlma, Ch. xxix:8.)_\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Religion of the Greeks: General View:_ \"The religious system of\nthe Greeks is the embodiment of beauty. No other worship that has ever\nexisted so encouraged the taste for art as this. Its literature, its\nmythological stories, its idols and its temples still control and, to\na great extent, shape the art ideas of the world. Its devotees have,\nabove all other people, possessed a perception of beauty of form and a\nfondness of representing it.\n\n\"The people of Greece appear to have originally come from the\nnorthwestern part of Asia Minor. They were called the Hellenes.\nThe worship which they brought from Asia was the worship of the\n'Heaven-Father,' the unseen one who dwells in ether, whose temple is\nthe sky, and whose altar is properly placed upon the mountain top. The\nHindus called the same being Dyaus-pitar; the Romans, Diovis-pater or\nJupiter; the Greeks, Zeus-pater. One can readily see the resemblance\nbetween these names, and the evidence they bear to the fact that these\nnations all came originally from one common stock. As the primal\nGreek race separated into various parts of Greece, different forms\nbegan to arise. As sailors from other lands arrived on their shores,\nthey brought their own gods with them, and thus many new gods were\nintroduced into Greece.\n\n\"The lively imagination of the Greeks, and the out-door life of their\nprimitive state, produced a number of tales and legends about the gods.\nSome of these were based on the tales with which their forefathers were\nfamiliar in their early home in Asia. The people lived in separate\nvillages. Wandering minstrels and merchants carried these tales of\ngods and heroes from village to village. Poets then caught them up and\nadorned them with the touches of a livelier fancy. Thus, soon, a rich\nand luxuriant system of legendary lore was in possession of the whole\npeople.\n\n\"Just as is the case with other nations, the beings called gods by\nthe Greeks are but the personifications of the powers and objects of\nnature, and the legends but represent the courses of nature and its\noperations. To these primitive notions imagination afterwards added,\nand poetry clothed the whole with a warm glow. Thus was formed the\npopular Greek faith\" (The World's Worship--Dobbins--pp. 150-157).\n\n2. _Religion of the Romans: General View:_ \"Long before Rome was\nfounded, Italy was peopled with an industrious class of farmers. But we\nhave scarcely any records of those early times. Some of their gigantic\nbuildings, lakes and canals remain, but these are almost all that is\nleft. The religious ideas of these early settlers entered into and,\nto a great extent, moulded the religion of the Romans. The people of\nItaly did not have the same vivid imaginations and lively fancies\nas the people of Greece. Their early worship seems to have been of\na more serious character than that of the Greeks. Their gods were\nfreer from moral taint, and virtue rather than vice was required in\nfollowers of the Roman religions. The poetic art was little cultivated\namong them, or for that matter, in Rome of a later day. But Rome soon\nbegan to borrow from Greece, and to appropriate her gods, heroes and\nmyths. There are no Italian-myths corresponding to those of Greece. In\nVirgil and Ovid, a few adventures of the Italian gods are related, but\nthese are plainly limitations, or slight modifications, of the Greek\nstories.\" (The World's Worship, pp. 173-4).\n\n3. _Zeno:_ \"Zeno, founder of the celebrated school of the Stoics,\nlived in the third century before our era (about 340--265 B. C.).\nHe taught at Athens in a public porch (Stoa in Greek), from which\ncircumstance comes the name applied to his disciples. The Stoics\ninculcated virtue for its own sake. They believed--and it would be\ndifficult to frame a better creed--that 'man's chief business here\nis to do his duty.' They schooled themselves to bear with composure\nany lot that destiny might appoint. Any sign of emotion on account of\ncalamity was considered unmanly. Thus a certain Stoic, when told of\nthe sudden death of his son, is said merely to have remarked, 'Well, I\nnever imagined that I had given life to an immortal.'\n\n\"Stoicism became a favorite system of thought with certain classes of\nthe Romans, and under its teachings and doctrines were nourished some\nof the purest and loftiest characters produced by the pagan world.\"\n(Myers' General History, pp. 185-6).\n\n4. _Epicurus:_ \"Epicurus (341--270 B. C.) taught, in opposition to\nthe Stoics, that pleasure is the highest good. He recommended virtue,\nindeed, but only as a means for the attainment of pleasure; whereas the\nStoics made virtue an end in itself. In other words, Epicurus said,\n\"Be virtuous, because virtue will bring you the greatest amount of\nhappiness;\" Zeno said, \"Be virtuous, because you ought to be.\"\n\n\"Epicurus had many followers in Greece, and his doctrines were eagerly\nembraced by many among the Romans during the later corrupt period of\nthe Empire. Many of these disciples carried the doctrines of their\nmaster to an excess that he himself would have been the first to\ncondemn. Allowing full indulgence to every appetite, their whole\nphilosophy was expressed in the proverb, 'Let us eat and drink, for\ntomorrow we die.'\" (Myers' General History, p. 186).\n\n5. _The Stoics:_ The Stoics believed, (1) that there were gods;\n(2) they undertook to define their character and nature; (3) they held\nthat the universe is governed by them, and (4) that they exercise a\nsuperintendency over human affairs.\n\nThe evidence for the existence of the gods they saw primarily in the\nuniverse itself. \"What can be so plain and evident,\" they argued, \"when\nwe behold the heavens, and contemplate the celestial bodies, as the\nexistence of some supreme, divine intelligence by which these things\nare governed?\" \"Were it otherwise,\" they said, \"Ennius would not with\nuniversal approbation have said,\n\n    'Look up to the refulgent heavens above\n    Which all men call unanimously Jove--\n    * * * Of gods and men the sire.'\"\n\nOf the nature of the Deity, they held two things: First of all, that he\nis an animated though impersonal being; secondly, that there is nothing\nin all nature superior to him. \"I do not see,\" says one well versed\nin their doctrines, \"what can be more consistent with this idea and\npreconception, than to attribute a mind and divinity to the world, the\nmost excellent of all beings.\"\n\nThat is to say, the Stoics held the universe to be a deity; and Cicero\nrepresents Zeno as reasoning in the matter in this wise: \"That which\nreasons is superior to that which does not; nothing is superior to\nthe world; the world, therefore, reasons.\" By the same rule the world\nmay be proved to be wise, happy, and eternal; for the possession of\nall these qualities is superior to the want of them; and nothing is\nsuperior to the world; the inevitable consequence of which argument\nis, that the world is a deity. He goes on: \"No part of anything void\nof sense is capable of perception; some parts of the world have\nperception; the world, therefore, has sense.\" He proceeds, and pursues\nthe argument closely--\"Nothing that is destitute itself of life and\nreason can generate a being possessed of life and reason; but the world\ndoes generate beings possessed of life and reason; the world therefore,\nis not itself destitute of life and reason.\"\n\nHe concludes his argument in his usual manner with a simile: \"If\nwell-tuned pipes should spring out of the olive, would you have the\nslightest doubt that there was in the olive-tree itself some kind of\nskill and knowledge? Or if the plane-tree could produce harmonious\nflutes, surely you would infer, on the same principle, that music was\ncontained in the plane-tree. Why, then, should we not believe the world\nis a living and wise being, since it produces living and wise beings\nout of itself?\"\n\nAgain, reverting to this subject, Cicero in representing the doctrines\nof the Stoics, says: \"Now, we see that there is nothing in being that\nis not a part of the universe; and as there are sense and reasons in\nthe parts of it, there must therefore be these qualities, and these\ntoo, in a more, energetic and powerful degree, in that part in which\nthe predominant quality of the world is found. The world, therefore,\nmust necessarily be possessed of wisdom; and that element, which\nembraces all things, must excel in perfection of reason. The world,\ntherefore, is a God, and the whole power of the world is contained in\nthat divine element.\"\n\n\"Besides these (i. e., the universe and the stars, as part of that\nuniverse of course), there are many other natures,\" Cicero goes on to\nsay, \"which have, with reason, been deified by the wisest Grecians, and\nby our ancestors, in consideration of the benefits derived from them;\nfor they were persuaded that whatever was of great utility to human\nkind must proceed from divine goodness, and the name of the Deity was\napplied to that which the Deity produced, as when we call corn Ceres,\nand wine Bacchus; whence that saying of Terence,\n\n    'Without Ceres and Bacchus, Venus starves.'\n\nAnd any quality, also, in which there was any singular virtue was\nnominated a Deity, such as Faith and Wisdom, which are placed among\nthe divinities in the Capitol; the last by Aemilius Scaurus, but Faith\nwas consecrated before by Atilius Caltatinus. You see the temple of\nVirtue and that of Honor repaired by M. Marcellus, erected formerly,\nin the Ligurian war, by Q. Maximus. Need I mention those dedicated to\nHelp, Safety, Concord, Liberty, and Victory, which have been called\nDeities, because their efficacy has been so great that it could not\nhave proceeded from any but from some divine power? In like manner\nare the names of Cupid, Voluptas, and of Lubentine Venus consecrated,\nthough they were things vicious and not natural. * * * * Everything,\nthen, from which any great utility proceeded was deified; and, indeed,\nthe names I have just now mentioned are declaratory of the particular\nvirtue of each Diety.\"\n\nThe God of the Stoics is further described as a corporeal being,\nunited to matter by a necessary connection; and, moreover, as subject\nto fate, so that he can bestow neither rewards nor punishments. That\nthis sect held to the extinction of the soul at death, is allowed by\nall the learned. The Stoics drew their philosophy mainly from Socrates\nand Aristotle. Their cosmology was pantheistic, matter and force being\nthe two ultimate principles, and God being the working force of the\nuniverse, giving it unity, beauty and adaptation.\n\n6. _The Epicureans:_ The Epicureans held that there were Gods in\nexistence. They accepted the fact of their existence from the constant\nand universal opinion of mankind, independent of education, custom or\nlaw. \"It must necessarily follow,\" they said, \"that this knowledge\nis implanted in our minds, or, rather, innate in us.\" Their doctrine\nwas: \"That opinion respecting which there is a general agreement in\nuniversal nature must infallibly be true; therefore it must be allowed\nthat there are Gods.\"\n\n\"Of the form of the Gods, they held that because the human body is\nmore excellent than that of other animals, both in beauty and for\nconvenience, therefore the Gods are in human form. All men are told by\nnature that none but the human form can be ascribed to the Gods; for\nunder what other image did it ever appear to anyone either sleeping or\nwaking?\" Yet these forms of the Gods were not \"body,\" but \"something\nlike body,\" \"nor do they contain blood, but something like blood.\" \"Nor\nare they to be considered as bodies of any solidity, or reducible to\nnumber.\" \"Nor is the nature or power of the Gods to be discerned by\nthe senses but by the mind.\" They held, moreover, that the universe\narose from chance; that the Gods neither did nor could extend their\nprovidential care to human affairs.\n\nThe duty of worshipping the Gods was based upon the fact of their\nsuperiority to man. \"The superior and excellent nature of the Gods\nrequires a pious adoration from men, because it is possessed of\nimmortality, and the most exalted felicity; for whatever excels has a\nright to veneration.\" Yet \"all fear of the power and anger of the Gods\nshould be banished; for we must understand that anger and affection\nare inconsistent with the nature of a happy and immortal being. These\napprehensions being removed, no dread of the superior power remains.\"\nOn the same principles that the existence of the Gods was allowed, that\nis, on the pre-notion and universal belief of their existence, it was\nheld that the Gods were happy and immortal, to which the Epicureans\nadded this doctrine: \"That which is eternally happy cannot be burdened\nwith any labor itself, nor can it impose any labor on another; nor\ncan it be influenced by resentment or favor; because things which are\nliable to such feelings must be weak and frail.\"\n\nIt was generally held by the opponents of Epicurus that, as a matter of\nfact he did not believe in the existence of the Gods at all; but dared\nnot deny their existence for fear of the Athenian law against impiety,\nand because such denial would render him unpopular. But after becoming\nacquainted with his views as to the nature of the Gods, one is prepared\nto accept the criticism of his doctrines which Cicero puts in the mouth\nof Cotta, in his Tusculan Disputations, viz., \"Epicurus has allowed a\ndeity in words but destroyed him in fact.\"\n\n7. _The Sensualism of Epicureanism:_ Whatever apologists may say,\nit is very clear that the \"pleasure\" of the Epicurean philosophy,\nhailed as \"the supreme good and chief end in life,\" was to arise from\nagreeable sensations, or whatever gratified the senses, and hence\nwas, in the last analysis of it--in its roots and branches--in its\ntheory and in its practice--\"sensualism.\" It was to result in physical\nease and comfort, and mental inactivity--other than a conscious,\nself-complacence--being regarded as \"The supreme good and chief end of\nlife.\" I judge this to be the net result of this philosophy since these\nare the very conditions in which Epicurus describe even the gods to\nexist; and surely men could not hope for more \"pleasure,\" or greater\nhappiness than that possessed by their gods. Cicero even charges\nthat the sensualism of Epicurus was so gross that he represents him\nas blaming his brother, Timocrates, \"because he would not allow that\neverything which had any reference to a happy life was to be measured\nby the belly; nor has he,\" continues Cicero, \"said this once only, but\noften.\"\n\nIn Cicero's description of the Epicurean conception of the gods,\nhe says: \"That which is truly happy cannot be burdened with any\nlabor itself, nor can it impose any labor on another, nor can it be\ninfluenced by resentment or favor, because things which are liable to\nsuch failings must be weak and frail. * * * Their life [i. e., of the\ngods] is most happy and the most abounding with all kinds of blessings\nwhich can be conceived. They do nothing. They are embarrassed with no\nbusiness; nor do they perform any work. They rejoice in the possession\nof their own wisdom and virtue. They are satisfied that they shall ever\nenjoy the fulness of eternal pleasure. * * Nothing can be happy that\nis not at ease.\" (Tusculan Disputations, The Nature of the Gods, pp.\n266-268).\n\n8. _The Academicians:_ The Academicians can scarcely be regarded\nas a school of philosophy, though they refer their origin to Plato\n(Smith's Student's History of Greece, p. 596.). Their name stands for\na method of thought rather than for a system of truth. They had no\nphilosophy, but rather speculated about philosophy. They advocated\nnothing; they were the agnostics of their time--that is, they were\npeople who did not know, and like our modern agnostics, had a strong\nsuspicion that nobody else knew. They represented merely the negative\nattitude of mind in their times. Still, they numbered in their\nfollowing some of the most considerable men of Rome, Cicero being\namong the number. The academy is said to have exactly corresponded to\nthe moral and political wants of Rome in the days of Cicero. \"With no\ngenius for speculation, the better Romans of that day were content to\nembrace a system which, though resting on no philosophical basis, and\ncompounded of heterogeneous dogmas, offered notwithstanding, a secure\nretreat from religious scepticism and political troubles.\" \"My words,\"\nsays Cicero, speaking as a true Academician, \"do not proclaim the\ntruth, like a Pythian priestess; but I conjecture what is probable,\nlike a plain man.\" And again: \"The characteristic of the Academy is\nnever to interpose one's judgment to approve what seems most probable,\nto compare together different opinions, to see what may be advanced\non either side, and to leave one's listeners free to judge without\npretending to dogmatize.\" (Ency. Brit. Art. Academy.) I believe this\ndescription warrants what was said at the beginning of this note, viz;\nthat the name Academician stood for a method of thought rather than for\na school of philosophy.\n\n\n\nLESSON XIX.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                   _REFERENCES._\n\n  _XV. Religions of Northern Europe--_           Draper's \"Intellectual\n                                                     Development of Europe,\"\n         1. The Scythians;                           Ch. viii, pp. 240 et seq.\n                                                     \"The World's Worship,\"\n         2. The Scandinavians;                       (Dobbins), Ch. x.\n                                                     Burder's \"History of\n         3. The Druids;                              All Religions,\" Part VI,\n                                                     Sec. vii, p. 524 et seq.\n                                                     \"Mormon Doctrine of\n                                                     Deity,\" Ch. iv.\n                                                     Crabb's \"Mythology of\n                                                     All Nations,\" Chs. lxii,\n                                                     lxiii, lxiv, lxv.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"I will sanctify My great name, which was profaned among\nthe heathen; which ye [Israel] have profaned in the midst of them;\nand the heathen shall know that I am the Lord God, when I shall be\nsanctified in you before their eyes.\" Ezekiel xxvi:23._\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Scythians:_ \"The Scythians inhabited a large tract of\ncountry to the north of Europe and Asia. In early times their religion\nwas very simple; it taught the belief of a Supreme God, to whom were\nattributed infinite power, knowledge, and wisdom; it forbade any\nrepresentation of this being under a corporeal form, and enjoined the\ncelebration of his worship in consecrated woods. Under him, a number\nof inferior divinities were supposed to govern the world, and preside\nover the celestial bodies. The doctrine of a future state formed an\nimportant part of the mythology of these people; and their fundamental\nmaxims were, to serve the Deity with sacrifice and prayer, to do no\nwrong to others, and to be brave and intrepid. But in the course of\ntime, the religion of the Scythians degenerated, a multitude of other\ndivinities were introduced amongst them, and as they were a warlike\npeople, they made the god of battles their favorite deity; to him they\nconsecrated groves of oak, which were held so sacred that whoever\ninjured them was punished with death. A Scimitar raised upon the summit\nof an immense wooden altar was the emblem of this God, to whom they\nsacrificed horses, and every hundredth man taken in battle; the first\nfruits of the earth, and a portion of the spoils gained in war, were\nthe offerings made to the other divinities. The principal Scythian\ndeities were: Tabite, the Vesta of later times; Papius, the Jupiter;\nApia, or the Earth, the consort of Papius; Stripassa, the Venus;\nOestasynes, the Apollo; Thamimasides, the Neptune.\n\n\"The Scythians venerated fire, as the principle of all things; and the\nwind and the sword, as the cause of life and death; a being called\nZamolxis, was supposed to have the charge of conducting departed\nspirits to their respective abodes; and sacrifices were made to him by\nthe friends of deceased persons on their behalf.\" (Burder's History of\nAll Religions, pp. 524-5).\n\n2. _The Scandinavian Mythology:_ \"The Gothic Mythology is so called\nfrom the Getae; or Goths, a tribe of Scythians, who, at an early period\npassed over into Scandinavia, whence they over-spread all Sweden,\nDenmark the islands of the Baltic, and the neighboring parts. Their\nmythological scheme is explained in a work called the 'Edda,' which was\ncompiled by Snorro Sturleson, in the thirteenth century, from the poems\nof the Scalds or bards particularly one bearing the same name, and a\nstill older one, called the 'Voluspa.' The Goths, like the Indians\n[American] believed in a supreme being, to whom they ascribed many of\nthe divine attributes, but offered him no worship, which they paid only\nto the subordinate deities. This being they designated by the name of\n'Alfader,' that is 'Father of all.' They believed that giants existed\nbefore the gods, the chief of whom, named Odin, was the offspring of\none of them. After this, according to their fables, which agree with\nthat of the Greeks, a war ensued between the gods and the giants, which\nterminated in the destruction of the latter. The gods then proceeded to\nthe work of creation, and fashioned the globe out of the body of one\nof the giants, named Ymir. Before all this, however, we find from the\nVoluspa, that in accordance with the Mosaic account, 'In the beginning,\nthere was neither shore nor sea; the earth was not to be found below,\nnor the heavens above.' Besides Odin, before mentioned, who was the\ngod of war, and is supposed to be the Buddha, or Bood, of the Hindoos,\nthe gods of the Gothic mythology were Frigga, the wife of Odin, and\nThor, their son, who, from the legends told of them, correspond to the\nOsiris, Isis, and Orus, of the Egyptians. Among the other children\nof Odin, were Balder, a powerful god; Boder, the blind; Vidar, the\ngod of silence, who walked on the waters and in the air; Vali, the\narcher; Uller, who presided over trial by the duel; Forsette, the\narbiter between gods and men; Iduna, the queen of truth, who presided\nover witnesses and oaths; Lofen, the guardian of friendship; Synia\nand Snootra, who presided over wisdom and discretion. To these may be\nadded, Heimdall, the son of nine virgins, and sentinel of the gods;\nBraga, the god of poetry; Niord, the god of winds and the sea; Tyr,\nthe god of might; Eica, the goddess of medicine; Freya, the wife of\nHolder, and goddess of love; Gna, the messenger of Frigga; Tylia, the\ngoddess of beauty, secrecy, and chastity; Siona and Soona, presiding\nover marriage; and the Valkyries, virgins, who always attended Odin\nin battle. Among their evil spirits was Loke, the spirit of evil and\ncontradiction who was always opposing the gods. Besides the giants and\ngods, the Goths, like the Greeks and Romans, had their Genii; like\nthe Arabians, their fairies; and, like the Indians, their dwarfs or\npigmies. The genii presided over the destinies of man, of whom there\nwere three principal--Urda, Verdandi and Skulda, answering to the\nParcae. [I. e., the Fates of Roman Mythology.] They had their evil as\nwell as good genii, of whom Surtur was the prince.\n\n\"That they worshipped the sun and moon may be inferred from two days\nin the week being sacred to them, namely, Sonndag and Mondag, that is,\nSunday and Monday. The heaven of the Goths was in the highest regions\nof the earth, and consisted of two abodes, namely, the Valhalla, or\nhall of Odin, where warriors only were admitted; and a higher abode,\ncalled Gimle, where the good and virtuous, in general, were to be\nadmitted. They had also two abodes for the wicked, namely, Nifleheim,\nor Evil home, and Nastrond, or the shore of the Dead. Nifleheim\nconsisted of nine regions, over whom Hela, or Death, held absolute\nsway. Mention is also made of two gods of this hell, instead of the\nsingle Cerberus among the Greeks and Romans.\n\n\"The Goths also held that Valhalla and Nifleheim were both perishable\nabodes; and that at the last day, the respective inhabitants of these\ntwo places were to be consigned by Alfader, either to Gimle or to\nNastrond, both of which would be eternal; a fable evidently borrowed\nfrom the Scripture account of the day of judgment. They denominated\nthis the Twilight of the Gods.\" (Crabb's Mythology, pp. 165-167).\n\n3. _Religion of the Old Europeans:_ \"The religion of the barbarian\nEuropeans was in many respects like that of the American Indians. They\nrecognized a 'Great Spirit'--omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. In\nthe earliest times they made no representation of him under the human\nform, nor had they temples; but they propitiated him by sacrifices,\noffering animals, as the horse, and even men, upon rude altars. Though\nit was believed that this 'Great Spirit' might sometimes be heard in\nthe sounds of the Forests at night, yet, for the most part, he was\ntoo far removed from human supplication, and hence arose, from the\nmere sorcerous ideas of a terrified fancy, as has been the case in so\nmany other countries, star worship--the second stage of comparative\ntheology. The gloom and shade of dense forests, a solitude that\noffers an air of sanctity, and seems a fitting resort for mysterious\nspirits, suggested the establishment of sacred groves and holy trees.\nThroughout Europe there was a confused idea that the soul exists after\nthe death of the body; as to its particular state there was a diversity\nof belief. As among other people, also, the offices of religion were\nnot only directed to the present benefit of individuals, but also to\nthe discovery of future events by various processes of divination and\naugury practiced among the priests.\" (Intellectual Development of\nEurope, Draper, p. 240).\n\n4. _Chief Divinities of the Scandinavians:_ \"The Scandinavians\nsacrificed human victims, and sometimes offered up even their kings, to\nappease the gods in times of public calamity. Their chief divinities\nwere Odin or Wodin, Frea or Friga, and Thor. Odin or Wodin is generally\nsupposed to have been a deified war-like prince; he was the god and\nfather of war, and was thought to adopt as his children all who died in\nbattle; he was also worshipped as the god of arts and sciences, from\nhis having in some degree civilized the countries which he subdued. The\nfourth day of the week was consecrated to him, and was called 'Odin's\nday,' which now is corrupted into our 'Wednesday.'\n\n\"Frea or Friga, the consort of Odin, was the most amiable of all\nthe Scandinavian goddesses. She was also called Vanadis, or the\ngoddess of Hope; and under the name of Hertha she was considered as a\npersonification of earth. Virgins of high birth devoted themselves to\nher service; and Friday, the sixth day of the week, was named after her.\n\n\"Thor, the eldest and bravest of the sons of Odin and Frea, was the\ngod of the aerial regions; prayers were addressed to him for favorable\nwinds and refreshing showers; and Thursday, the fifth day of the week,\nwas dedicated to him.\n\n\"In the earliest times, the Scandinavians performed their rites in\ngroves; but they afterwards raised temples to their gods, the most\nmagnificent of which were at Upsal and Drontheim.\n\n\"The inferior deities of the Scandinavians were: Niorder, who presided\nover the seas, navigation, hunting and fishing; Isminsul, or the column\nof the universe; Surtar, prince of the genii of fire; Balder, son of\nOdin; Tur, the dispenser of victory; Heimdal, the guardian of the\nheavens; Norder, the blind, a son of Odin; Vidar, the god of silence,\na son of Odin; Braga, the god of poetry; Vati, the formidable archer;\nUller, presiding over trials by duel; Hela, the dreadful goddess of\ndeath; Torset, decided the differences of gods and men; the Valkyries\nwere goddesses of slaughter; Iduna, the queen of youth; Saga, the\ngoddess of waterfalls; Vara, the witness of oaths; Lofen, the guardian\nof friendship; Synia, the avenger of broken faith.\" (Burder's History\nof All Religions, pp. 525-6).\n\n5. _Scandinavian Notions of Hell:_ \"The notions the Scandinavians\nentertained of hell were very remarkable; it was called Niflheim, and\nconsisted of nine vast regions of ice, situated under the North Pole,\nthe entrance to which was guarded by the dog of darkness, similar to\nthe Grecian Cerberus. Loke, the evil genius, who was the cruel enemy\nof gods and men, with his daughter Hela, the goddess of death; the\ngiantess Angherbode, the messenger of evil; the wolf Femis, a monster,\ndreaded by the gods, as destined to be their destruction, and the\nequally formidable serpent, resided in this gloomy abode; which has\nbeen described by Gray, in his 'Descent of Odin.'\n\n\"The Scandinavians believed that what formed their highest enjoyments\nin this world, would likewise constitute their happiness in the next.\nThey imagined that the souls of heroes who had fallen in battle would\npass their days in hunting shadowy forms of wild beasts, or in combats\nwith warriors; and at night would assemble in the hall of Odin, to\nfeast, and drink mead or ale out of the skulls of their enemies whom\nthey had slain in their mortal life. This view of happiness in a future\nstate of existence has prevailed amongst all nations.\" (Burder's\nHistory of All Religions, pp. 525-6).\n\n6. _The Druids:_ \"We have reason to believe that the Britons\ninhabited England not long after the days of Noah. We might therefore\nexpect to find resemblances between their religion and the religion of\nother ancient peoples; and we are not disappointed. There is a striking\ncorrespondence between the system of the ancient Britons and those\nof the Hebrew patriarchs, the Brahmins of India, the Magi of Persia,\nand the Greek priests. It was one system that was finally conveyed\nto these different parts of the globe. Take, as a single instance of\nthe many points of comparison, their idea of God. Among their names\nfor the supreme God which they had in use before the introduction of\nChristianity, were terms which have been literally translated, \"God,\"\n\"Distributor,\" \"Governor,\" the \"Mysterious One,\" the \"Eternal,\" \"He\nthat pervadeth all things,\" \"the Author of Existence,\" \"the Ancient\nof Days.\" These expressive appellations sufficiently indicate their\nviews of the moral character and attributes of God.\" (The World's\nWorship--Dobbins--p. 188).\n\n7. _Druid Priesthood:_ \"The Celtic priests were called Druids.\nAll the Celtic nations, like the early Scythians, performed their\nreligious ceremonies in sacred groves; and they regarded the oak, and\nthe mistletoe growing upon it, with peculiar reverence. Their principal\ndeities were: Teulates, the god of war; Dis, the god of the infernal\nregions, and the Pluto of after times; and Andate, the goddess of\nvictory. The god of war was the divinity of the greatest importance;\nupon his altars human victims were sacrificed; and though criminals\nwere deemed the most acceptable offerings, innocent persons were\nfrequently immolated.\n\n\"Druid is derived from the word deru, which in the Celtic language\nsignified an oak; because their usual abode was in woods. These priests\nwere most highly reversed; they were referred to in all civil, as well\nas religious matters; and so great was their influence in the state,\nthat even kings could not ascend the throne without their approbation.\nThey were divided into four classes,--druids, bards, sarronides, and\nvates or eubages; the first were the supreme chiefs, and so highly\nreverenced, that the inferior orders could not remain in their presence\nwithout permission to do so. The bards, whose Celtic name signifies a\nsinger, celebrated the actions of heroes in verse which they sang, and\naccompanied on the harp. The sarronides had the charge of instructing\nyouth whom they were enjoined to inspire with virtuous sentiments;\nand the vates or eubages had the care of the sacrifices, and applied\nthemselves particularly to the study of nature. The Druids enjoyed\ngreat privileges; they were exempted from serving in war and paying\ntaxes.\n\n\"Numbers aspired to gain admission into this order of society, for\nit was open to all ranks; but this was rather difficult, as the\ncandidates were obliged to learn the verses which contained the maxims\nof their religion and political government. It was unlawful to commit\nthe Druidical doctrine to writing; and therefore they were taught,\nand transmitted from generation to generation, entirely by the poems\nrecited by the Druids, who required a period of fifteen, or even twenty\nyears, to acquire an adequate knowledge on that subject. The Druids\nconsidered the mistletoe as a special gift from the divinity to the\noak, and the gathering of this plant was the most sacred of their\nceremonies.\" (Burder's History of All Religions, pp. 526-7).\n\n8. _Druid Worship:_ \"They worshipped in the open air; it being a\nmaxim with them, that it was unlawful to build temples to the gods, or\nto worship them within walls and under roofs. Their favorite place was\na grove of oaks, or the shelter of a majestic tree of this kind. Here\nthey would erect stone pillars in one or two circular rows; and in some\nof their principal temples, as particularly that of Stonehenge, they\nlaid stones of prodigious weight on the tops of these perpendicular\npillars, which formed a kind of circle aloft in the air. Near to these\ntemples they constructed their sacred mounts, their cromlechs or stone\ntables for their sacrifices, and every other necessary provision for\ntheir worship. These sacred places were generally situated in the\ncenter of some thick grove or wood, watered by a consecrated river or\nfountain, and surrounded by a ditch or mound, to prevent intrusion.\"\n(The World's Worship, p. 190).\n\n\n\nLESSON XX.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                 _REFERENCES._\n\n  _XVI. Beliefs of India:_                     Chips from a German\n                                                   Workshop (Max Muller),\n          1. The Vedas.                            2 Vols. Science of\n                                                   Religions (Max Muller),\n          2. Doctrines of the Vedas.               1 vol. Chiefly deals with\n                                                   Buddhism.\n          3. Chief Gods of Hinduism.\n                                                   Article in Encyclopaedia\n                                                   Britannica--\"Buddhism.\"\n\n                                                   \"Vedanta Philosophy\"\n                                                   (1899), by Swami Vivekananda.\n\n                                                   Dobbins' \"World's\n                                                   Worship,\" Chs. xi-xiii.\n\n                                                   Draper's \"Intellectual\n                                                   Development of Europe,\"\n                                                   Vol. I, Ch. iii, and\n                                                   Notes of this lesson.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"Their idols are silver and gold; the work of men's\nhands. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they\nsee not; they have ears, but they hear not; . . . . they that make them\nare like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.\" Ps. cxv._\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Vedas:_ \"Vedas means, originally, knowing or knowledge,\nand this name is given by the Brahmans not to one work, but to the\nwhole body of their most ancient sacred literature. Veda is the same\nword which appears in the Greek, 'I know,' and in the English, 'wise,'\n'wisdom.' The name of Veda is commonly given to four collections\nof hymns, which are respectively known by the names of 'Rig-veda,'\n'Yagur-veda,' 'Sama-veda,' and 'Atharva-veda;' but for our own\npurposes, namely, for tracing the earliest growth of religious ideas\nin India, the only important, the only real Veda, is the Rig-veda. The\nother so-called Vedas, which deserve the name of Veda no more than the\nTalmud deserves the name of Bible, contain chiefly extracts from the\nRig-veda, together with sacrificial formulas, charms, and incantations,\nmany of them, no doubt, extremely curious, but never likely to interest\nany one except the Sanscrit scholar by profession.\" (\"Chips from a\nGerman Workshop\" (Muller), Vol. I, p. 8).\n\n2. _Doctrine of the Vedas:_ \"The Vedas, which are the Hindo\nScriptures, and of which there are four, the Rig, Yagust, Saman and\nAtharvan, are asserted to have been revealed by Brahma. The fourth\nis, however, rejected by some authorities and bears internal evidence\nof a later composition, at a time when hierarchical power had become\ngreatly consolidated. These works are written in an obsolete Sanscrit,\nthe parent of the more recent idiom. They constitute the basis of an\nextensive literature.\n\n\"The Vedas are based upon an acknowledgement of a universal Spirit\npervading all things. Of this God they therefore necessarily\nacknowledge the unity; 'There is in truth, but one Deity, the Supreme\nSpirit; the Lord of the universe, whose work is the universe.' 'The\nGod above all gods, who created the earth, the heavens, the waters.'\nThe world, thus considered as an emanation of God, is therefore a\npart of him; it is kept in a visible state by his energy, and would\ninstantly disappear if that energy were for a moment withdrawn. Even\nas it is, it is undergoing unceasing transformations, everything being\nin a transitory condition. The moment a given phase is reached, it is\ndeparted from, or ceases. In these perpetual movements the present can\nscarcely be said to have any existence, for as the Past is ending, the\nFuture has begun.\n\n\"In such a never-ceasing career, all material things are urged,\ntheir forms continually changing, and returning, as it were, through\nrevolving cycles to similar states. For this reason it is that we may\nregard our earth, and the various celestial bodies, as having had\na moment of birth, as having a time of continuance, in which they\nare passing onward to an inevitable destruction, and that after the\nlapse of countless ages similar progresses will be made, and similar\nseries of events will occur again and again.\" (Draper, Intellectual\nDevelopment of Europe, Vol. I, pp. 58-60).\n\n3. _The Hindu Pantheism:_ \"But in this doctrine of universal\ntransformation there is something more than appears at first. The\ntheology of India is underlaid with Pantheism. \"God is one because he\nis All.\" The Vedas, in speaking of the relation of nature to God, make\nuse of the expression that he is the 'Material as well as the Cause\nof the universe,' 'the Clay as well as the Potter.' They convey the\nidea that while there is a prevading spirit existing everywhere of the\nsame nature as the soul of man, though differing from it infinitely\nin degree, visible nature is essentially and inseparably connected\ntherewith; that as in man the body is perpetually undergoing changes,\nperpetually decaying and being renewed, or, as in the case of the whole\nhuman species, nations come into existence and pass away, yet still\nthere continues to exist what may be termed the universal human mind,\nso forever associated and forever connected are the material and the\nspiritual. And under this aspect we must contemplate the Supreme Being,\nnot merely as a presiding intellect, but as illustrated by the parallel\ncase of man, whose mental principle shows no tokens except through\nits connection with the body; so matter, or nature, or the visible\nuniverse, is to be looked upon as the corporeal manifestation of God.\"\n(Draper, Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. I, pp. 58-60).\n\n4. _The Two Aspects of Pantheism:_ \"Pantheism, speaking in a\ngeneral way, is of two kinds: First, the Pantheism that sinks all\nnature into one substance, one essence, and then concludes that that\none substance or essence is God. Such Pantheism as this is the purest\nMonism--that is, the one-substance theory of existence; and is spoken\nof by some of our philosophers as the purest Theism--that is, faith\nin one God. Indeed, Pantheism, in this aspect of it, is looked upon\nas a sort of exaggerated Theism; for it regards \"God\" as the only\nsubstance, of which the material universe and man are but ever-changing\nmanifestations. It is the form of Pantheism which identifies mind and\nmatter, the finite and infinite, making them but manifestations of one\nuniversal being; but in effect it denies the personality, by which I\nmean the individuality, of God. This was, and, for matter of that, is\nnow, the general belief of many millions in India.\n\n\"Second, the Pantheism which expands the one substance into all the\nvariety of objects that we see in nature, and regards those various\nparts as God, or God expanded into nature, is the second kind of\nPantheism referred to a moment since. This leads to the grossest kind\nof idolatry, as it did in Egypt, at the time of which I am speaking.\nUnder this form of Pantheism, men worshipped various objects in\nnature; the sun, moon, stars; in fact, anything and everything that\nbodies forth to their minds some quality, or power, or attribute of\nthe Deity. This was the Pantheism of Egypt; and led to the abominable\nand disgusting idolatry of that land.\" (From \"Mormon Doctrine of\nDeity,\"--Roberts--pp. 173-4).\n\n5. _Chief God--The Hindoo Trinity:_ \"The three idols sculptured on\nthe walls of Elephanta Cave are found all over India, and constitute\nthe chief gods which are worshipped by the Hindus. All the human race\nis said to have come from the highlands of Central Asia, and the\nworship of these, our Aryan forefathers, was at first exceedingly\nsimple. Their manner of life brought them into close contact with\nnature, and we learn from the hymns then written, many of which are\nstill preserved in the Vedas (the sacred book of the Hindus), that\nthey regarded the powers of nature as manifestations of gods. In the\nstorms, they supposed these rival gods were quarreling. In the Vedic\nhymns, frequent mention is made of the chief god, called Dyaus, the\n'Heavenly Father.' Also Aditi, the 'Infinite Expanse,' is called the\nmother of all gods. Next comes Varuna, the 'Sky in its Brightness,'\nthen Indra, the God of the 'Atmosphere;' so running through the whole\nlist. After a time, the names of the gods are somewhat altered, and a\nsort of trinity is formed. Agni, god of fire, becomes Brahma; Surya,\nthe sun-god, becomes Vishnu, and Indra, the atmosphere-god, becomes\nSiva. These constitute what is called the Tri-murti, and are generally\nsaid to represent one god as Creator, Preserver or Destroyer. Hindus\noften write in their honor verses like the following:\n\n  'In those three persons the one God was shown--\n  Each first in place, each last--not one alone;\n  Of Siva, Vishnu, Brahma, each may be\n  First, second, third, among the Blessed Three.'\n\n\"As to which of the three gods is to be called the Supreme Being,\nopinions differ.\" (Dobbins' \"The World's Worship,\" pp. 215-216).\n\n\n\nLESSON XXI.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                        _REFERENCES._\n\n  _XVI. Beliefs of India--(Continued):_               Chips from a German\n                                                          Workshop (Max Muller),\n          1. Brahaminism--General View.                   2 vols. Science of\n                                                          Religions (Max Muller),\n          2. Buddha--Gautama.                             1 Vol. Chiefly deals with\n                                                          Buddhism.\n          3. Buddhism.\n                                                          Article in Encyclopaedia\n                                                          Britannica--\"Buddhism.\"\n\n                                                          Dobbins' \"World's\n                                                          Worship,\" Chs. xi-xiii.\n\n                                                          Burder's \"History of\n                                                          All Religions,\" pp. 634-672.\n\n                                                          Vendanta Philosophy\n                                                          (1899), by Swami Vivekananda.\n\n                                                          Draper's \"Intellectual\n                                                          Development of Europe,\"\n                                                          Vol. I, Ch. iii; and\n                                                          notes of this lesson.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"All the gods of the nations are idols; but the Lord\nmade the heavens. Honor and majesty are before Him; strength and beauty\nare in His sanctuary.\" Ps. xcvi:5._\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Brahminism: General View:_ \"Brahminism grew out of what is\ncalled the Vedic religion. Before Abraham's day, the people living\nin Central Asia, being a simple race, addressed their prayers to the\npowers of nature, as, for example, to the storms, the clouds and the\nsun, seeing the Deity in each of these. Hymns were written to these\ngods, and this forms the earliest of all sacred books, only excepting\nthose from which Moses wrote his account of the early history of the\nworld in Genesis. This people moved south into India. The priesthood\narose, and the other Vedic books of ceremonies, sacrifices and\nliturgical forms were prepared. Great commentaries were written on\nthese books, and all were declared to be inspired.\n\n\"The priests quarreled with the civil chiefs, but their sacred\ncharacter was increased by the conflict, and caste is the result. The\npriests are the highest caste (or class); next come the warriors, then\nthe merchant, the farmer, etc; last of all the tanners, buriers of\nthe dead, etc. These classes never intermarry or intermingle in any\nway; it is contaminating to sit together even. About this time idols\nappear, and Gods multiply until they reach the number of 330,000,000.\nMen groaned under this stupendous system of oppressive idolatry.\nBuddha tried in the seventh century before Christ, to reform it, but\nhe failed, though he succeeded in establishing a new faith which has\nnumbered its converts by the hundreds of millions. But Brahminism\ncontinues to be the religion of India, even until today. Starting from\nthe Veda, Hinduism has ended in embracing something from all religions,\nand in presenting phases suited to all minds. It is all-tolerant,\nall-compliant, all-comprehensive, all-absorbing. It has its spiritual\nand its material aspect, its esoteric and exoteric, its subjective and\nobjective, its rational and irrational, its pure and impure. It has one\nside for the practical, another for the severely moral, another for\nthe devotional and imaginative, another for the sensuous and sensual,\nand another for the philosophical and speculative. Those who rest in\nceremonial observances find it all-sufficient; those who deny the\nefficacy of works and make faith the one requisite, need not wander\nfrom its pale; those who are addicted to sensuality may have their\ntastes fully gratified; those whose delight is in meditating upon the\nnature of God and of man, or the relations of matter and of spirit,\nthe mystery of separate existence, or upon the origin of evil, may\nhere indulge their love of speculation. And this capacity for almost\nlimitless expansion causes almost numberless sectarian divisions even\namong the followers of any given particular line of doctrine. Yet there\nremains much of the old nature-worship, or more correctly speaking,\nof the old devil-worship, among the Hindus even at this late day.\"\n(Dobbins' \"World's Worship,\" pp. 211-213).\n\n2. _Buddha:_ \"The Enlightened,\" the title of Siddhartha, or\nGautama, the founder of Buddhism. \"He was born between 562 and 552\nB. C. The Buddhist narratives of his life are overgrown with legend\nand myth. Senart seeks to trace in them the history of the sun-hero.\nOldenberg finds in the most ancient traditions--those of Ceylon--at\nleast definite historical outlines. Siddhartha, as Buddha was called\nbefore entering upon his great mission, was born in the country and\ntribe of Sakhyas, at the foot of the Nepalese Himalayas. His father,\nSuddhodana, was rather a great and wealthy land owner than a king. He\npassed his youth in opulence at Kapilavastu, the Sakhya capital. He\nwas married and had a son Rahula, who became a member of his order.\nAt the age of twenty-nine he left parents, wife, and only son, for\nthe spiritual struggle of a recluse. After seven years he believed\nhimself possessed of perfect truth, and assumed the title of Buddha,\n'the enlightened.' He is represented as having received a sudden\nillumination as he sat under the Botree, or 'tree of knowledge,' at\nBodhgaya or Buddha-Gaya. For twenty-eight or, as later narratives\ngive it, forty-nine days, he was variously tempted by Mara. One of\nhis doubts was whether to keep for himself the knowledge won, or\nto share it. Love triumphed, and he began to preach, at first at\nBenares. For forty-four years he preached in the region of Benares and\nBehar. Primitive Buddhism is only to be gathered by inference from\nthe literature of a later time. Buddha did not array himself against\nthe old religion. The doctrines were rather the outgrowth of those\nof certain Brahmanical schools. His especial concern was salvation\nfrom sorrow, and so from existence. There are 'four noble truths':\n(1) existence is suffering; (2) the cause of pain is desire; (3)\ncessation of pain is possible through the suppression of desire; (4)\nthe way to this is the knowledge and observance of the 'good law' of\nBuddha. The end is Nirvana, the cessation of existence. Buddhism was\npreached in the vulgar tongue, and had a popular literature and an\nelaborately organized monastic and missionary system. It made its way\ninto Afghanistan, Bactriana, Tibet, and China. It passed away in India\nnot from Brahman persecution, but rather from internal causes, such as\nits too abstract nature, too morbid view of life, relaxed discipline,\nand overgrowth of monasticism, and also because Shivaism and Vishnuism\nemployed many of its own weapons more effectively. The system has been\nvariously modified in dogma and rites in the many countries to which it\nhas spread. It is supposed to number about 350,000,000 of adherents,\nwho are principally in Ceylon, Tibet, China, and Japan.\" (Century\nDictionary, Art. Buddha).\n\n3. _The Original Elements in Buddhism:_ \"What was original and new\nin Buddha was his changing a philosophical system into a practical\ndoctrine; his taking the wisdom of the few, and coining as much of it\nas he thought genuine for the benefit of the many; his breaking with\nthe traditional formalities of the past, and proclaiming for the first\ntime, in spite of caste and creeds, the equality of the rich and the\npoor, the foolish and the wise, the 'twice-born' and the outcast.\nBuddhism, as a religion and as a political fact, was a reaction against\nBrahmanism, though it retained much of that more primitive form of\nfaith and worship. Buddhism, in its historical growth, presupposes\nBrahmanism, and, however hostile the mutual relation of these two\nreligions may have been at different periods of Indian history, it can\nbe shown, without much difficulty, that the latter was but a natural\nconsequence of the former.\" \"Chips from a German Workshop\" (Muller),\nVol. I, p. 234.\n\n4. _Absence of God in Buddhism:_ \"Buddhism has no God; it has not\neven the confused and vague notion of a Universal Spirit in which the\nhuman soul, according to the orthodox doctrine of Brahmanism, and the\nSankhya philosophy, may be absorbed. Nor does it admit nature, in\nthe proper sense of the word, and it ignores that profound division\nbetween spirit and matter which forms the system and glory of Kapila.\nIt confounds man with all that surrounds him, all the while preaching\nto him the laws of virtue. Buddhism, therefore cannot unite the human\nsoul, which it does not even mention, with a God, whom it ignores; nor\nwith nature, which it does not know better. Nothing remained but to\nannihilate the soul; and in order to be quite sure that the soul may\nnot reappear under some new form in this world, which has been cursed\nas the abode of illusion and misery, Buddhism destroys its elements,\nand never gets tired of glorying in this achievement. What more is\nwanted? If this is not the absolute nothing, what is Nirvana?\n\n\"Such religion, we should say, was made for a madhouse. But Buddhism\nwas an advance, if compared with Brahmanism; it has stood its ground\nfor centuries, and if truth could be decided by majorities, the show\nof hands, even at the present day, would be in favor of Buddha. The\nmetaphysics of Buddhism, like the metaphysics of most religions, not\nexcluding our own Gnosticism and Mysticism, were beyond the reach of\nall except a few hardened philosophers or ecstatic dreamers. Human\nnature could not be changed. Out of the very 'nothing' it made a new\nparadise; and he who had left no place in the whole universe for a\nDivine Being, was deified himself by the multitudes who wanted a\nperson whom they could worship, a king whose help they might invoke,\na friend before whom they could pour out their most secret griefs.\nAnd there remained the code of a pure morality, proclaimed by Buddha.\nThere remained the spirit of charity, kindness, and universal pity with\nwhich he had inspired his disciples. There remained the simplicity of\nthe ceremonial he had taught, the equality of all men which he had\ndeclared, the religious toleration which he had preached from the\nbeginning. There remained much, therefore, to account for the rapid\nstrides which his doctrine made from the mountain peaks of Ceylon to\nthe Tundras of the Samoyedes.\" (Ibid, pp. 250-1).\n\n\n\nLESSON XXII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                    _REFERENCES._\n\n  _XVII. Beliefs of China:_                        Myers' \"General History,\"\n                                                       Ch. ix.\n           1. The Empire.\n                                                       Dobbins' \"World's\n           2. Religious Teachers and Literature.       Worship,\" Ch. xxxiii.\n\n           3. General Character of Chinese             Burder's \"History of\n              Religious Faiths.                        All Religions,\" Part VI,\n                                                        Sec. viii.\n           4. Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism.\n                                                       Science of Religion\n                                                       (Muller).\n\n                                                       Chips from a German\n                                                       Workshop, Vol. I,\n                                                       Chs. x-xiii.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"Do not to another what you would not have him do unto\nyou. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the\nrest.\" Confucius.[1]_\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _China:_ \"China was the cradle of a very old civilization, older\nperhaps than that of any other lands save Egypt and Babylonia; yet\nChinese affairs have not until recently exercised any direct influence\nupon the general current of history. All through the later ancient and\nmediaeval times the country lay, vague and mysterious, in the haze\nof the world's horizon. During the Middle Ages the land was known to\nEurope under the name of Cathay.\n\n\"The government of China from a remote period has been a parental\nmonarchy. The emperor is the father of his people. But though an\nabsolute prince, he dare not rule tyrannically; he must rule justly and\nin accordance with the ancient customs.\" (Myers' General History, p.\n67.)\n\n2. _The Teachers Confucius and Mencius:_ \"The great teacher of\nthe Chinese was Confucius (551-478 B. C.). He was not a prophet or\nrevealer; he laid no claims to a supernatural knowledge of God or of\nthe hereafter; he said nothing of an Infinite Spirit, and but little\nof a future life. His cardinal precepts were obedience to parents\nand superiors, and reverence for the ancients and imitation of their\nvirtues. He himself walked in the old paths, and thus added the force\nof example to that of precept. He gave the Chinese the Golden Rule,\nstated negatively: \"What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to\nothers.\" The influence of Confucius has been greater than that of any\nother teacher excepting Christ, and perhaps Buddha.\n\n\"Another great teacher of the Chinese was Mencius (372-288 B. C.). He\nwas a disciple of Confucius and a scarcely less revered philosopher and\nmoral teacher.\" (Myers' General History, p. 68).\n\n3. _Chinese Literature:_ \"The most highly-prized portion of Chinese\nliterature is embraced in what is known as the Five Classics and the\nFour Books, called collectively the Nine Classics. A considerable\npart of the material of the Five Classics was collected and edited by\nConfucius. The Four Books, though not written by Confucius, yet bear\nthe impress of his mind and thought, just as the Gospels teach the mind\nof Christ. The cardinal virtue inculcated by all the sacred writings is\nfilial piety.\n\n\"It would be difficult to exaggerate the influence which the Nine\nClassics have had upon the Chinese nation. For more than two\nthousand years these writings have been the Chinese Bible. But their\ninfluence has not been wholly good. The Chinese, in strictly obeying\nthe injunction to walk in the old ways, to conform to the customs\nof the ancients, have failed to mark out any new footpaths for\nthemselves; hence one cause of the unprogressive character of Chinese\ncivilization.\" (Myers' General History, p. 69).\n\n4. _The Religion of China:_ Turn your attention now northward from\nIndia, and take into account those great masses of our race inhabiting\nChina; and you will find there, according to the statement of Max\nMuller:\n\n\"A colorless and unpoetical religion; a religion we might almost\nventure to call monosyllabic, consisting of the worship of a host of\nsingle spirits, representing the sky, the sun, storms and lightning,\nmountains and rivers; one standing by the side of the other without any\nmutual attraction, without any higher principle to hold them together.\nIn addition to this, we likewise meet in China with the worship of\nancestral spirits, the spirits of the departed, who are supposed to\nretain some cognizance of human affairs, and to possess peculiar powers\nwhich they exercise for good or evil. This double worship of human and\nnatural spirits constitutes the old and popular religion of China, and\nit has lived on to the present day, at least in the lower ranks of\nsociety, though there towers above it a more elevated range of half\nreligious and half philosophical faith, a belief in two higher Powers,\nwhich, in the language of philosophy, may mean Form and Matter, in the\nlanguage of ethics, Good and Evil, but which in the original language\nof religion and mythology are represented as Heaven and Earth.\n\n\"It is true that we know the ancient popular religion of China from\nthe works of Confucius only, or from even more modern sources. But\nConfucius, though he is called the founder of a new religion, was\nreally but the new preacher of an old religion. He was emphatically a\ntransmitter, not a maker. He says himself: 'I only hand on; I cannot\ncreate new things. I believe in the ancients, and therefore I love\nthem.'\" (Science of Religion--Muller--pp. 61-62).\n\nSuch was the ancient religion of China; and such, to a very large\nextent, is the religion of China to this day. It must be remembered\nthat the great Chinese philosopher Confucius did not disturb this\nancient religious belief. He did not, in fact, profess to be a teacher\nof religion at all, but was content if he could but influence men to\nproperly observe human relations. On one occasion he was asked how the\n\"spirits could be served,\" to which he made answer, \"If we are not able\nto serve men, how can we serve the spirits?\" On another occasion he\nsaid to his followers, \"Respect the gods, and keep them at a distance.\"\n\n5. _Buddhism in China:_ \"Buddhism spread in the south to Ceylon; in\nthe north to Kashmir, the Himalayan countries, Thibet, and China. One\nBuddhist missionary is mentioned in the Chinese annals as early as 217\nB. C.; and about the year 120 B. C. a Chinese general, after defeating\nthe barbarous tribes north of the Desert of Gobi, brought back as a\ntrophy a golden statute, the statute of Buddha. It was not, however,\ntill the year 66 A. D. that Buddhism was officially recognized by the\nEmperor Ming-ti as a third state religion in China. Ever since, it has\nshared equal honors with the doctrines of Confucius and Lao-tse, in the\ncelestial empire.\" (Chips from a German Workshop--Muller--Vol. I, pp.\n253-4).\n\n6. _The Three Chinese National Religions:_ \"A Chinaman may at the\nsame time be an adherent of all three of the national religions. The\nmass of the Chinese people accept the three, and see no inconsistency\nin so doing. It is somewhat as if we Americans were at the same time\nProtestant, Romanist and skeptic. The Chinese support the priests of\nall religions, worship in all their temples, and believe in the gods of\neach and all. These three religions differ from each other, however,\nDr. Edkins has so well defined this difference that we give his words:\n\n'_Confucianism_ speaks to the moral nature. It discourses on\nvirtue and vice, and the duty of compliance with the law and the\ndictates of conscience. Its worship rests on this basis. The religious\nveneration paid to ancestors--for that is the worship of this\nsystem--is founded on the duty of filial piety. The moral sense of the\nChinese is offended if they are called on to resign this custom.\n\n'_Taoism_ is materialistic. Its notion of the soul is of something\nphysical, a purer form of matter. The soul it supposes to gain\nimmortality by a physical discipline, a sort of chemical process, which\ntransmutes it into a more ethereal essence, and prepares it for being\ntransferred to the regions of immortality. The gods of Taoism are also\nvery much what might be expected in a system which has such notions\nas these of the soul. It looks upon the stars as divine. It deifies\nhermits and physicians, magicians and seekers after the philosopher's\nstone and the plant of immortality.\n\n'_Buddhism_ is different from both. It is metaphysical. It appeals\nto the imagination, and deals in subtle argument. It says that the\nworld of the senses is altogether unreal, and upholds this proposition\nby the most elaborate proofs. Its gods are personified ideas. It\ndenies matter entirely, and concerns itself only with ideas. Most of\nthe personages adored by the Buddhists are known to be nothing but\nfictitious impersonations of some of these ideas. The Buddhist worship\nis not reverence paid to beings believed to be actually existing; it\nis a homage rendered to ideas, and it is only supposed to be reflex in\nits effects. Their worship is useful as a discipline, but not effectual\nas prayer. The Buddhist, if he can obtain abstraction of mind from the\nworld in any other mode, need not pray or worship at all.'\n\n\"These three systems, occupying the three corners of a triangle--the\nmoral, the metaphysical and the material--are supplemental to each\nother, and are able to co-exist without being mutually destructive.\nThey rest each on a basis of its own, and address themselves each to\ndifferent parts of man's nature. It was because Confucianism 'knew\nGod, but did not honor Him as God,' that the way was left open for a\npolytheism like that of the Buddhists. In the old books of China, God\nis spoken of as the 'Supreme Ruler.' He is represented as exercising\nover mankind an infinitely just and beneficent providence. But the\nduty of prayer is not enjoined. No worship of God by the people is\npermitted. It was only by the emperor acting vicariously for the people\nthat the Deity was adored in that country. The system of Confucius,\nwanting this, was more a morality than a religion.\n\n\"Buddhism came to fill this vacancy. Individual faith in God, with\na rational mode of worship to accompany it, could not be a result\nof the religious teaching which preceded it in China, nor were they\ninculcated by it. In Buddhism, the Chinese found objects to adore of\nmysterious grandeur, and richly endowed with the attributes of wisdom\nand benevolence. The appeal thus made to their religious faith was\nstrengthened by a pompous form of worship. Processions and the ringing\nof bells, fumes of sweet-smelling incense, prayers, chanting and\nmusical instruments were their aids to devotion. No wonder that these\nadditions should prove welcome to the religious susceptibilities of a\nnation which had hitherto been restricted within the bounds of a system\nalmost exclusively moral, and which discouraged the worship of God by\nthe mass of the people.\" (Dobbins' World's Worship, pp. 419-421).\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. Cf. Matt. vii;12. also II Nephi, xxix;11-14; and Alma xxix; 8.\n\n\n\nLESSON XXIII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF GOD.--(CONTINUED.)\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                 _REFERENCES._\n\n  _XVIII. Belief of Mohammedans._              The Koran[1] of Mohammed\n                                                   (Sales's Translation),\n            1. Arabia and Its People.              Preliminary Discourse,\n                                                   pp. 1-132, and\n            2. Mohammed--Birth; Appearance;        Koran, Chs. iii and xxx.\n               Character; Mission.\n                                                   Gibbon's \"Decline and\n            3. Mohammedanism-The Creed.            Fall of Rome,\" Vol. VI,\n                                                   Ch. 50.\n\n                                                   Draper's \"Intellectual\n                                                   Development of Europe,\"\n                                                   Vol. I, Ch. xi.\n\n                                                   Hero and Hero Worship\n                                                   (Carlyle), Lecture II.\n\n                                                   Dobbins' \"World's\n                                                   Worship,\" Ch. xxxv,\n                                                   xxxvi and the notes of\n                                                   this lesson.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"O Lord our Lord, how Excellent is Thy Name, in all the\nearth!\" Ps. viii_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Arabia--The Land:_ \"The Arabs, and the country they inhabit,\nwhich themselves call Jexirat al Arab, or the Peninsula of the\nArabians, but we Arabia, were so named from Araba, a small territory in\nthe province of Tehama; to which Yarab the son of Kahtan, the father\nof the ancient Arabs, gave his name, and where, some ages after, dwelt\nIshmael the son of Abraham by Hagar. The Christian writers for several\ncenturies speak of them under the appellation of Saxons; the most\ncertain derivation of which word is from 'shark,' the east, where the\ndescendants of Joctan, the Kahtan of the Arabs, are placed by Moses,\nand in which quarter they dwelt in respect to the Jews.\n\n\"The name of Arabia (used in a more extensive sense) sometimes\ncomprehends all that large tract of land bounded by the river\nEuphrates, the Persian Gulf, the Sindian, Indian, and Red Seas, and\npart of the Mediterranean; above two-thirds of which country, that\nis, Arabia properly so-called, the Arabs have possessed almost from\nthe flood; and have made themselves masters of the rest, either by\nsettlements, or continual incursions; for which reason the Turks and\nPersians at this day call the whole Arabistan, or the country of the\nArabs.\n\n\"But the limits of Arabia, in its more usual and proper sense, are much\nnarrower, as reaching no farther northward than the Isthmus, which\nruns from Aila to the head of the Persian Gulf, and the borders of the\nterritory of Cufa; which tract of land the Greeks nearly comprehended\nunder the name of Arabia the Happy. The eastern geographers make Arabia\nPetraea to belong partly to Egypt, and partly to Sham or Syria, and the\nDesert Arabia they call the deserts of Syria. * * * *\n\n\"This country has been famous from all antiquity for the happiness of\nits climate, its fertility and riches, which induced Alexander the\nGreat, after his return from his Indian expedition, to form a design\nof conquering it, and fixing there his royal seat; but his death,\nwhich happened soon after, prevented the execution of this project.\"\n(Koran--Sales--Preliminary Discourse, pp. 1, 2).\n\n2. _The Arabians:_ \"The Arabians, the inhabitants of this spacious\ncountry, which they have possessed from the most remote antiquity, are\ndistinguished by their own writers into two classes, viz., the old lost\nArabians, and the present.\n\n\"The former were very numerous, and divided into several tribes, which\nare now all destroyed, or else lost and swallowed up among the other\ntribes, nor are any certain memoirs or records extant concerning them;\nthough the memory of some very remarkable events and the catastrophe\nof some tribes have been preserved by tradition, and since confirmed by\nthe authority of the Koran. * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\"The present Arabians, according to their own historians, are sprung\nfrom two stocks, Kahtan, the same with Joctan the son of Eber, and\nAdnan descended in a direct line from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and\nHagar; the posterity of the former they call al Arab al Ariba, i.\ne. naturalized or insititious Arabs, though some reckon the ancient\nlost tribes to have been the only pure Arabians, and therefore call\nthe posterity of Kahtan also Motanreba, which word likewise signifies\ninsititious Arabs, though in a nearer degree than Mostareba; the\ndescendants of Ishmael being the more distant graft. * * * * *\n\n\"The posterity of Ishmael have no claim to be admitted as pure Arabs;\ntheir ancestor being by origin and language an Hebrew, but having\nmade alliance with the Jorhamites, by marrying a daughter of Modad,\nand accustomed himself to their manner of living and language, his\ndescendants became blended with them into one nation. The uncertainty\nof the descents between Ismael and Adnan, is the reason why they seldom\ntrace their genealogies higher than the latter, whom they acknowledge\nas father of their tribes; the descents from him downwards being pretty\ncertain and uncontroverted.\" (Ibid, pp. 4, 6, 7).\n\n3. _Mohammed, Birth and Ancestry:_ \"Mahomet, or more properly\nMohammed, the only son of Abdallah and Amina, was born at Mecca, four\nyears after the death of Justinian, and two months after the defeat of\nthe Abyssinians, (A. D. 569) whose victory would have introduced into\nthe Caaba the religion of the Christians. In his early infancy he was\ndeprived of his father, his mother, and his grandfather; his uncles\nwere strong and numerous; and, in the division of the inheritance,\nthe orphan's share was reduced to five camels and an Ethiopian\nmaid-servant. At home and abroad, in peace and war, Abu Taleb, the most\nrespectable of his uncles, was the guide and guardian of his youth; in\nhis twenty-fifth year he entered into the service of Cadijah, a rich\nand noble widow of Mecca, who soon rewarded his fidelity with the gift\nof her hand and fortune. The marriage contract, in the simple style of\nantiquity, recites the mutual love of Mahomet and Cadijah; describes\nhim as the most accomplished of the tribe of Koeish; and stipulates a\ndowry of twelve ounces of gold and twenty camels, which was supplied by\nthe liberality of his uncle. By this alliance the son of Abdallah was\nrestored to the station of his ancestors; and the judicious matron was\ncontent with his domestic virtues, till, in the fortieth year of his\nage, he assumed the title of prophet, and proclaimed the religion of\nthe Koran.\" (Gibbon's \"Decline and Fall,\" Vol. VI, pp. 218-219.)\n\n4. _Mohammed's Personal Appearance:_ \"According to the tradition\nof his companions, Mohammed was distinguished by the beauty of his\nperson, an outward gift which is seldom despised, except by those to\nwhom it has been refused. Before he spoke, the orator engaged on his\nside the affections of a public or private audience. They applauded\nhis commanding presence, his majestic aspect, his piercing eye, his\ngracious smile, his flowing beard, his countenance that painted every\nsensation of the soul, and his gestures that enforced each expression\nof the tongue. In the familiar offices of life he scrupulously\nadhered to the grave and ceremonious politeness of his country; his\nrespectful attention to the rich and powerful was dignified by his\ncondescension and affability to the poorest citizens of Mecca; the\nfrankness of his manner concealed the artifice of his views; and the\nhabits of courtesy were imputed to personal friendship or universal\nbenevolence. His memory was capacious and retentive; his wit easy\nand social; his imagination sublime; his judgment clear, rapid, and\ndecisive. He possessed the courage both of thought and action; and,\nalthough his designs might gradually expand with his success, the\nfirst idea which he entertained of his divine mission bears the stamp\nof an original and superior genius. The son of Abdallah was educated\nin the bosom of the noblest race, in the use of the purest dialect of\nArabia, and the fluency of his speech was corrected and enhanced by\nthe practice of discreet and seasonable silence. With these powers\nof eloquence, Mahomet was an illiterate barbarian; his youth had\nnever been instructed in the arts of reading and writing; the common\nignorance exempted him from shame or reproach, but he was reduced to\na narrow circle of existence, and deprived of those faithful mirrors\nwhich reflect to our mind the minds of sages and heroes. Yet the book\nof nature and of man was open to his view; and some fancy has been\nindulged in the political and philosophical observations which are\nascribed to the Arabian traveler. He compares the nations and the\nreligions of the earth; discovers the weakness of the Persian and Roman\nmonarchies; beholds with pity and indignation the degeneracy of the\ntimes; and resolves to unite under one God and one king the invincible\nspirit and primitive virtues of the Arabs.\" (Ibid, pp. 219-221.)\n\n5. _The Character of Mohammed:_ \"Mohammed possessed that\ncombination of qualities which more than once has decided the fate of\nempires. A preaching soldier, he was eloquent in the pulpit, valiant\nin the field. His theology was simple: \"There is but one God.\" The\neffeminate Syrian, lost in Monothelite and Monophysite mysteries; the\nAthanasian and Arian, destined to disappear before his breath, might\nreadily anticipate what he meant. Asserting that everlasting truth, he\ndid not engage in vain metaphysics, but applied himself to improving\nthe social condition of his people by regulations respecting personal\ncleanliness, sobriety, fasting, prayer. Above all other works he\nesteemed almsgiving and charity. With a liberality to which the world\nhad of late become a stranger, he admitted the salvation of men of any\nform of faith provided they were virtuous. To the declaration that\nthere is but one God, he added, \"and Mohammed is his Prophet.\" Whoever\ndesires to know whether the event of things answered to the boldness\nof such an announcement, will do well to examine a map of the world\nin our own times. He will find the marks of something more than an\nimposture. To be the religious head of many empires, to guide the daily\nlife of one-third of the human race, may perhaps justify the title of\na messenger of God.\" (Draper: \"Intellectual Development,\" Vol. I, pp.\n330.)\n\n6. _Mohammed and Supernatural Appearances:_ \"Like many of the\nChristian monks, Mohammed retired to the solitude of the desert, and,\ndevoting himself to meditation, fasting, and prayer, became the victim\nof cerebral disorder. He was visited by supernatural appearances,\nmysterious voices accosting him as the Prophet of God; even the stones\nand trees joined in the whispering. He himself suspected the true\nnature of his malady, and to his wife Cadijah he expressed a dread that\nhe was becoming insane. It is related that as they sat alone, a shadow\nentered the room. \"Dost thou see aught?\" said Cadijah, who, after the\nmanner of Arabian matrons, wore her veil. \"I do,\" said the prophet.\nWhereupon she uncovered her face and said: \"Dost thou see it now?\" \"I\ndo not.\" \"Glad tidings to thee, O Mohammed!\" exclaimed Cadijah; \"it is\nan angel, for he has respected my unveiled face; an evil spirit would\nnot.\" As his disease advanced, these spectral illusions became more\nfrequent; from one of them he received the divine commission. \"I,\" said\nhis wife, \"will be thy first believer\"; and they knelt down in prayer\ntogether. Since that day nine thousand millions of human beings have\nacknowledged him to be a prophet of God.\" (Ibid, pp. 330-1.)\n\n7. _Mohammedan Creed:_ \"There is no God but God, the living, the\nself subsisting; he hath sent down unto thee the book of the Koran\nwith truth, confirming that which was revealed before it; for he had\nformerly sent down the law, and the gospel, a direction unto men;\nand he had also sent down the distinction between good and evil.\nVerily those who believe not the signs of God shall suffer a grievous\npunishment; for God is mighty, able to revenge. Surely nothing is\nhidden from God, of that which is on earth, or in heaven; it is He who\nformeth you in the wombs, as he pleaseth; there is no God but he, the\nmighty, the wise. * * * * * * * * * * It is God who hath created you,\nand hath provided food for you; hereafter will he cause you to die;\nand after that will he raise you again to life. Is there any of your\nfalse gods, who is able to do the least of these things? * * * * * *\nIt is God who sendeth the winds, and raiseth the clouds, and spreadeth\nthe same in the heaven, as he pleaseth; and afterwards disperseth the\nsame; and thou mayest see the rain issuing from the midst thereof; and\nwhen he poureth the same down on such of his servants as he pleaseth,\nbehold, they are filled with joy. * * * * * *\n\n\"It is God who created you in weakness, and after weakness hath given\nyou strength; and after strength, he will again reduce you to weakness\nand grey hairs; he createth that which he pleaseth; and he is the wise,\nthe powerful.\" (Al Koran, Chs. iii and xxx.)\n\n8. _Comment on the Creed of Mohammed:_ \"The faith which under the\nname of Islam, he preached to his family and nation, is compounded of\nan eternal truth and necessary fiction. That there is only one God,\nand that Mahomet is the Apostle of God. It is the boast of the Jewish\napologists, that, while the learned nations of antiquity were deluded\nby the fables of polytheism, their simple ancestors of Palestine\npreserved the knowledge and worship of the true God. The moral\nattributes of Jehovah may not easily be reconciled with the standard of\nhuman virtue; his metaphysical qualities are darkly expressed; but each\npage of the Pentateuch and the Prophets is an evidence of his power;\nthe unity of his name is inscribed on the first table of the law; and\nhis sanctuary was never defiled by any visible image of the invisible\nessence. After the ruin of the temple, the faith of the Hebrew exiles\nwas purified, fixed and enlightened by the spiritual devotion of the\nsynagogue; and the authority of Mahomet will not justify his perpetual\nreproach that the Jews of Mecca or Mediana adored Ezra as the son\nof God. But the children of Israel had ceased to be a people; and\nthe religions of the world were guilty, at least in the eyes of the\nprophet, of giving sons, or daughters or companions to the Supreme God.\n* * * * * * * *\n\n\"The creed of Mahomet is free from suspicion or ambiguity; and the\nKoran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God. The prophet of Mecca\nrejected the worship of idols and men, of stars and planets, on the\nrational principle that whatever rises must set, that whatever is born\nmust die, that whatever is corruptible must decay and perish. In the\nauthor of the universe his rational enthusiasm confessed and adored\nan infinite and Eternal Being, without form or place, without issue\nor similitude, present to our most secret thoughts, existing by the\nnecessity of his own nature, and deriving from himself all moral and\nintellectual perfection. These sublime truths, thus announced in the\nlanguage of the prophet, are firmly held by his disciples, and defined\nwith metaphysical precision by the interpreters of the Koran.\" (Gibbon:\n\"Decline and Fall,\" Vol. VI, pp. 222-3).\n\n\"A philosophic theist might subscribe the popular creed of the\nMahometans; a creed too sublime perhaps for our present faculties. What\nobject remains for the fancy, or even the understanding, when we have\nabstracted from the unknown substance all ideas of time and space, of\nmotion and matter, of sensation and reflection? The first principle\nof reason and revelation was confirmed by the voice of Mahomet; his\nproselytes, from India to Morocco, are distinguished by the name of\nUnitarians; and the danger of idolatry has been prevented by the\ninterdiction of images. The doctrine of eternal decrees and absolute\npredestination is strictly embraced by the Mahometans; and they\nstruggle with the common difficulties how to reconcile the prescience\nof God with the freedom and responsibility of man; how to explain the\npermission of evil under the reign of infinite power and infinite\ngoodness.\n\n\"The God of nature has written his existence on all of his works, and\nhis law in the heart of man. To restore the knowledge of the one,\nand the practice of the other, has been the real or pretended aim\nof the prophets of every age; the liberality of Mahomet allowed to\nhis predecessors the same credit which he claimed for himself; and\nthe chain of inspiration was prolonged from the fall of Adam to the\npromulgation of the Koran. During that period some rays of prophetic\nlight had been imparted to one hundred and twenty-four thousand of the\nelect, discriminated by their respective measure of virtue and grace;\nthree hundred and thirteen apostles were sent with a special commission\nto recall their country from idolatry and vice; one hundred and four\nvolumes have been dictated by the Holy Spirit; and six legislators of\ntranscendent brightness have announced to mankind the six successive\nrevelations of various rites, but of one immutable religion. The\nauthority and station of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, and\nMahomet, rise in just gradation above each other; but whosoever hates\nor rejects any one of the prophets is numbered with the infidels. The\nwritings of the patriarchs were extant only in the apocryphal copies\nof the Greeks and Syrians; the conduct of Adam had not entitled him to\nthe gratitude or respect of his children; the seven precepts of Noah\nwere observed by an inferior and imperfect class of the proselytes of\nthe synagogue; and the memory of Abraham was obscurely revered by the\nSabians in his native land of Chaldea; of the myriads of prophets,\nMoses and Christ alone lived and reigned; and the remnant of the\ninspired writings was comprised in the books of the Old and the New\nTestament. The miraculous story of Moses is consecrated and embellished\nin the Koran, and the captive Jews enjoy the secret revenge of imposing\ntheir own belief on the nations whose recent creeds they deride. For\nthe author of Christianity, the Mahometans are taught by the prophet\nto entertain a high and mysterious reverence. \"Verily, Christ Jesus,\nthe son of Mary, is the apostle of God, and his word, which he conveyed\nunto Mary, and a spirit proceeding from him; honorable in this world,\nand in the world to come; and one of those who approached near to the\npresence of God.\"[2] (Gibbon: \"Decline and Fall,\" Vol. I, VI, pp.\n223-226.)\n\n9. _Islam:_ \"Mahomet had been wont to retire yearly, during the\nmonth of Ramadhan, into solitude and silence; as indeed was the Arab\ncustom, a praiseworthy custom, which such a man, above all, would find\nnatural and useful. Communing with his own heart, in the silence of the\nmountains; himself silent; open to the 'small still voices'; it was a\nright natural custom! Mahomet was in his fortieth year, when having\nwithdrawn to a cavern in Mount Hara, near Mecca, during his Ramadhan,\nto pass the month in prayer and meditation on those great questions,\nhe one day told his wife Kadijah, who with his household was with him\nor near him this year, that by the unspeakable special favor of Heaven\nhe had now found it all out; was in doubt and darkness no longer, but\nsaw it all. That all these Idols and Formulas were nothing, miserable\nbits of wood; that there was one God in and over all; and we must\nleave all idols, and look to Him. That God is great; and that there is\nnothing else great! He is the Reality. Wooden idols are not real; He is\nreal. He made us at first, sustains us yet; we and all things are but\nthe shadow of Him; a transitory garment veiling the Eternal Splendor.\n'Allah Akbar, God is Great;' and then also 'Islam,' that we must submit\nto God. That our whole strength lies in resigned submission to Him,\nwhatsoever He do to us. For this world, and for the other! The thing He\nsends to us, were it death and worse than death, shall be good, shall\nbe best; we resign ourselves to God.\" (Hero Worship, Lecture II).\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. \"The syllable 'Al' in the word 'Alkoran' (sometimes also written\n'Alcoran') is only the Arabic article signifying _'the'_;\nand therefore ought to be omitted when the English article is\nprefixed.\"--Sale, Alkoran, p. 40.\n\n2. Koran, Ch. iii.\n\n\n\nLESSON XXIV.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\nSPECIAL LESSON.\n\n_THE CALLING OF ISRAEL AS A WITNESS OF THE TRUE GOD--WAS ISRAEL TRUE\nTO HIS MISSION?_\n\n(AN ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE.)\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Judaism and Ancient Conceptions of God:_ It may be thought\nstrange that I have not devoted one lesson at least to Judaism among\nthe lessons on the \"Ancient Conceptions of God.\" My reason for omitting\nconsideration of it here, where it would so fittingly take rank among\nthe ancient faiths, is that when the ancient and modern conceptions\nof God shall have been considered, we then take up \"True Conceptions\nof Deity,\" and in doing so it is desirable that the whole range of\nrevelation to sustain the true doctrine and argument--including the\nrevelation which God gave of himself first to Abraham, and afterwards\nto his descendants, Israel--both for the existence and the nature of\nGod, be available under one heading. To introduce the doctrine of\nDeity as made known to ancient Israel would be to deal now with \"True\nConceptions of God,\" and thus precipitate before its time the main\nquestion of our treatise. And so we give Judaism place at this point\nonly by inviting the student's attention to it through this special\nlesson.\n\n2. _An Argumentative Discourse:_ I have suggested in the title\nof this lesson that it be considered as an argumentative discourse;\nand in the main this is inevitable; but it can be made to combine\nboth expository and argumentative discourse. The first part of the\ntitle--\"The Special Calling of Israel as a Witness of the True God,\"\nnecessarily calls for exposition--the fact must be established that\nIsrael received such a mission. The second part of the title makes\nnecessary the argumentative form of treatment. An explanation of\nExpository discourse will be found in Lesson X, Note 1 of this Year\nBook. Argumentative discourse is treated in Seventy's Year Book No. II,\npp. 68-72. For treatise on \"thought gathering,\" see Year Book No. I,\npp. 147-150; on \"Constructing a plan,\" etc. See Year Book No. II, pp.\n113-115, also pp. 149-151.\n\n3. _Sources of Information:_ Trace the subject through the Bible\nby means of a concordance, beginning with Deuteronomy XXVI, especially\nverses 16-19. Also Deuteronomy XXVIII and XXIX, and trace out the\nprophecies to their fulfillment. See on these chapters the Commentary\nof Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. Also \"The Gospel\" p. 85, footnote\n(third Ed.). Josephus of course; and where it can be had Leslie's\n\"Short and Easy Method with the Jews,\" sub-division XI. It is published\nin \"Christian Evidences\" (1853). Edersheim's Life and Times of Messiah,\nVol. I, Chs. i-iv inclusive. Conybeare & Howson's Life of St. Paul, Ch.\nI. Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy, Vol. I, Ch. i. Mormon Doctrine\nof Deity, pp. 179-185. Also History of Christianity in the First Three\nCenturies (Mosheim) Vol. I, pp. 52-55.\n\n4. _Suggestions to the Speaker:_ In the last Special Lesson (Lesson\nXV), under the title of this note we said the last word on the \"First\nMoments of Speech,\" we brought the speaker upon his feet facing his\naudience. It now remains to carry him through the speech beginning with\nthe _Introduction_; and I shall follow the same master who has\nbefore instructed us, Mr. Pittenger; and here let me say that we may\nkeep in mind the old formula of a well conducted speech: Introduction,\nDiscussion and Conclusion.\n\n_The Introduction:_ \"A good introduction is exceedingly\nvaluable, and is to be sought for with great solicitude, if it does\nnot spontaneously present itself. Some kind of an introduction is\ninevitable, for there will always be a first moment when silence is\nbroken, and our thoughts introduced. The subsiding murmur of the\naudience tells the speaker that the time of his trial has come. If he\nis very sensitive, or if he has seldom, if ever, spoken before, his\npulse beats fast, his face flushes, and an indescribable feeling of\nfaintness and fear thrills every nerve. He may wish himself anywhere\nelse, but there is now no help for him. He must arise, and for the time\nstand as the mark for all eyes and the subject of all thoughts.\n\n\"There is a vast difference between reciting and extemporizing in these\nopening moments, and the advantage seems to be altogether on the side\nof recitation. Every word is in its proper place and the speaker may be\nperfectly calm and self-collected. He is sure that his memory will not\nfail him in the opening, and encouraged by that assurance, will usually\nthrow his whole power into his first sentences, causing his voice to\nring clear and loud over the house.\n\n\"The extemporizer is in a far more difficult position. He is sure of\nnothing. The weight of the whole speech rests heavily upon his mind.\nHe is glancing ahead, striving to forecast the coming sentences, as\nwell as carrying forward those gliding over the tongue, and, distracted\nby this double labor, his first expressions may be feeble and\nungraceful. Yet this modesty and timidity is no real loss; it goes far\nto conciliate an audience and secure their good-will. We can scarcely\nfail to distinguish memorized from extemporized discourses by the\nintroduction alone.\n\n\"To avoid the pain and hesitancy of an unelaborated beginning, some\nspeakers write and memorize the opening passage. This may accomplish\nthe immediate object, but it is apt to be at the expense of all the\nremainder of the discourse. The mind cannot pass easily from reciting\nto spontaneous origination; and the voice, being too freely used at\nfirst, loses its power. The hearers, having listened to highly polished\nlanguage, are less disposed to relish the plain words that follow, and\nthe whole speech, which, like the Alpine condor, may have pitched from\nthe loftiest summits, falls fast and far, until the lowest level is\nreached. A written introduction may be modest and unpretending, but\nunless it very closely imitates unstudied speech, painful contrasts and\ndisappointments are inevitable. * * * * * * *\n\n\"It is only the substance and not the words of the introduction that\nshould be prepared. A single sentence may be mentally forecast, but\nmuch beyond would be harmful; and even this sentence should be simple\nand easily understood. Anything that needs explanation is very much\nout of place. Neither should the introduction be so striking as to be\nthe part of the discourse longest remembered. Rather than permit the\nattention to be distracted in that manner, it would be better to have\nno introduction.\"\n\n_As to Apologies:_ \"A speaker gains much if he can at the outset\narrest the attention and win the sympathy of his hearers and then carry\nthese over to his proper subject. But it may be assumed as certain,\nthat no kind of an apology will accomplish this object--unless, indeed,\nthe speaker is such a favorite that everything in regard to his health\nor position is an object of deep solicitude to his audience. A popular\nspeaker who happens to be late and apologizes for it by explaining\nthat he had just escaped from a terrible railroad accident would make\na good introduction. A loved pastor, in his first sermon after serious\nillness, might properly begin by talking of his amendment and his joy\nat addressing his flock again. But these are rare exceptions. The\nspeaker about to make any kind of an apology or personal reference as\nan introduction, may well heed Punch's advice to persons about to be\nmarried: _'Don't!'\"_ * * * * * *\n\n_The Mortification of Inattention:_ \"Some inattention may be\nexpected and patiently borne with [by the speaker] at first. Part of\nthe opening words may be lost by an additional reason for not making\nthem of capital importance to the address. It is useless to try by\nloud tones and violent manner to dispel indifference. If the speaker's\nwords have real weight, and if his manner indicates confidence, one by\none the audience will listen, until that electric thrill of sympathy,\nimpossible to describe, but which is as evident to the practiced\nspeaker as an accord in music, tells him that every ear is open to his\nwords, and that his thoughts are occupying every mind.\" * * * *\n\n_Subjects for Introductions:_ \"There are two or three general\nsubjects available for introduction which every speaker would do well\nto study carefully, and which will do much to furnish him with the\nmeans of properly approaching his theme. We will mention the most\nuseful of these, premising that no one mode should be depended upon to\nthe exclusion of others.\n\n\"A good mode of introduction consists in a compliment to an audience.\nWhen a truthful and manly compliment can be given it is a most\nagreeable step toward the good-will of those we address; but if used\non all occasions indiscriminately, it is meaningless; if transparently\nfalse, it is repulsive and disgusting; but when true, there is no\nreason why it should not be employed.\" * * * * * * (For example of such\nintroductions see Acts, Ch. xxiv and xxvi).\n\n\"Effective introductions can also be constructed from those topics of\nthe day which may be supposed to fill all minds. A few words on such\nsubjects, falling in with the general current of thought, may easily\nlead up to the speaker's special topic. The newspapers may thus furnish\nus, especially while some striking event is yet recent, with the means\nof arresting the attention of newspaper readers at our first words.\n\n\"Another good mode of introduction is that of locality. The people\nof any town may be presumed familiar with the objects or events\nof interest for which their own place is celebrated;\" and a happy\nreference to one or more of these can scarcely fail to be of interest.\n\n\"Another mode of introduction which may be very useful under proper\nrestrictions is that of citing some relevant remark made by an author\nwhose name carries great weight, or so pointed in itself as to at once\narrest attention. A great picture, some feature of a landscape, a great\nhistorical event, may be cited in the same way. This method of citation\nis capable of very wide application. If the sentiment or impression\nmade by the citation is directly opposite to that which the speaker\nwishes to produce this will increase rather than diminish interest, as\nthe enjoyment of contrast and controversy is very keen; but the speaker\nshould feel confident of his ability to overcome the influence of the\ncitation when thus hostile.\" * * * * * *\n\n_Calamity From a Bad Introduction:_ \"A great calamity may come to a\nspeaker from a bad introduction. Speakers who are great in everything\nelse often fail at this point. Some make their introductions too\ncomplicated, and thus defeat their own end, as surely as the engineer\nwho gives his railroad such steep grades that no train can pass over\nit. Others deliver a string of mere platitudes and weary their audience\nfrom the beginning.\n\n\"When from these or other causes an address is mis-begun, the\nconsequences may be serious. The thought settles upon the speaker\nwith icy weight that he is failing. This conviction paralyzes all his\nfaculties. He talks on, but grows more and more embarrassed. Incoherent\nsentences are stammered out which require painful explanation to\nprevent them from degenerating into perfect nonsense. The outline of\nhis plan dissolves into mist. The points he intended to make which\nseemed strong and important now look trivial. With little hope ahead\nhe blunders on. The room grows dark before him, and in the excess of\nhis misery he longs for the time when he can close without absolute\ndisgrace. But alas! the end seems far off, and he searches in vain\nfor some avenue of escape. There is none. His throat becomes dry and\nparched, and command of voice is lost. The audience grow restive, for\nthey are tortured as well as the speaker, and if he were malicious and\nhad time to think about it, he might find some alleviation in that.\nNo one can help him. At length, in sheer desperation, he does what he\nought to have done long before--simply stops and sits down--perhaps\nhurling some swelling morsel of common-place, as a parting volley,\nat the audience--bathed in sweat, and feeling that he is disgraced\nforever! If he is very weak or foolish, he resolves never to speak\nagain without having every word written out before him; if wiser, he\nonly resolves, not only to understand his speech, but how to begin it.\"\n(\"Extempore Speech\"--Pittenger--Ch. vii).\n\nThis treatise upon the Introduction to a speech has trespassed somewhat\nupon the space of this lesson, but one can see no suggestion here set\ndown that could well be eliminated, so instructive is it. Especially\ncould not the concluding topic \"Calamity from a Bad Introduction,\" be\nsacrificed. But the wisdom underlying the elaborate discussion of this\ntopic by Mr. Pittenger was forcefully and tersely expressed in one of\nthe early revelations to the Ministry of the Church--1831--when the\nLord in reference to preaching, said that the Elders should teach as\ndirected by the Spirit; \"and the Spirit shall be given unto you by\nthe prayer of faith, _and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not\nteach!\"_ (Doc. & Cov. Sec. 42; 12-14).\n\n5. _Strength:_ Still another word on strength of expression. We\nhave already noted two means of promoting strength of expression--(1)\nby the rejection of superfluous words (Lesson X); and (2) a careful use\nof words of connection. And now Quackenbos:\n\n\"A third means of promoting the Strength of a sentence is to dispose\nof the important word or words in that place where they will make the\ngreatest impression. What this place is, depends on the nature and\nlength of the sentence. Sometimes, it is at the commencement, as in\nthe following from Addison: '_The pleasures of the imagination_,\ntaken in their full extent, are not so gross as those of sense, nor\nso refined as those of the understanding.' In other cases, it will\nbe found of advantage to suspend the sense for a time, and bring\nthe important term at the close of the period. 'On whatever side,'\nsays Pope, 'we contemplate Homer, what principally strikes us is his\n_wonderful invention_.' No rule can be given on this subject; a\ncomparison of different arrangements is the only means of ascertaining,\nin any particular case, which is the best.\" (Rhetoric, Art. \"Strength.\")\n\nThe following suggestion is given by Lockwood:\n\n\"The mind naturally dwells upon the last part of a sentence. Care\nshould, therefore, be taken to have the last word a forcible one.\nAvoid closing a sentence with an insignificant word or phrase, as, for\nexample, an adverb or a preposition or such a phrase as _to it, by\nit_, etc.\"\n\n\"Example: 'That is a danger which young children are exposed to.' The\nsentence should read, That is a danger to which young children are\nexposed.\n\n\"Example: 'None but capital letters were used _formerly_.'\n\n\"The idea is more forcibly presented if we say, Formerly, none but\ncapital letters were used.\"\n\n\n\nLESSON XXV.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_PATRISTIC[1] DOCTRINES OF GOD._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                     _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. The Patristic Period._                       \"Library of the Christian\n                                                       Fathers Anterior to\n  _II. The Prevailing Philosophers._                 the Division of the East\n                                                       and West,\" Oxford Edition\n  _III. The Christian Doctrine of Deity--The         (42 Vols.).\n          Trinity._\n                                                       Early Christian Literature\n  _IV. Patristic Arguments for the Divine            Primers, Edited\n         Existence and the Trinity._                 by Geo. P. Fisher;\n                                                       Apostolic Fathers; Fathers\n  _V. The Apostles' Creed._                         of the Third Century;\n                                                       Post-Nicene Latin\n                                                       Fathers; Post-Nicene\n                                                       Greek Fathers.\n\n                                                       Mosheim's and Neander's\n                                                       Church Histories;\n                                                       also Smith's Student's\n                                                       Ecclesiastical History,\n                                                       Vol. I.\n\n                                                       History of Christian\n                                                       Doctrine (Shedd), 2 Vols.\n                                                       \"Intellectual Development\n                                                       of Europe\" (Draper),\n                                                       Vol. I, chapter\n                                                       on Greek Age of\n                                                       Faith.\n\n                                                       Gibbon's \"Decline and\n                                                       Fall,\" Vol. III, Ch. xxi.\n                                                       Mormon Doctrine of\n                                                       Deity (Roberts), Chs. ii\n                                                       and iii, and Notes of\n                                                       this Lesson.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust,\navoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposition of science falsely\nso called.\" I Tim. vi,20_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Patristic Period:_ The patristic period is usually\nrecognized as extending from the close of the Apostolic period and\nending with the death of the last of the Apostles, supposed to have\noccurred about 95 or 96 A. D.--to A. D. 750. The Patristic period of\nthe Church is followed by what is called the Mediaeval period. \"The\nline between these two Christian ages,\" says George A. Jackson in his\nIntroduction to \"The Apostolic Fathers,\" \"cannot be sharply drawn;\nbut, speaking in a general way, the epoch of the Fathers was, in the\nWestern Church, the first six centuries. In the Eastern Church, the\npatristic age may be extended to embrace John of Damascus (A. D. 750).\nThe writers may be arranged, not unnaturally, in four groups. 1. (A.\nD. 95--180). The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists, or writers\ncontemporary with the formation of the New Testament canon. These all\nwrote in Greek. 2. (A. D. 180--325). The Fathers of the third century;\nor writers from Irenaeus to the Nicene Council; partly Greek, partly\nLatin. 3. (A. D. 325--590). The Post-Nicene Latin Fathers. 4. (A. D.\n325-750). The Post-Nicene Greek Fathers.\" (Apostolic Fathers, Jackson,\np. 11).\n\nOur notice of the conceptions of the Fathers respecting God, can\nonly be very brief, and consequently it will be imperfect. Only such\npassages from them will be quoted as are most largely representative;\nand from such Fathers as most influenced the thought of their times.\n\n2. _Philosophy Which Most Affected Christian Doctrine:_ The secular\nphilosophies which exerted most influence upon Christian doctrine,\nwere Platonism and Aristotelianism. It is said of them that \"they have\nexerted more influence upon the intellectual methods of men, taking in\nthe whole time since their appearance, than all other systems combined\"\n(History Christian Doctrine--Shedd--Vol. I, p. 52); and further, that\nthey contain more of truth than all other systems that do not draw\nfrom them, or are opposed to them\" (Ibid, p. 53). It is conceded that\nneither of these philosophers is free from error; but it is claimed by\nChristian writers that the \"Greek theism as represented in these two\nsystems, notwithstanding its defects, affirmed the existence of God,\nand of one supreme God, and taught a spiritual theory of man and human\nlife.\" (Ibid, p. 55-56). It is also held that upon this point of the\nDivine Existence, or \"Being,\" however much the two philosophers differ\nin their methods of thought and explanation, there is really no great\ndifference between them (Ibid, pp. 56-58; and foot notes where a number\nof authorities are quoted to the same effect with Shedd). It should\nbe remembered, that for myself, I limit the practical concurrence of\nthe two simply to the existence of the Supreme Being; and in this\nconclusion I find the support of Maurice, who, in describing the\nefforts of Pico (15th century) to reconcile the Metaphysics of Plato\nand Aristotle, says:\n\n\"Those who professed themselves Platonists pure and simple, insisted\nthat Unity [Oneness] had been distinguished from Being by Plato, and\nhad been exalted above Being; that on the contrary Being, according\nto Aristotle, is identical with Unity. This was the point on which\nthe philosophers were supposed to disagree. . . . . . Dealing only\nwith the ontological, or as we call them, the metaphysical treatise,\nof the great master [Aristotle], he [Pico] has little difficulty in\nshowing that he was no disparager of Unity, any more than Plato was a\ndisparager of Being . . . . . . . . . . He is able to maintain with\ngreat plausibility and force, that Aristotle, no less than Plato,\nregarded Being and Unity as meeting in God, and as vital objects\nfor human search because they meet in him.\" (Moral and Metaphysical\nPhilosophy--Maurice--Vol. II, pp. 80-81).\n\n3. _The Christian Doctrine of God:_ In order to understand the\nPatristic conceptions of God, I find it necessary to state, even if\never so briefly, the doctrine of God as taught by the Messiah and the\nApostles; and for this purpose I use a statement of that doctrine from\nYear Book II; Lesson XXXVI.\n\n\"The existence of God both Jesus and the Apostles accepted as a fact.\nIn all the teachings of the former He nowhere seeks to prove God's\nexistence. He assumes that, and proceeds from that basis with His\ndoctrine. He declares the fact that God was His Father, and frequently\ncalls Himself the Son of God.[2] After His resurrection and departure\ninto heaven, the Apostles taught that He, the Son of God, was with\nGod the Father in the beginning; that He, as well as the Father, was\nGod; that under the direction of the Father He was the Creator of the\nworld; that without Him was not anything made that was made.[3] That\nin Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;[4] and that He was\nthe express image of the Father's person.[5] Jesus Himself taught that\nHe and the Father were one;[6] that whosoever had seen Him had seen\nthe Father also;[7] that it was part of His mission to reveal God, the\nFather, through His own personality; for as was the Son, so too was the\nFather.[8] Hence Jesus was God manifested in flesh--a revelation of God\nto the world.[9] That is, a revelation not only of the being of God,\nbut of the kind of being God is.\n\n\"Jesus also taught (and in doing so showed in what the 'oneness' of\nHimself and His Father consisted) that the disciples might be one\nwith Him, and also one with each other, as He and the Father were\none.[10] Not one in person--not all merged into one individual, and\nall distinctions of personality lost; but one in mind, in knowledge,\nin love, in will--one by reason of the indwelling in all of the one\nspirit, even as the mind and will of God the Father was also in Jesus\nChrist.[11]\n\n\"The Holy Ghost, too, was upheld by the Christian religion to be\nGod.[12] Jesus ascribed to Him a distinct personality; as proceeding\nfrom the Father; as sent forth in the name of the Son, as weeling love;\nexperiencing grief; as forbidding; as abiding; as teaching; as bearing\nwitness; as appointing to work; and as interceding for men. All of\nwhich clearly establishes for Him a personality.\" (Mormon Doctrine of\nDeity--Roberts--Ch. iv.).\n\n4. _The Trinity of the Christian Doctrine:_ \"The distinct\npersonality of these three individual Gods (united however into one\nGodhead or Divine Council), was made apparent at the baptism of Jesus;\nfor as He, God the Son, came up out of the water from His baptism at\nthe hands of John, a manifestation of the presence of the Holy Ghost\nwas given in the sign of the dove which rested upon Jesus, while out\nof the glory of heaven the voice of God the Father was heard saying,\n'This,' referring to Jesus, 'is my beloved Son, in whom I am well\npleased.' The distinctness of the personality of each member of the\nGodhead is also shown by the commandment to baptize those who believe\nin the Gospel equally in the name of each person of the Holy Trinity.\nThat is, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost. (Matt. xxviii, 19-20.) And again, also in the Apostolic\nbenediction, viz., 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of\nGod, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.' (II Cor.\nxiii, 14.)\n\n\"These three Personages constitute the Christian Godhead, the Holy\nTrinity. In early Christian theology they were regarded as the Supreme\nGoverning and Creating Power in heaven and in earth. Of which Trinity\nthe Father was worshipped in the name of the Son, while the Holy Ghost\nbore record of both the Father and the Son. And though the Holy Trinity\nwas made up of three distinct persons, yet did they constitute but one\nGodhead, or Supreme Governing Power.\n\n\"The foregoing doctrine of God, taught to the Christians in Apostolic\ntimes, awakened their pious reverence without exciting their curiosity.\nThey dealt with no metaphysical abstractions, but were contented to\naccept the teachings of the Apostles in humble faith, and believed that\nJesus Christ was the complete manifestation of Deity, and the express\nimage of God His Father; and hence a revelation to them of God; while\nthe Holy Ghost they accepted as God's witness and messenger to them.\"\n(Ibid, Ch. iv.).\n\n5. _Patristic Arguments for the Divine Existence:_ The main\nargument of the Christian Fathers for the Divine Existence, as already\nstated (Lesson 3, note 11), rested upon the innate consciousness of the\nhuman mind. \"But,\" says Shedd, in his History of Christian Doctrine\n(Vol. I, p. 230):\n\n\"But whenever a formal demonstration was attempted in the Patristic\nperiod, the _a posteriori_[13] was the method employed. The\nphysico-theological argument, derived from the harmony visible in the\nworks of creation, was used by Irenaeus to prove the doctrine of the\nunity and simplicity of the Divine Nature, in opposition to Polytheism\nand Gnosticism--the former of which held to a multitude of Gods, and\nthe latter to a multitude of aeons. The teleological argument, derived\nfrom the universal presence of a design in creation, was likewise\nemployed in the Patristic theology.\" (Shedd's History of Christian\nDoctrine, Vol. I, p. 267).\n\n6. _The Trinity of the Apostolic Fathers:_ \"The Apostolic Fathers\nlived before the rise of the two principal Anti-Trinitarian theories\ndescribed in a previous section, and hence attempted no speculative\nconstruction of the doctrine of the trinity. They merely repeat the\nBiblical phraseology, without endeavoring to collect and combine the\ndata of revelation into a systematic form. They invariably speak of\nChrist as divine; and make no distinction in their modes of thought\nand expression, between the deity of the Son and that of the Father.\nThese immediate pupils of the Apostles enter into no speculative\ninvestigation of the doctrine of the Logos, and content themselves\nwith the simplest and most common expressions respecting the trinity.\nIn these expressions, however, the germs of the future so-called\nscientific statement may be discovered; and it is the remark of\nMeier, one of the fairest of those who have written the history of\nTrinitarianism, that the beings of an immanent trinity can be seen\nin the writings of the practical and totally unspeculative Apostolic\nFathers.\"[14] (Shedd, Vol. I, 261-265.)\n\n7. _The Patristic View of the Divinity of the Christ:_ \"The\nfollowing extracts from their writings are sufficient to indicate the\nfreedom with which the Apostolic Fathers apply the term 'God' to the\nsecond Person, who is most commonly conceived of as the God-man, and\ncalled Jesus Christ by them.\n\n\"'Brethren' says Clement of Rome (Ep. II, Ch. 1), 'we ought to conceive\nof Jesus Christ as of God, as of the judge of the living and the\ndead.' Ignatius addresses, in his greeting, the church at Ephesus, as\n'united and elected by a true passion, according to the will of the\nFather, and of Jesus Christ our God.' Writing to the church at Rome,\nhe describes them, in his greeting, as 'illuminated by the will of Him\nwho willeth all things that are according to the love of Jesus Christ\nour _God_'; and desires for them 'abundant and uncontaminated\nsalvation in Jesus Christ our God.' He also urges them (Ch. 3), to mind\ninvisible rather than earthly things, for 'the things that are seen\nare temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal. For even\nour God, Jesus Christ being in the Father, (i. e., having ascended\nagain to the Father) is more glorified' (in the invisible world than\nwhen upon earth). He enjoins it upon the Trallian[15] Church (Ch. 7),\nto 'continue inseparable from God, even Jesus Christ'; and says to the\nSmyrnaean Church, 'glorify Jesus Christ, even God, who has given you\nsuch wisdom.\" (Shedd, Vol. I, pp. 265-6).\n\n8. _Patristic Allusion to the Trinity:_ \"The following allusions\nto the trinity occur in the Apostolic Fathers: Clement of Rome, in his\nfirst epistles to the Corinthians (Ch. 46), asks, 'Have we not one God,\nand one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of Grace, who is poured out\nupon us, and one calling in Christ?' Polycarp, according to the Letter\nof the Smyrna Church (Ch. 14), closed his prayer at the stake with the\nglowing ascription:\n\n\"For this, and for all things, I praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify\nThee, together with the eternal and heavenly Jesus, Thy beloved Son;\nwith whom to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory, both now, and to all\nsucceeding ages. Amen.\" Ignatius, in his epistle to the Magnesians\n(Ch. 13), places the Son first in the enumeration of the three persons\nin the trinity; 'Study, that whatsoever ye do, ye may prosper both in\nbody and spirit, in faith and charity, in the Son, and in the Father,\nand in the Holy Spirit,' * * * following in this particular St. Paul\nin 2 Cor. 12:12. Barnabas (Epist. Ch. 5) finds the trinity in the Old\nTestament. 'For this cause, the Lord endured to suffer for our souls,\nalthough He was Lord of the whole earth, to whom He (the Father) said\nbefore the making of the world: 'Let us make man after Our own image\nand likeness.\" (Shedd, Vol. I, p. 267).\n\n9. _Origin of Christian Creeds:_ It is quite possible that the\norigin of creeds expressing the doctrine of Deity, grew out of certain\ndeclarations made by the Apostles, and the felt need of fixing upon\nsome definite conception of God as a ground of Christian faith and\nmembership in the Church. Perhaps the now famous confession of St.\nPeter was the first step in this direction. \"Whom do ye say that I am?\"\ninquired Jesus of the Apostles. \"And Simon Peter answered and said:\n\"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.\" Whereupon the Master\ndeclared that the Father had revealed this truth to the Apostle, and\nthat upon it He (the Christ) would build His Church. (Matt. xvi, 13-21).\n\nAs an instance of the felt need of a confession warranting entrance to\nthe Church, take the case of the officer of the court of Queen Candace.\nAfter being instructed of Philip, he inquired--\"What doth hinder me to\nbe baptized?\" \"If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.\"\nAnd the officer answered--\"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son\nof God.\" The chariot was halted straight way, and the baptism was\nperformed. (Acts. viii).\n\n10. _\"The Apostles' Creed:\"_ It is doubtful if the creed bearing\nthe Apostolic title was formulated by the Apostles. Dr Mosheim doubts\nof the Apostles formulating it, in the following language. \"There is\nindeed extant, a brief summary of Christian doctrines which is called\nthe 'Apostles Creed'; and which from the fourth century onward, was\nattributed to Christ's Ambassadors themselves. But at this day, all who\nhave any knowledge of antiquity, confess unanimously that this opinion\nis a mistake and has no foundation.\" (Institutes Cent. I, Part 2, ch.\n3). To this, also, substantially agrees Dr. Neander (Gen'l. History of\nthe Christian Religion and Church, Vol. I, pp. 306-307).\n\nBut while the simple formula may be of doubtful origin, it\nunquestionably belongs to the Patristic period, and doubtless to the\nperiod of the Apostolic Fathers, and would not be altogether unworthy\nof the Apostles themselves. The Creed follows:\n\n\"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His only\nbegotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy\nGhost, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, arose from the dead\non the third day, ascended to the heavens, and sits at the right hand\nof the Father; whence he will come, to judge the living and the dead;\nand in the Holy Spirit; the holy church; the remission of sins; and the\nresurrection of the body.\"\n\n11. _Comment on the Apostles' Creed:_ As already observed, the\nstatement of the Christian faith as formulated in the Apostles'\nCreed, so far as its doctrine of the Godhead is concerned, might well\nbe accredited to the Apostles, so unexceptional is it in the plain\nstatement of truth respecting the doctrine of God, as that doctrine\nmay be gathered from the scriptures. But the matter in the Patristic\nperiod did not stop here, and perhaps it could not stop with the\nstatement of this first formula of a creed. Not only had the existence\nof the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be affirmed, but the nature of\nthat existence had to be declared, and the relationship of the persons\nof the Trinity also had to be stated. Moreover, the relationship of\nthis Christian doctrine to the Greek and Oriental philosophies had to\nbe explained. If in harmony with these preceding philosophies which\ndealt with God--for knowledge of God, or the \"Supreme Being,\" is always\nthe object of philosophy--then it must be stated in what the harmony\nconsists; if in antagonism to them, the points of antagonism must be\nstated and justified, and the superiority of the Christian doctrine\nvindicated. It may be all very well for safe and formal men to state\na truth within the lines of common-place facts, and say \"We will be\ncontent with this and beyond it we will not go;\" but a creed or book\nonce formulated and published to the world, remains no longer the\npossession of those who published it. It belongs to the world, and\nthe world will have its way with it. If there are defects in it, from\nany cause whatsoever, the world will find them out, let the defects\nbe what they may--under-statement of the truth, over-statement of the\ntruth, misstatement of the truth, or exact statement of the truth--all\nwill come out, and Time, the arbitrator for truth, will pronounce his\njudgment, resulting in condemnation or justification.\n\nSo it proved to be with this first formulated Christian Creed. It was\nall very well to say, \"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in\nJesus Christ, His only begotten Son,\" and so following. But the adult\nquestion came, and it was inevitable that it should come--\"What is the\nnature of this 'Father Almighty,' and of this 'Son,' and what their\nrelationship?\" (For greater detail of consideration of this line of\nquestioning, see Year Book II, Lesson 37, note 2). Seeking an answer to\nthese questions, brought the Christian Fathers of our period in contact\nwith both Oriental and Greek philosophy; and soon the tendency to\nharmonize the facts of Christian doctrine with Pagan philosophies set\nin, resulting eventually in the paganization of the Christian doctrine.\n(For further discussion on this head see Year Book II, Lesson 37).\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. \"Patristic: Of or pertaining to the fathers of the Christian Church:\na patristic theology; patristic writings.\" (Cent. Dictionary.)\n\n2. John x; Matt. xxvii; Mark xiv: 61, 62.\n\n3. For all of which see John i: 1-4, 14; Heb. i: 1-3.\n\n4. Col. i: 15-19, and ii: 9.\n\n5. John xiv: 9, II Cor. iv: 4: and Heb. i: 3. Col. i: 17.\n\n6. John x: 30, xvii: 11-22.\n\n7. John, xiv: 9.\n\n8. John xiv: 10, 11, 19, 20; also John xvii.\n\n9. Tim. iii: 16.\n\n10. John xvii.\n\n11. Eph. iii: 14-19.\n\n12. Acts v: 1-14. To lie to the Holy Ghost is to lie to God, because\nthe Holy Ghost is God.\n\n13. From a consequent to its antecedent, from effects to causes.\n\n14. Clement of Rome; Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch; Polycarp, Bishop of\nSmyrna; Barnabas (not Paul's companion), see Mosheim Inst., Vol. I, p.\n77; Hermas, and Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis.\n\n15. In ancient geography, Tralles was a city of Asia Minor, situated\nnear the Menander, 228 miles east--southeast of Ephesus.\n\n\n\nLESSON XXVI.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_PATRISTIC DOCTRINES OF GOD--(Continued)._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                     _REFERENCES._\n\n  _VI. The Nicene Creed._                          All the authorities\n                                                       cited in Lesson xxv.\n  _VII. Creed of St. Athanasius._                     Also \"Plato's Republic\"\n                                                       and \"Timaeus.\" Outlines\n  _VIII. The Arian Controversy._                   of Lectures on the History\n                                                       of Philosophy (Elmendorf's)\n  _IX. Origin of Metaphysical Difficulties._       Art. on\n                                                       Plato and St. Augustine,\n  _X. Methods of Arriving at the Conception             Chs. iv, v, vi, vii.\n        of \"Pure Being.\"_\n                                                       Moral and Metaphysical\n  _XI. Patristic Doctrine of God of Pagan            Philosophy (Maurice).\n         Origin._                                    Art. Plato. St. Athanaus\n                                                       and St Augustine, Vol. I. For\n                                                       Orthodox Explanation of\n                                                       Nicene and Athanasian\n                                                       Principles, see Hodge's\n                                                       \"Commentary on the\n                                                       Confession of Faith\"\n                                                       (Presbyterian), Ch. ii.\n                                                       Also \"The Nicene Creed,\n                                                       a Manual for Candidates\n                                                       for Holy Orders\" (J. J. Lias,\n                                                       M. A.), Chs. i-iv.\n\n                                                       \"A History of Christian\n                                                       Councils, From Original\n                                                       Documents,\" by\n                                                       C. J. Hegele, D. D.\n                                                       Translated from the\n                                                       German by Wm. R. Clark.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"There shall be false teachers among you who privily\nshall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought\nthem.\" II Peter ii, 1._\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Nicene Creed:_ The next official formulation of alleged\nChristian doctrine after the \"Apostles Creed,\" was the creed drafted at\nthe council of Nicea, in Bithynia, 325 A. D., as follows:\n\n\"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of all things\nvisible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,\nonly-begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father,\nGod of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,\nbeing of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were\nmade in heaven and in earth, who for us men and for our salvation came\ndown from heaven, was incarnate, was made man, suffered, rose again the\nthird day, ascended into the heavens, and He will come to judge the\nliving and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost. Those who say there was a\ntime when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten, and He\nwas made of nothing (he was created), or who say that He is of another\nhypostatis, or of another substance (than the Father), or that the\nSon of God is created, that He is mutable, or subject to change, the\nCatholic church anathematizes.\"[1]\n\n2. _Creed of St. Athanasius:_ Nearly all Ecclesiastical writers\ndoubt of Athanasius being the author of the creed accredited to him;\nbut all agree, nevertheless, that it is an orthodox explanation of\nthe Nicene Creed. \"This creed was evidently composed long after the\ndeath of the great theologian whose name it bears, and after the\ncontroversies closed and the definitions established by the councils of\nEphesus (A. D. 431), and Chalcedon (A. D. 451). It is a grand (?) and\nunique (!) monument of the unchangeable faith of the whole Church as to\nthe great mysteries of Godliness, the Trinity of the Persons in the one\nGod, and the duality of natures in the one Christ.\" (Commentary on the\nconfession of Faith--Presbyterian--by Rev. A. A. Hodges, D. D., 1870.\nDesigned for Theological Students, ch. i, pp. 6, 7.) The creed follows:\n\n\"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither\nconfounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one\nperson of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy\nGhost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is all one;\nthe glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such\nis the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son\nuncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible,\nthe Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The\nFather eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet\nthere are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not\nthree incomprehensibles, nor three uncreate, but one uncreate and one\nincomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty,\nand the Holy Ghost almighty; and yet they are not three almighties, but\none almighty. So the Father is God, the Son, is God, and the Holy Ghost\nis God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.\"\n\n\"So, likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost\nLord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For likewise as we\nare compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person\nby himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholic\nReligion to say: There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is\nmade of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father\nalone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the\nFather and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but\nproceeding. So there is one Father; not three Fathers; one Son, not\nthree Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.\n\n\"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after, other; none is greater,\nor less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal\ntogether, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the\nUnity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He,\ntherefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.\n\n\"Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also\nbelieve rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right\nFaith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ,\nthe Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father,\nbegotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother,\nborn in the world; perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul\nand human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his\nGodhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who,\nalthough he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not\nby conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood\ninto God; one altogether, not by confusion of Substance, but by unity\nof Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God\nand Man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation; descended into\nhell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven,\nHe sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence\nHe shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At Whose coming all men\nshall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their\nown works.\" (Common Prayer, Church of England.) (For comment upon this\ncreed, see Year Book II, Lesson xxxvii.)\n\n3. _Pro Et Con of the Arian Controversy:_ The orthodox doctrine\nof deity for the Patristic period, is found in the last two creeds\nquoted, still it is well enough to give each side of the controversy,\nout of which the creeds were born, opportunity to state its own case.\nAlexander, Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, states the orthodox side. He\nfirst represents Arius, leader of the opposition, as:\n\n\"Denying the divinity of our Saviour, pronounced him on a level with\nall other creatures. He says that they held, there was a time when the\nSon of God was not; and he who once had no existence, afterwards did\nexist; and from that time was, what every man naturally is; for (say\nthey) [the Arians] 'God made all things of nothing, including the Son\nof God, in this creation of all things, both rational and irrational;\nand of course, pronouncing Him to be of a changeable nature, and\ncapable of virtue and of sin.'\" Then, affirmatively, Alexander gives\nhis own views as follows:\n\n\"We believe, as the Apostolic Church does, in the only unbegotten\nFather, who derived his existence from no one, and is immutable and\nunalterable, always the same and uniform, unsusceptible of increase of\ndiminution; the giver of the law, and the prophets, and the gospels;\nLord of the patriarchs and apostles, and of all saints; and in one\nLord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, not begotten from\nnothing, but from the living Father; and not after the manner of\nmaterial bodies, by separations and effluxes of parts, as Sabellius and\nValentinian supposed, but in an inexplicable and indescribable manner,\nagreeably to the declaration before quoted: 'Who shall declare his\ngeneration?' For His existence is inscrutable to all mortal beings,\njust as the Father is inscrutable; because created intelligences are\nincapable of understanding this divine generation from the Father--'No\none knoweth what the Father is, but the Son; and no one knoweth what\nthe Son is, but the Father.'\n\n\"He is unchangeable, as much as the Father; lacks nothing; is the\nperfect Son, and the absolute likeness of the Father, save only that\nHe is not unbegotten. * * * Therefore, to the unbegotten Father, His\nproper dignity must be preserved. And to the Son, also, suitable honor\nmust be given, by ascribing to Him an eternal generation from the\nFather.\"\n\nArius, making complaint that he is persecuted by Alexander--states\nfirst the position of his adversary thus: Arius and his friends are\npersecuted--\"Because we do not agree with him, publicly asserting that\nGod always was, and the Son always was; that He was always the Father,\nalways the Son; that the Son was of God himself.\" Then stating his own\nposition affirmatively, he says:\n\n\"We have taught, and still teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor\na portion of the unbegotten, in any manner; nor was He formed out of\nany subjacent matter, but that in will and purpose, he existed before\nall times and before all worlds, perfect God, the only begotten,\nunchangeable; and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed,\nor established, He was not; for He was never unbegotten. We are\npersecuted, because we say, the Son had a beginning, but God was\nwithout beginning. We are also persecuted, because we say, that He is\nfrom nothing; and this we say, inasmuch as He is not a portion of God,\nnor formed from any subjacent matter. Therefore we are persecuted. The\nrest you know.\" (Mosheim, Vol. I, p. 288--Notes).\n\n_The Differences Summed Up:_ Summing up the differences between the\ntwo parties, Murdock, the able translator and annotator of Mosheim,\nsays: \"According to these statements, both the Arians and the orthodox\nconsidered the Son of God the Saviour of the World, as a derived\nexistence, and as generated by the Father. But they differed on two\npoints. (1.) The orthodox believed His generation was from eternity, so\nthat he was coeval with the Father. But the Arians believed there was\na time when the Son was not. (2.) The orthodox believed the Son to be\nderived of and from the Father; so that He was of the same essence with\nthe Father. But the Arians believed that He was formed out of nothing,\nby the creative power of God. Both, however, agreed in calling Him God,\nand in ascribing to Him divine perfections. As to His offices, or His\nbeing the Saviour of sinful men, it does not appear that they differed\nmaterially in their views.\" (Ibid).\n\n4. _Origin of These Metaphysical Difficulties:_ Undoubtedly it was\ncontact with Oriental and Greek philosophical vagaries, and seeking to\nharmonize the facts of revelation, with these vagaries, that led to the\nintellectual difficulties of patristic Christianity. The temptation to\nseek such harmony, was strong. Already a similar work had been done for\nthe Jews at Alexandria, under the leadership of Philo. He found, in\nthe lofty speculations of Plato, the wisdom of Moses and of Solomon;\nand in the second century of the Christian Era, Numenius could ask\n\"What is Plato but Moses talking Attic?\" \"The arms of Macedonians,\"\nremarks Gibbon,\" diffused over Asia and Egypt the language and learning\nof Greece\"; and with that language and learning, and as part of the\nlatter, went the philosophy of Plato, until among the learned and\ninfluential it was largely the ground plan of their thinking. The\nChristians, in the first three centuries of their existence, had\nbeen despised sectaries, with no standing among those who made any\npretensions to learning; so that when there came opportunity to show\nidentity between the holy trinity of the Christian faith, and the\nsupposed trinity of Plato's philosophy; and identity of the \"word\"\nof John's Gospel with the \"Logos\" of Plato's divine \"being,\" it was\nseized upon with avidity, not alone, it is to be feared, because of the\nsemblance of truth that was seen in the two things, but also because of\nthe advantages that struggling Christianity would secure by linking the\ntheology of the church with the philosophy of the Academy. \"The lofty\nspeculations,\" says Gibbon, \"which neither convinced the understanding\nnor agitated the passions of the Platonists themselves, were carelessly\noverlooked by the idle, the busy, and even the studious part of\nmankind. But after the 'Logos' had been revealed as the sacred object\nof the faith, the hope, and the religious worship of the Christians,\nthe mysterious system was embraced by a numerous and increasing\nmultitude in every province of the Roman world. Those persons who, from\ntheir age, or sex, or occupations, were the least qualified to judge,\nwho were the least exercised in the habits of abstract reasoning,\naspired to contemplate the economy of the divine nature; and it is the\nboast of Tertullian, that a Christian mechanic could easily answer\nsuch questions as had perplexed the wisest of the Grecian sages. Where\nthe subject lies so far beyond our reach, the difference between\nthe highest and the lowest of human understandings may indeed be\ncalculated as infinitely small, yet the degree of weakness may perhaps\nbe measured by the degree of obstinacy and dogmatic confidence.\" What\nmore is necessary to know upon this topic, can be learned from the note\nentitled \"Patristic Doctrine of God of Pagan Rather than of Christian\nOrigin,\" and Lesson xxxvii, in Year Book II.\n\n5. _The Manner of Apprehending \"That Which Is\"--God:_ The manner\nof apprehending God--\"that which is\"--by the Christian Fathers, is\nvery similar to the method of the pagan philosophers in apprehending\n\"being\"--or the \"absolute.\" Take two examples of this process; the\nfirst from Plato's \"Republic,\" a conversation between teacher and\npupil; the second from the confessions of Augustine; where the father\ndescribes how he came to his apprehension of God:\n\nIt is necessary first to remind the student that in Plato's philosophy\nthe \"supreme being\" is \"being absolutely bare of quality.\" Of Him\nit can only be said that he is not _what_ he is. In Timaeus,\nPlato says: \"We say, indeed, that 'he was,' 'he is,' 'he will be,'\nbut the truth is that 'he is;' alone truly expresses him.\" (Jowett's\nTranslation, Vol. 2, p. 530.) And now as to the method of arriving at\nthe apprehension of the \"infinite being,\" or the \"absolute,\" through\nthe medium of finite or relative things; and which, in the case here\nquoted from Plato, is from \"relative beauty\" to \"absolute beauty\"; the\nsame process, however, may be followed from \"finite being\" to \"infinite\nbeing.\"\n\n\"This is the distinction which I draw between the sight-loving,\nart-loving, practical class, and those of whom I am speaking, and who\nare alone worthy of the name of philosophers.\n\n\"How do you distinguish them? he said.\n\n\"The lovers of sounds and sights, I replied, are, as I conceive, fond\nof fine tones and colors and forms, and all the artificial products\nthat are made out of them, but their mind is incapable of seeing or\nloving absolute beauty.\n\n\"That is true, he replied.\n\n\"Few are they who are able to attain the sight of absolute beauty.\n\n\"Very true.\n\n\"And he who, having a sense of beautiful things, has no sense of\nabsolute beauty, or who, if another lead him to a knowledge of that\nbeauty, is unable to follow--of such an one, I ask, Is he awake or in a\ndream only? * * * *\n\n\"I should certainly say that such an one was dreaming.\n\n\"But take the case of the other, who recognizes the existence of\nabsolute beauty, and is able to distinguish the idea from the objects\nwhich participate in the idea, neither putting the objects in the place\nof the idea nor the idea in the place of the objects--is he a dreamer?\nor is he awake?\n\n\"He is the reverse of a dreamer, he replied.\n\n\"And may we not say that the mind of the one has knowledge, and that\nthe mind of the other has opinion only?\n\n\"Certainly.\"\n\nAnd how Augustine, the Christian father, spoken of as \"the brightest,\nclearest, most comprehensive\" of Christian philosophers. (\"Lectures on\nthe History of Christian Philosophy\"--Elmendorf--p. 92):\n\n\"And I inquired what iniquity was, and found it to be no substance, but\nthe perversion of the will, turned aside from Thee, O God, the Supreme,\ntowards these lower things, and casting out its bowels, and puffed up\noutwardly.\n\n\"And I wondered that I now loved Thee, and no phantasm for thee. And\nyet did I not press on to enjoy my God; but was borne up to Thee by Thy\nbeauty, and soon borne down from Thee by mine own weight, sinking with\nsorrow into these inferior things. This weight was carnal custom. Yet\ndwelt there with me a remembrance of Thee; nor did I any way doubt,\nthat there was One to Whom I might cleave, but that I was not yet such\nas to cleave to Thee; for that 'the body which is corrupted, presseth\ndown the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind that\nmuseth upon many things.' And most certain I was, that 'Thy invisible\nworks from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood\nby the things that are made, even Thy eternal power and God-head.' For\nexamining whence it was that I admired the beauty of bodies celestial\nor terrestrial; and what aided me in judging soundly on things mutable,\nand pronouncing, 'This ought to be thus, this not'; examining, I say,\nwhence it was that I so judged, seeing I did so judge, I had found the\nunchangeable and true Eternity of Truth above my changeable mind. And\nthus, by degrees, I passed from bodies to the soul, which through the\nbodily senses perceives; and thence to its inward faculty, to which\nthe bodily senses represent things external, whitherto reaches the\nfaculties of beasts; and thence again to the reasoning faculty, to\nwhich what is received from the senses of the body, is referred to be\njudged. Which, finding itself also to be in me a thing variable, raised\nitself up to its own understanding, and drew away my thoughts from the\npower of habit, withdrawing itself from those troops of contradictory\nphantasms; that so it might find what that light was, whereby it was\nbedewed, when, without all doubting, it cried out:\n\n\"'That the unchangeable was to be preferred to the changeable'; whence\nalso it knew _That Unchangeable_, which, unless it had in some way\nknown, it had had no sure ground to prefer it to the changeable. And\nthus with the flash of one trembling glance it arrived at _That Which\nIs_. And then I saw 'Thy invisible things understood by the things\nwhich are made.'\"\n\n6. _Patristic Doctrine of God of Pagan Rather Than of Christian\nOrigin--Data Not in the Old Testament:_ The data for the doctrine\nthat God is \"pure being,\" \"being absolutely bare of all quality,\"\nare not found in the Old Testament, for that teaches the plainest\nanthropomorphic ideas respecting God. It ascribes to Him a human form,\nand many qualities and attributes possessed by man, which, in the minds\nof orthodox Christian philosophers, limit Him who must be, to their\nthinking, without any limitation whatsoever, either as to essence,\nor form, or passion, or quality; and ascribes relativity to Him who,\naccording to their conceptions, must not be relative but absolute.\nThe passage usually depended upon as giving the data for this \"being\nabsolutely bare of quality,\" and that is held to identify the ground\nplan of the philosophy of Moses and Plato--_\"I am that I am\"_--the\nGod who appeared to Moses in the burning bush; and Who replied when\nthe Hebrew prophet asked what he should say when the Egyptians and\nIsrael should ask who had sent him--\"Say, I Am sent me;\" that is the\nSelf-Existing One sent me. This passage, I say, does not furnish\nthe data for the Orthodox Christian conception of God, that He is\n\"being, absolutely free from all quality\"; not material (the \"without\nbody\" of the creeds), without parts, and without passions; for to be\nself-existent does not demand the absence of quality; indeed, to be\nwithout quality, run to its last analysis, would mean non-existence.\n\n_Data Not in the New Testament:_ The data for the doctrine of\nGod's absolute \"simplicity,\" or, \"being absolutely without quality,\"\ndo not come from the New Testament; for the writers of that volume of\nscripture accept the doctrine of the Old Testament respecting God, and\neven emphasize its anthropomorphic ideas, by representing that the man\nChrist Jesus was in the \"express image\" of God, the Father's person;\nwas, in fact, God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3: 16); \"the image of\nthe invisible God\" (Col. 1: 5); God, the Word, who was made flesh, and\ndwelt among men, and they beheld His glory (St. John 1:1-14). Hence\nthe Orthodox Christian doctrine of God's \"simplicity\" cannot claim the\nwarrant of New Testament authority.\n\n_Data Found in Pagan Doctrines:_ It is easy, however, to trace this\ndoctrine to Pagan sources. Plato, in his Timaeus (Jowett's translation,\np. 530), incidentally referring to God, in connection with the creation\nof the universe, says: \"We say indeed that 'he was,' 'he is,' 'he will\nbe,' but the truth is that 'he is' alone truly expresses him, and that\n'was' and 'will be' are only to be spoken of generation in time.\"\n\nHere, then, is the Orthodox Christian doctrine of \"pure being,\" \"most\nsimple,\" \"not compound.\"\n\nAgain: \"We must acknowledge that there is one kind of being which\nis always the same, uncreated and indestructible, never receiving\nanything into itself from without, nor itself giving out to any other,\nbut invisible and imperceptible by any sense, and of which the sight\nis granted to intelligence only.\" (Ibid. p. 454). Here the Orthodox\nChristian may find his God, 'who cannot change with regard to his\nexistence, nor with regard to his mode of existence.' Also his God who\ncan only be seen with the 'soul's intellectual perception, elevated\nby a supernatural influx from God.' Dr. Mosheim, in his account of\nPlato's idea of God, says: \"He considered the Deity, to whom he gave\nthe supreme governance of the universe, as a being of the highest\nwisdom and power, and totally unconnected with any material substance.\"\n(Mosheim's \"Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity,\nDuring the First Three Hundred Years,\" Vol. 1. p. 37).\n\nTo the same effect, also, Justin Martyr (second Christian century)\ngeneralizes and accepts as doctrine what may be gathered from the\nsixth book of Plato's \"Republic,\" with reference to God. To the Jew,\nTrypho, Justin remarks: \"The Deity, Father, is not to be viewed by the\norgans of sight, like other creatures, but He is to be comprehended by\nthe mind alone, as Plato declares, and I believe him. * * * * Plato\ntells us that the eye of the mind is of such a nature, and was given\nus to such an end, as to enable us to see with it by itself, when\npure, that Being who is the source of whatever is an object of the\nmind itself, who has neither color, nor shape, nor size, nor anything\nwhich the eye can see, but who is above all essence, who is ineffable,\nand undefinable, who is alone beautiful and good, and who is at once\nimplanted into those souls who are naturally well born, through their\nrelationship to and desire of seeing him.\"\n\nAthanasius (third Christian century) quotes the same definition (Contra\nGentes, ch. 2), almost verbatim. Turning again to the Timaeus of\nPlato, this question is asked: \"What is that which always is and has\nno becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and has never\nany being? That which is apprehended by reflection and reason [God]\nalways is; and is the same; that on the other hand which is conceived\nby opinion, with the help of sensation without reason [the material\nuniverse], is in a process of becoming and perishing but never really\nis. * * * * Was the world [universe], always in existence and without\nbeginning? or created and having a beginning? Created, I reply.\" In\nthis, the orthodox Christians may find their God of pure \"being,\" that\nnever is \"becoming,\" but always is; also the creation of the universe\nout of nothing.\n\n_Pagan Origin of Doctrine of God Admitted:_ \"In his great work\non the 'History of Christian Doctrine,' Mr. William G. T. Shedd says\n(Vol. I, p. 56): \"The early Fathers, in their defenses of Christianity\nagainst their pagan opponents, contend that the better pagan writers\nthemselves agree with the new religion in teaching that there is one\nSupreme Being. Lactantius (Institutiones, 1, 5), after quoting the\nOrphic Poets, Hesiod, Virgil, and Ovid, in proof that the heathen\npoets taught the unity of the supreme deity, affirms that the better\npagan philosophers agree with them in this. 'Aristotle,' he says,\n'although he disagrees with himself, and says many things that are\nself-contradictory, yet testifies that one supreme mind rules over\nthe world. Plato, who is regarded as the wisest philosopher of them\nall, plainly and openly defends the doctrine of a divine monarchy, and\ndenominates the supreme being, not ether, nor reason, nor nature, but\nas he is, God; and asserts that by him this perfect and admirable world\nwas made. And Cicero follows Plato, frequently confessing the deity,\nand calls him the supreme being, in his Treatise on the Laws.'\"\n\n\"It is conceded by Christian writers that the Christian doctrine of\nGod is not expressed in New Testament terms, but in the terms of Greek\nand Roman metaphysics, as witness the following from the very able\narticle in the Encyclopedia Britannica on 'Theism,' by the Rev. Dr.\nFlint, Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh: 'The proposition\nconstitutive of the dogma of the Trinity--the propositions in the\nsymbols of Nice, Constantinople and Toledo, relative to the immanent\ndistinctions and relations in the Godhead--were not drawn directly\nfrom the New Testament, and could not be expressed in New Testament\nterms. They were the product of reason speculating on a revelation to\nfaith--the New Testament representation of God as a Father, a Redeemer\nand a Sanctifier--with a view to conserve and vindicate, explain and\ncomprehend it. They were only formed through centuries of effort, only\nelaborated by the aid of the conceptions, and formulated in the terms\nof Greek and Roman metaphysics.' The same authority says: 'The massive\ndefense of theism, erected by the Cambridge school of philosophy,\nagainst atheism, fatalism, and the denial of moral distinctions, was\navowedly built on a Platonic foundation.'\" (See note).\n\nGuizot, the eminent stateman and historian of France, in one of\nhis lectures of which this is a sub-division of the title--\"Of the\nTransition from Pagan Philosophy to Christian Theology\"--says, in\nconcluding his treatment of this theme: \"I have thus exhibited the\nfact which I indicated in the outset, the fusion of Pagan philosophy\nwith Christian theology, the metamorphosis of the one into the other.\nAnd it is remarkable, that the reasoning applied to the establishment\nof the spirituality of the soul is evidently derived from the ancient\nphilosophy, rather than from Christianity, and that the author seems\nmore especially to aim a convincing the theologians, by proving to them\nthat the Christian faith has nothing in all this which is not perfectly\nreconcilable with the results derived from pure reason.\"\n\n\"In method of thought also, no less than in conclusions, the most\ninfluential of the Christian fathers on these subjects followed the\nGreek philosophers rather than the writers of the New Testament.\n'Platonism, and Aristotelianism,' says the author of the 'History of\nChristian Doctrine,' exerted more influence upon the intellectual\nmethods of men, taking in the whole time since their appearance, than\nall other systems combined. They certainly influenced the Greek mind,\nand Grecian culture, more than all the other philosophical systems.\nThey reappear in Roman philosophy--so far as Rome had any philosophy.\nWe shall see that Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero exerted more influence\nthan all other philosophical minds united, upon the greatest of the\nChristian Fathers; upon the greatest of the Schoolmen; and upon the\ntheologians of the Reformation, Calvin and Melanchthon. And if we look\nat European philosophy as it has been unfolded in England, Germany\nand France, we shall perceive that all the modern theistic schools\nhave discussed the standing problems of human reason, in very much the\nsame manner in which the reason of Plato and Aristotle discussed them\ntwenty-two centuries ago. Bacon, Descartes, Leibnitz, and Kant, so\nfar as the first principles of intellectual and moral philosophy are\nconcerned, agree with their Grecian predecessors. A student who has\nmastered the two systems of the Academy and Lyceum, will find in modern\nphilosophy (with the exception of the department of natural science)\nvery little that is true, that may not be found for substance, and\ngerminally, in the Greek theism.\"\n\n\"It is hoped that enough is said here to establish the fact that the\nconception of God as 'pure being,' 'immaterial,' 'without form,' 'or\nparts or passions,' as held by orthodox Christianity, has its origin\nin Pagan philosophy, not in Jewish nor Christian revelation.\" (Mormon\nDoctrine of Deity--Roberts--pp. 114-119).\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. For a brief account of the Arian controversy which resulted in the\nformulation of this creed, see notes in Year Book II, Lesson xxxvii;\nalso note 3, this Lesson.\n\n\n\nLESSON XXVII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_MEDIAEVAL CONCEPTIONS OF GOD._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                       _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. The Mediaeval Period and Schools                 The works cited in\n        of Thought._                                   Lessons xxv and xxvi\n                                                         will be helpful in this\n  _II. Definitions._                                 Lesson under the topics\n                                                         of the analysis; and of\n  _III. Representative Doctors of the Various          course the authorities\n          Schools of Thought:_                         cited in the notes of this\n                                                         lesson.\n          1. Erigena, Extreme Realist.\n\n          2. Roscelina, of Compiegne, Extreme\n             Nominalist.\n\n          3. Anselm, Realist.\n\n          4. Thomas Aquinas, Properly Neither\n             Realist nor Nominalist,\n             Scholastic.\n\n          5. Eckhart, Mystic.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"And without controversy, great is the mystery of\nGodliness.\" I. Tim. iii, 16_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Mediaeval Period:_ The Patristic Period, according to\nour announced grouping of the Christian Fathers, extended to 750 A.\nD. and included in the enumeration of the fathers John of Damascus.\nThe Mediaeval Period will extend from the above date to the middle\nof the sixteenth century, which brings us to the establishment of\nProtestantism, and the commencement, theologically, of the modern\nworld. This gives us a period of eight hundred years. \"Of this period,\"\nsays Shedd, \"not more than four centuries witnessed any great activity\nof the theological mind.\"\n\nThe \"Orthodox Christian\" doctrine of God for this period, and for\nmatter of that, for all subsequent periods, was fixed by the Nicene\nCreed and the creed of St. Athanasius, quoted in Lesson 26. The effort\nof the Christian scholars of the Mediaeval Period was to maintain,\nfirst, the truthfulness of these creeds against skepticism and doubts\nwithin the Church itself; and, second, to reconcile the creeds with\nreason, and develop patristic philosophy into something like system\n(History of Philosophy--Elmendorf--p. 102). However, \"As there is never\na proper end to reasoning which proceeds on a false foundation,\" to\nquote Cicero, the efforts of the schoolmen were not very successful,\nand resulted in multiplying systems of philosophy, rather than in\nbringing the patristic doctrine into harmony with reason. The systems\nof thought developed by these efforts may be classed under three heads:\nRealism, Nominalism, and Mysticism. A brief definition of each will be\nnecessary.\n\n2. _Definitions--\"Realism:\"_ Realism divides into two classes,\nextreme and moderate. (1) \"Extreme realism taught that universals were\nsubstances or things, existing independently of and separate from\nparticulars; this was the essence of Plato's ideas.\" (Cent. Dict.) The\nthinking process of the realist is admirably depicted in Note 5, Lesson\nxxvi, where St. Augustine describes his rise from the conception of the\n\"changeable\" to the \"Unchangeable,\" and \"thus with the flash of one\ntrembling glance,\" arrived at the conception of \"that which is\"--to the\nreal--to the universal--to the apprehension of \"God.\"\n\n\"Moderate Realism also taught that universals were substances, but\nonly as dependent upon and inseparable from individuals, in which each\ninhered; that is, each universal inhered in each of the particulars\nranged under it. This was the theory of Aristotle, who held that\nthe individual thing was the first essence, while universals were\nonly second essences, real in a less complete sense than first\nessences. He thus reversed the Platonic doctrine, which attributed the\nfullest reality to universals only, and a participative reality to\nindividuals.\" (Cent. Dict.)\n\nElmendorf represents moderate realism as recognizing that\n\"the universal has objective reality, as to its contents, in\nindividuals\"--(i. e., the universal is expressed through individuals).\n\n_Nominalism:_ Nominalism also divides into two classes, extreme\nand moderate. \"Extreme nominalism taught that universals had no\nsubstantive or objective existence at all, but were merely empty\nnames or words. Moderate nominalism or 'conceptualism' taught that\nuniversals have no substantive existence at all, but yet are more than\nmere names signifying nothing; and that they exist really, though only\nsubjectively, as concepts in the mind, of which names are the vocal\nsymbols.\" (Cent. Dict.).\n\n_Mysticism:_ \"Mysticism is a phase of thought, or rather perhaps\nof feeling, which from its very nature is hardly susceptible of exact\ndefinition. It appears in connection with the endeavor of the human\nmind to grasp the divine essence or the ultimate reality of things,\nand to enjoy the blessedness of actual communication with the Highest.\nMore specifically, a form of religious belief which is founded upon\nmysticism, spiritual experience, not discriminated or tested and\nsystematized in thought. 'Mysticism and rationalism' represent opposite\npoles of theology, rationalism regarding the reason as the highest\nfaculty of man and the sole arbiter in all matters of religious\ndoctrine; mysticism, on the other hand, declaring that spiritual\ntruth cannot be apprehended by the logical faculty, nor adequately\nexpressed in terms of the understanding.\" (Cent. Dict.). Mysticism\nmay also be regarded as the result of \"a despair of reason, a refuge\nin higher intuitions.\" (Elmendorf.) These definitions may be regarded\nas difficult, but I know of no way by which the ideas considered can\nbe more simply explained. The definitions should be discussed until\nmastered. Perhaps they will grow in clearness after considering the\nrest of the notes of this lesson.\n\n3. _Explanatory:_ Limiting our inquiry concerning the philosophy\nof this mediaeval period to the doctrine of God, and selecting an\nexpression of that doctrine from an illustrious representative of\neach school of thought, may be of assistance in forming a clearer\nunderstanding of the definitions given in previous notes, and likewise\nrepresent the leading conceptions of God that obtained in the period\nunder consideration.\n\n4. _John Scotus Erigena:_ Extreme realist, and something of a\nMystic; \"Man finds not God, but God finds himself in man,\" (Elmendorf)\nis the keynote of this philosopher's teaching. Erigena was born in\nIreland, 800 A. D. Made a pilgrimage to the birthplace of Plato and\nAristotle A. D. 825; \"and indulged the hope of uniting philosophy and\nreligion in the manner proposed by the ecclesiastics who were studying\nin Spain.\"\n\n\"From Eastern sources, John Erigena had learned the doctrines of the\neternity of matter, and even of the creation, with which, indeed, he\nconfounded the Deity Himself. He was therefore a Pantheist, accepting\nthe Oriental ideas of emanation and absorption, not only as respects\nthe soul of man, but likewise all material things. In his work 'On\nthe Nature of things,' his doctrine is, 'That, as all things were\noriginally contained in God, and proceeded from Him into the different\nclasses by which they are now distinguished, so shall they finally\nreturn to Him, and be absorbed in the source from which they came; in\nother words, that as, before the world was created, there was no being\nbut God, and the causes of all things were in Him, so after the end of\nthe world, there will be no being but God, and the causes of all things\nin Him. This final resolution he denominated deification, or theosis.\nHe even questioned the eternity of hell, saying, with the emphasis of\na Saracen, 'There is nothing eternal but God.' It was impossible under\nsuch circumstances, that he should not fall under the rebuke of the\nChurch.\" (Draper's \"Intellectual Development,\" Vol II, p. 9.)\n\n5. _Roscelin of Compiegne:_ Extreme Nominalist. Sometimes credited\nwith being the originator of the system; but he was \"not the originator\nof the system,\" says Elmendorf, \"but its clearest exponent and sharpest\ndefender in the eleventh century.\" The same authority says that he\nregarded \"universals\" as \"merely universal names.\" A title \"for the\ntotality of things. This be applied to the doctrine of the Trinity in\nthe form of tritheism. There are three divine essences or substances,\nlike one another; for only individuals have a real existence\"--(Hist.\nof Philosophy--Elmendorf--pp. 105-6.) \"Roscellinus taught that whatever\nexists as a real thing or substance, exists as one self-identical\nwhole, and is not susceptible of division into parts. This was the\npart of his teaching which created so much scandal when applied to\nthe doctrine of the Trinity. Roscellinus maintained that it is merely\na habit of speech which prevents our speaking of the three persons\nas three substances, or three Gods. If it were otherwise, and the\nthree persons were really one substance or thing, we should be forced\nto admit that the Father and the Holy Spirit became incarnate along\nwith the Son. Roscellinus seems to have put forward this doctrine in\nperfect good faith, and to have claimed for it at first the authority\nof Lanfranc and Anselm. In 1092, however, a council convoked by the\nArchbishop of Rheims, condemned his interpretation, and Roscellinus,\nwho was in danger of being lynched by the orthodox populace, recanted\nhis error. As his enforced penitence did not prove lasting, his\nopinions were condemned by a second council (1094), and he himself fled\nto England. Forced by a fresh persecution to return to France at a\nlater date, he taught at Tours and Loc-menach in Brittany (where he had\nAbelard as a pupil), and resided latterly as canon at Besancon.\" (Ency.\nBrit.).\n\n_6. St. Anselm, Realist:_ Born at or near Aosta, Italy, 1033,\nA. D.; died at Canterbury, 1109. Credited with being the founder of\nscholastic theology. He held that faith is not the pre-requisite, and\nthe regulator of knowledge, but leads to it. Also that \"God can be\nknown through reason, attempts ontological, a priori proof, from the\nconcept of the objective existence. That than which a greater cannot be\nconceived cannot exist in intellect alone; for then a greater can be\nconceived.\" His doctrine is set forth in detail by Shedd: \"The human\nmind possesses the idea of the most perfect Being conceivable. But\nsuch a being is necessarily existent; because a being whose existence\nis contingent, who may or may not exist, is not the most perfect that\nwe can conceive of. But a necessarily existent Being is one that\ncannot be conceived of as non-existent, and therefore is an actually\nexistent Being. Necessary existence implies actual existence. In\nconceiving, therefore, of a being who is more perfect than all others,\nthe mind inevitably conceives of a real, and not an imaginary, being;\nin the same manner as in conceiving of a figure having three sides,\nit inevitably conceives of a figure having three angles.\" (History of\nChristian Doctrine--Shedd--Vol. I, pp. 231-2.)\n\nThis argument of Anselm's was attacked by a Catholic Monk of the name\nof Gaunilo, whose main point is that the existence of an idea of a\nthing does not prove the existence of the thing itself. Shedd, in order\nto exhibit the strength of Anselm's argument, suggests throwing it into\ndialogue form, thus:\n\n_Anselm:_ \"I have the idea of the most perfect being conceivable.\"\n\n_Guanilo:_ \"True; but it is a mere idea, and there is no being\ncorresponding to it.\"\n\n_Anselm:_ \"But if there is no being answering to my idea, then my\nidea of the most perfect being conceivable is that of an imaginary\nbeing; but an imaginary being is not the most perfect being that I can\nconceive of. The being who corresponds to my idea must be a real being.\nIf, therefore, you grant me my postulate, namely, that I have the\nidea of the most perfect being conceivable, you concede the existence\nof an actual being correspondent to it.\" (History of Christian\nDoctrine--Shedd--Vol. I, p. 237.)\n\nOne feels, however, that this is but playing with and upon words, and\nis much of kith and kin with that other abstraction, that \"the thought\nof God makes God.\" Maurice remarks upon this argument of Anselm's\nfor the divine existence, as follows: \"In the present day, when the\narguments for the Divine existence from the constitution of the visible\nworld have displaced all others in the minds of theological advocates,\nand when these are in their turn exposed to the severest criticism from\nphilosophers, such a subtlety as this of Anselm's would be dismissed\nby both parties with indifference or scorn. Without participating in\neither feeling, or pre-judging the question whether the argument is\ntenable in itself, we may express our opinion, that in a time of clubs\nand newspapers, it would be a serious moral offense to introduce into\ndiscussion, upon a subject of the greatest interest to all men, that\nwhich must appear to nine out of ten a play upon words, or a conjurer's\ntrick.\" (History of Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy, Vol. I, 524.)\n\n7. _Abelard, Peter:_ A moderate nominalist, and usually regarded\nas the founder of \"Conceptualism.\" Born in Brittany, 1079. Moderate\nnominalist. \"Inspired by Aristotle, he taught * * * * that nothing\nexists apart from the individual, and in it the individual only.\"\n(Elmendorf History of Philosophy, p. 108.) Abelard also held that\nthere is \"no believing antecedent to scientific understanding, and\nconsequently that the degree of posterior faith depends upon the degree\nof anterior science.\" \"Knowledge is prior to faith,\" was his dictum.\n(See Shedd, Vol. I, pp. 163, 186 et seq.)\n\n8. _St. Thomas Aquinas:_ Scholastic par-excellence. Born at\nAcquino, in the kingdom of Naples, 1225. His great effort was to\nreconcile faith and reason. Called the \"Aristotle of the middle ages.\"\nHis doctrine respecting God, condensed by Elmendorf, is:\n\n\"In God is no composition of matter or form, nor any other. He is pure\nactuality; for potentiality, in any sense, would imply an actuating\ncause.\n\n\"In Him essence and being are one.\n\n\"In Him is no imperfection, because no potentiality; all perfections\nwhich earthly things possess, being from Him, are in Him, one and\nindivisible.\n\n\"From God as Absolute Intelligence, follows, necessarily, the concept\nof God as Absolute Will. He wills what is not Himself freely, because\nit is not necessary to His perfection and beatitude. From this follows\nHis Omnipotence.\n\n\"His Providence is the ordering of all things, both universal and\nsingular, with reference to an end, for it extends as far as His\nknowledge and causality.\n\n\"The casual is with respect to a particular cause, not to the universal.\n\n\"Ills, corruptions, defects, are permitted in particular things,\ncontributing to the greater good of the whole.\" (History of\nPhilosophy--Elmendorf--p. 121.)\n\n\"The system of philosophical theology set forth in the writings of St.\nThomas Aquinas, is of supreme importance in Ecclesiastical History, not\nonly as intellectually perhaps the most perfect work of the Scholastic\nage, but because it has been adopted as the authoritative standard of\ndoctrine in the Roman Catholic Church. Such pre-eminence is reported to\nhave been assigned to Thomas by the saying of his great master, Albert,\nthat he had \"put an end to all labor even unto the world's end.\" * * *\n\n\"In the great controversy of the schools, Aquinas cannot be ranked\nstrictly with either the Realists or the Nominalists; his position has\nbeen described as an Aristotelian Realist. Like the orthodox in general\nhe ranged himself with the modern section of the Realists, who while\nholding that Universals--namely, genera and species--are more than mere\nmental abstractions, and have a real existence, yet limited them to\nan existence in the individual, and refused to attribute to them any\nantecedent or independent existence.\" * * * *\n\n\"In this work of buttressing authority by philosophy, and vindicating\northodoxy by the light of nature, as the way was led by Albert, so his\ngreater pupil carried it on to perfection; and the consequence has been\nthat the stately edifice of Systematic Theology, reared in the Church\nof the West by the labors of the Schools, repose on the foundation\nlaid by the great luminary of Pagan Greece.\" (Smith's Students'\nEcclesiastical History, Vol. II, pp. 512-515.)\n\n_Eckhart, Mystic:_ Born, it is thought, at Strasburg, 1250 A. D.\nTaught and preached through Germany. Follows to some extent Erigena,\ntending, unconsciously, to emanistic pantheism. \"The inner ground of\nman's soul is Divine, a 'spark' of Deity; knowledge is a real union of\nsubject and object. The soul's highest power is an immediate intuition\nof the 'Godhead' transcending the determinate.\n\n\"The Absolute is impersonal, concealed even from thought; of the\n'Godhead' no predicates may be used; it is hidden in eternal darkness.\nIn the act of self-knowledge, God is developed as the Trinity, the\nform of 'Godhead' which beholds itself with love;--the subject is the\nFather, the object is the Son, the love is the Holy Spirit. * * * *\n\n\"God is the essence of all essences, which are ever in Him; in sending\nforth His Son, He sends forth all things (ideal world). In space and\ntime, natura naturata, are the Three Persons of the Trinity, eternal as\nthe world is, but in natura non naturata is only the 'Godhead.'\n\n\"Apart from God, the world is nonentity; God is in all things, and\nis all things, for creatures have no essence except God. Yet He is\nnot nature, but above it, for the world of space and time is created\nout of nothing. The motive of God's goodness, which necessarily\nextends itself; and, by the same necessity, creation is continuous,\neternal. Different from this, as the realizing of the ideal by\nthe artist, is the creation out of nothing, in time.\" (History of\nPhilosophy--Elmendorf--pp. 136-137.)\n\n\n\nLESSON XXVIII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF GOD._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                         _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. The Period--State of Philosophy._                Many of the authorities\n                                                           cited in Lessons xxv,\n  _II. Modern Schools of Philosophy:_                  xxvi and xxvii will be\n                                                           available in this; also\n         1. Empiricism;                                    the works of Bacon,\n                                                           Locke, Hobbes, Descartes,\n         2. Idealism;                                      Spinoza, Hamilton,\n                                                           Berkeley, Hume,\n         3. Rationalism;                                   Mill; also Kant, Fichte,\n                                                           Hegel and Spencer.\n         4. Pantheism;\n                                                           It may be that the\n         5. Materialism;                                   works of these masters\n                                                           may only be available to\n         6. Monism;                                        those within reach of\n                                                           reference libraries. The\n         7. Mormonism--Eternalism.                         following, however, are\n                                                           one-volume works that\n                                                           would be of great service\n                                                           in studying this lesson:\n                                                           John Fiske's Studies\n                                                           in Religion; History\n                                                           of Philosophy, Elmemdorf;\n                                                           \"The Conception of\n                                                           God\"--Royce, Leconte,\n                                                           Howison, Meze; \"Typical\n                                                           Modern Conceptions\n                                                           of God,\" Leighton;\n                                                           Haeckel's \"Riddle of the\n                                                           Universe;\" ditto, \"Wonders\n                                                           of Life,\" and J. S. Mills'\n                                                           \"Theism and\n                                                           Berkeley,\" and Roberts'\n                                                           \"Mormon Doctrine of\n                                                           Deity.\"\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"Gird up now thy loins like a man * * * and answer thou\nme. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare\nif thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof if\nthou knowest, or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereon are the\nfoundations thereof fastened, or who laid the cornerstone thereof?\"\nJob xxxviii_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _The Period:_ The Modern period extends from the establishment\nof Protestantism, in the middle of the sixteenth century, until the\npresent time. Necessarily the limits imposed upon our treatise can\nadmit only of a very limited presentation of the conceptions of God\nduring that important thought-revolutionary period, covering something\nover 250 years. In this period philosophy occupies a most independent\nposition. It is no longer dominated by the Church; nor are its efforts\nconsecrated to the advocacy of the defense of \"orthodox Christian\"\ndogma In fact, little is heard of that dogma. \"Highest truths,\" writes\nElmendorf in his \"History of Philosophy,\" \"were to be determined\nby reason alone; not even an appeal for verification to Christian\nrevelation (was) recognized. Ancient systems were reconstructed without\nany reference to the teaching of the Church, or it was maintained that\nphilosophic truth might be false according to faith and conversely. *\n* * * The sixteenth century was a period of transition, of confusion,\nwithout settled method or principle; there was no predominating school,\nno originality, but a vague following of every ancient school. Greek\nthinkers were now read in the original, and men, no longer scholastics,\nwere Platonists, Peripatetics, etc.; but rather as scholars,\nclassicists, than with any comprehensive or productive grasp of the\nprinciples which they professed.\n\n\"Without great names, there was a widening of the sphere of philosophy;\nit was popularized, but the influence of classicism made the culture of\nmere form as extreme as the neglect of it among the later schoolmen;\nbut philosophy at the same time exerted, particularly through the\n'humanists', a more manifest influence on general literature, science,\nand social life. * * * The invention of printing, together with the\nincrease of wealth in the free cities, widened immensely the interest\nin philosophy, and brought it sensibly into general literary culture\nand political life.\" (History of Philosophy--Elmendorf--pp. 142-3.)\n\nThere was a reversion in Europe to the speculations of Plato and\nAristotle, and the intellectual battles of the two Greeks were fought\nover again in Europe, with sometimes one and sometimes the other\nprevailing.\n\nThe effort of philosophical thinking, as already remarked, was not\nnow to either sustain or disprove the Divine Existence or the mode\nof that existence, as expressed in the Orthodox Christian creeds;\nbut its aim was more especially to set forth the modes of divine\nexistence independent of theological conceptions. Is the Absolute to\nbe apprehended as \"Will,\" \"finding its completion in the intuition of\nperfect attainment?\" Or \"Reason,\" \"comprehending itself as the eternal\nprocess of the world and finding that all is Good?\" Or \"Feeling,\"\n\"which apprehends the unity of things in a single and immediate act\nof self-consciousness?\" Or merely \"Blind Energy,\" \"which seems in a\ncross-section of time, as viewed by the average spectator, to have a\ndefinite direction, but which in reality has neither a \"whence nor\nwhither;\" and no other goal than the meaningless eternal oscillation\nbetween states of motion and states of rest.\" (\"Typical Modern\nConceptions of God\"--by Joseph Alexander Leighton--1901--Introduction,\np. 8.)\n\n2. _Modern Schools of Philosophy:_ So extensive is the period now\nunder consideration, and so numerous the voices to be heard, that one\ncannot hope in three lessons--to which space it is necessary that we\nlimit ourselves--to convey, even by quotation from typical philosophers\nof the period, an adequate idea of the conceptions of God that have\nobtained. It will be necessary for the individual student personally to\ntake up the subject in private study if he feels the necessity of wide\nknowledge on the speculations of men on the Supreme Being and His modes\nof existence.\n\nMeantime, the numerous teachers of this period may be grouped under\ngeneral descriptive terms which relate either to their methods of\nthought or the result of their thinking, sometimes to both.\n\n\"In the wave of philosophical inquiry which swept over Europe in the\nmiddle of the seventeenth century, and is regarded as the beginning\nof a new, scientific age of the world, there were two controlling,\nbut divergent forces, those, namely, represented by Bacon and\nDescartes, the first the founder of the experimental, and the latter\nthe idealistic or dogmatic method of philosophizing. From the former\n(Bacon), we may trace a continuous influence through Locke, Berkeley,\nHume down to Mill, Spencer, Darwin and Huxley; from the latter\n(Descartes), the development of the modern idealism represented by\nKant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Lotze.\" (Introduction to the\nWorks of Spinoza, p. 5.)\n\nFrom this it will appear that our modern philosophers are mainly\ndivided, as to their methods of thought, into Empirics and Idealists.\n\n(a) _Empiricism:_ \"The empirical character, or method; reliance\non direct, and especially individual, observation and experience, to\nthe exclusion of theories or assumed principles, and sometimes of\nall reasoned processes, inductive or deductive. The doctrine that\nall knowledge is derived from the senses, or experience through the\nsenses, or at least from the perception of simple historical fact;\nexperientialism; opposed to intuitionalism. Empiricism, as its name\nimports, affirms that all our knowledge comes from experience, and\nis therefore subject to all the imperfections and limitations of\nexperience.\" (Standard Dictionary.)\n\n(b) _Idealism:_ \"Idealism--that explanation of the world which\nmaintains that the only thing absolutely real is mind; that all\nmaterial and all temporal existences take their being from mind, from\nconsciousness that thinks and experiences; that out of consciousness\nthey all issue, to consciousness are presented, and that presence to\nconsciousness constitute their entire reality and entire existence.\"\n(Prof. Howison, Conceptions of God,--1902--p. 84.)\n\n(c) Rationalism: In philosophy means, \"the doctrine that reason\nfurnishes certain elements that underlies experience, and without which\nexperience is impossible; opposed to empiricism or experientialism.\"\n(Standard Dictionary.) \"In metaphysics, the doctrine of a priori\ncognitions; the doctrine that knowledge is not all produced by the\naction of outward things upon themselves, but partly arises from the\nnatural adaption of the mind to think things that are true.\n\n\"The form of Rationalism which is now in the ascendant, resembles the\ntheory of natural evolution in this, that the latter finds the race\nmore real than the individual, and the individual to exist only in the\nrace; so the former looks upon the individual reason as but a finite\nmanifestation of the universal reason.\" (Cent. Dict.)\n\n(d) _Rationalistic Elements and Methods:_ A fine description of\nrationalistic elements and method of philosophizing, is given in one of\nErnest Haeckel's latest works.\n\n\"We must welcome as one of the most fortunate steps in the direction of\na solution of the great cosmic problems, the fact that of recent years\nthere is a growing tendency to recognize the two paths which alone\nlead thereto--experience and thought, or speculation--to be of equal\nvalue, and mutually complementary. Philosophers have come to see that\npure speculation--such, for instance, as Plato and Hegel employed for\nthe construction of their idealist systems--does not lead to knowledge\nof reality. On the other hand, scientists have been convinced that\nmere experience--such as Bacon and Mill, for example, made the basis\nof their realist systems--is insufficient of itself for a complete\nphilosophy. * * *\n\n\"True knowledge is only acquired by combining the activity of the two.\nNevertheless there are still many philosophers who would construct\nthe world out of their own inner-consciousness, and who reject our\nempirical science precisely because they have no knowledge of the\nreal world. On the other hand, there are many scientists who still\ncontend that the sole object of science is 'the knowledge of facts,\nthe objective investigation of isolated phenomena;' that 'the age of\nphilosophy' is past, and science has taken its place. This one-sided\nover-estimation of experience is as dangerous an error as the\nconverse exaggeration of the value of speculation.\" (Riddle of the\nUniverse--1900--pp. 18-19.)\n\n(e) _Pantheism:_ \"The metaphysical doctrine that God is\nthe only substance, of which the material universe and man are\nonly manifestations. It is accompanied with the denial of God's\npersonality.\" (Cent. Dict.) God and the universe are identical--the\nuniverse is the only reality. (See also note 4, Lesson xx.)\n\n(f) _Materialism:_ \"The metaphysical doctrine that matter is\nthe only substance, and that matter and its motions constitute the\nuniverse. Philosophical materialism holds that matter and the motions\nof matter make up the sum total of existence, and that what we know as\nphysical phenomena in man and other animals, are to be interpreted in\nan ultimate analysis as simply the peculiar aspect which is assumed by\ncertain enormously complicated motions of matter.\" (Cent. Dict.)\n\n(g) Monism: \"The doctrine which considers mind and matter as neither\nseparated nor as derived from each other, but as standing in an\nessential and inseparable connection.\" Any system of thought which\nseeks to deduce all the varied phenomena of both the physical and\nspiritual worlds from a single principle. (Standard Dictionary, F. W.)\n\nErnest Haeckel, Monism's most illustrious disciple, if not its founder\nthus defines it: \"All the different philosophical tendencies may, from\nthe point of view of modern science, be ranged in two antagonistic\ngroups; they represent either a dualistic or a monistic interpretation\nof the cosmos. The former is usually bound up with teleological and\nidealistic dogmas, the latter with mechanical and realistic theories.\nDualism, in the widest sense, breaks up the universe into two entirely\ndistinct substances--the material world and an immaterial God, who is\nrepresented to be its creator, sustainer and ruler. Monism, on the\ncontrary (likewise taken in its widest sense), recognizes one sole\nsubstance in the universe, which is at once \"God and nature;\" body\nand spirit (or matter and energy) it holds to be inseparable. The\nextra-mundane God of dualism leads necessarily to theism; and the\nintra-mundane God of the monist leads to pantheism.\n\n\"The different ideas of monism and materialism, and likewise the\nessentially distinct tendencies of theoretical and practical\nmaterialism, are still very frequently confused. As this and other\nsimilar cases of confusion of ideas are very prejudicial, and give rise\nto innumerable errors, we shall make the following brief observations,\nin order to prevent misunderstanding:\n\n\"1. Pure monism is identical neither with the theoretical materialism\nthat denies the existence of a spirit, and dissolves the world into\na heap of dead atoms, nor with the theoretical spiritualism (lately\nentitled 'energetic' spiritualism by Oswald) which rejects the notion\nof matter, and considers the world to be a specially arranged group of\n'energies,' or immaterial natural forces.\n\n\"2. On the contrary, we hold, with Goethe, 'that matter cannot exist\nand be operative without spirit, nor spirit without matter.' We\nadhere firmly to the pure, unequivocal monism of Spinoza: Matter, or\ninfinitely extended substance, and spirit (or energy), or sensitive and\nthinking substance, are the two fundamental attributes or principle\nproperties of the all-embracing divine essence of the world, the\nuniversal substance.\" (Riddle of the Universe, pp. 20-21.)\n\n(h) _Mormonism--Eternalism:_ As a philosophical system, Mormonism\nmay not be classed under any of the titles so far employed. Eternalism,\nI should select as the word best suited for its philosophical\nconceptions. It is dualistic, but not in the sense that it \"breaks up\nthe universe into two entirely distinct substances, the material world\nand an immaterial God.\" (Haeckel, see note 8.) It is also monistic,\nbut not in the sense that in the last analysis of things it recognizes\nno distinctions in matter, or that matter (gross material) and spirit\n(mind, a finer and thinking kind of material)[1] are fused into one\ninseparable \"sole substance,\" which is at once \"God and nature.\"\n(Haeckel, note 8.) Its dualism is that which while recognizing an\n\"infinitely extended substance\"--the universe, \"unbounded and empty\nin no part, but everywhere filled with substance\" (Haeckel's Law of\nSubstance)--holds, nevertheless, that such substance exists in two\nprincipal modes, having some qualities in common, and in others being\ndistinct. (1) Gross material, usually recognized as matter, pure and\nsimple. (2) A finer, thinking substance, usually regarded, by other\nsystems of thought, as spirit, i. e., immaterial substance. These\nkinds of matter have existed from all eternity, and will exist to all\neternity in intimate relations. Neither produces the other, however;\nthey are eternal existences. They constitute the Book of Mormon \"things\nto act, and things to be acted upon.\" (2 Nephi, ch. 2 14.)\n\nThe Monism of Mormonism, while recognizing the universe as infinitely\nextended substance, matter, and hence, in this respect monistic, yet\nit also recognizes this substance as of two kinds; one gross material;\nthe other finer, or thinking material--mind; having some qualities in\ncommon, with gross matter, and in others being distinct. After these\ndistinctions are made, and if constantly held in consciousness, so that\nthere shall not be a loss of distinction in things, we may hereafter\nuse the terms \"Intelligence\" and \"Matter\" as naming the two modes in\nwhich for Mormonism, the eternal and infinitely extended substance--the\nUniverse--exists. To say that intelligence dominates matter, and\nproduces all the ceaseless changes going on in the universe, both of\ncreation and demolition[2] (or evolution and devolution)--is simply to\nsay that the superior dominates the inferior; that that which acts is\ngreater than that which is acted upon; that mind is the Eternal Cause\nof the \"ever becoming\" in the universe--the Cause and Sustainer of\nthe cosmic world. It is also to say that mind is power; that mind is\nthought, and will, and life, and love.\n\n_--Modes of Existence of the Infinitely Extended Substance--The\nUniverse:_ As the gross material exists ultimately in final\nparticles--atoms, or something smaller, if you will--uncreated and\nuncreatable; so the finer or thinking substance, intelligence, exists\nin ultimate entities--uncreated and uncreatable.[3]\n\nAnd as the gross material atoms exist some in organized worlds and\nworld-systems--the cosmos--and also others in chaotic mass; so the\nfiner or thinking substance--the intelligent entities, exist in\nsomewhat analogous states; some in the form of perfected, exalted men,\nclothed upon with immortal bodies, participating in a nature that is\ndivine, having won their exaltation through the experiences, through\nstress and trial in the various estates, or changes through which they\nhave passed. Other intelligencies exist in spirit-bodies, less advanced\nthan the first class, possessed of less experience and of power and of\ndignity; still they are in the way of progress through other estates,\nyet to be experienced by them. Other intelligent entities exist as\nintelligences merely, not yet the begotten spirits, not yet united with\nelements on the grosser substance, union with which is essential to the\nhighest development of intelligences.[4]\n\nSuch the Mormon view of the universe and the modes of existence in\nit--briefly outlined. These existences, both of the thinking substance,\nand the grosser materials, are subject to infinite changes and\ndevelopments, in which there are no ultimates. Each succeeding wave of\nprogress may attain higher, and ever higher degrees of excellence, but\nnever attain perfection--the ideal recedes ever as it is approached,\nand hence progress is eternal, even for the highest existences.\n\nAs to methods of thinking, Mormon philosophizing is bound by no rules\nprescribed by any of the schools of thought. Both idealistic and\nempirical methods it employs; it recognizes both experience and thought\nas avenues to knowledge; and \"both channels of knowledge as mutually\nindispensable.\" These subjects are somewhat elaborately discussed in\nthe writer's book \"Joseph Smith, The Prophet Teacher.\"\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. I use the modifying terms of the brackets instead of \"ponderable\"\nand \"imponderable substance\" (sometimes used in describing the ether),\nbecause I am not sure as to \"spirit substance\" being without weight,\nwhich it must not possess if it be described as \"imponderable.\" Also\nI use \"gross material\" and \"finer material,\" because they are terms\nmost nearly suited--and indeed suggested--in the distinction made\nby Joseph Smith when announcing, in the passage which follows, that\n\"All spirit is matter.\" \"There is no such thing as immaterial matter\n[substance]. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can\nonly be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it [now]; but when our\nbodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.\" (Doc. & Cov.,\nsec 131; 6-8.)\n\n2. \"There are many worlds that have passed away by the word of My\npower. And there are many that now stand. * * * And as one earth\nshall pass away, and the heavens thereof, even so shall another come;\nand there is no end to My works.\" (The Lord to Moses, Pearl of Great\nPrice, pp. 6-7.) Hence the \"creation and demolition,\" or evolution and\ndevolution of the text.\n\n3. \"Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made,\nneither indeed can be.\" (Doc. & Cov., Sec. 93; 29.)\n\n4. \"The elements [i. e., of the gross material] are eternal, and spirit\nand element, inseparably connected [as in resurrected persons], receive\na fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of\njoy.\" (Doc. & Cov., Sec. 93.)\n\n\n\nLESSON XXIX.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_TYPICAL MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF GOD._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                          _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. Typical Views of God--Philosophers:_              The works cited in\n                                                            Lessons xxvii and xxviii,\n        1. Spinoza:                                         will be available in this\n                                                            lesson; also the works\n        2. Locke;                                           quoted in the notes. The\n                                                            notes of this lesson aim\n        3. Berkeley;                                        to convey in condensed\n                                                            form the generalized\n        4. Fichte;                                          view of each Philosophers\n                                                            quoted. They make\n        5. Kant.                                            difficult reading, but--well,\n                                                            master them.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: For these philosophers one might say: \"Oh that I might\nknow where I might find Him! That I might come even to His seat * * * *\n* Behold I go forward, but He is not there; and backward, but I cannot\nperceive Him; on the left hand, where He doth work, but I cannot behold\nHim. He hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot see Him.\" Job\nxxiii_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Spinoza--Pantheist:_ Born in Amsterdam 1632, of Jewish parents,\nwho were refuges from the Spanish persecution of that period. He states\nhis conceptions of God in the following passages:\n\n\"By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance\nconsisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and\ninfinite essentiality.\n\n\"Explanation: I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind;\nfor, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may\nbe denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its\nessence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation. * * *\n* * * \"God is a being absolutely infinite, of whom no attribute that\nexpresses the essence of substance can be denied, and he necessarily\nexists: If any substance besides God were granted, it would have to be\nexplained by some attribute of God, and thus two substances with the\nsame attribute would exist, which is absurd; therefore, besides God, no\nsubstance can be granted or consequently, be conceived. If it could be\nconceived, it would necessarily have to be conceived as existent; but\nthis (by the first part of this proof) is absurd. Therefore, besides\nGod, no substance can be granted or conceived.\n\n\"Some assert that God, like a man, consists of body and mind, and is\nsusceptible of passions. How far such persons have strayed from the\ntruth, is sufficiently evident from what has been said. But these\nI pass over. For all who have in anywise reflected on the divine\nnature, deny that God has a body. Of this they find excellent proof\nin the fact, that we understand by body a definite quantity, so long,\nso broad, so deep, bounded by a certain shape, and it is the height\nof absurdity to predicate such a thing of God, a being absolutely\ninfinite. But, meanwhile, by the other reasons with which they try\nto prove a point, they show that they think corporeal or extended\nsubstance wholly apart from the divine nature, and say it was created\nby God. Wherefrom the divine nature can have been created, they are\nwholly ignorant; thus they clearly show, that they do not know the\nmeaning of their own words. I, myself, have proved sufficiently\nclearly, at any rate in my own judgment (Coroll. Prop. 6, and note 2,\nProp. 8), that no substance can be produced or created by anything\nother than itself. Further, I showed (in Prop. 14) that besides God no\nsubstance can be granted or conceived. Hence, we drew the conclusion\nthat extended substance is one of the infinite attributes of God.\"\n\n2. _Locke's View of God and Spirit:_ Locke regards God as an\ninfinite, immaterial spirit, present in all duration and as filling\nimmensity. Men derive their best knowledge of God, not by reason of\ninnate ideas of Him, but by thought and meditation. \"It seems to me\nplainly to prove the truest and best notions men had of God were not\nimprinted, but acquired by thought and meditation, and a right use of\ntheir faculties; since the wise and considerate men of the world, by\na right and careful employment of their thoughts and reason, attained\ntrue notions in this, as well as other things; whilst the lazy and\ninconsiderate part of men, making far the greater number, took up\ntheir notions by chance, from common tradition and vulgar conceptions,\nwithout much beating their heads about them.\" * * * * \"God, every one\neasily allows, fills eternity; and it is hard to find a reason why\nanyone should doubt that he likewise fills immensity. His infinite\nbeing is certainly as boundless one way as the other; and methinks it\nascribes a little too much to matter to say, where there is no body\nthere is nothing.\" * * * * \"Motion cannot be attributed to God; not\nbecause he is an immaterial, but because he is an infinite spirit.\"\n(Locke's Works, Vol. I, pp. 195, 319.)\n\nIn discussing the nature of man's spirit, Locke had not excluded the\nidea of its being a thinking, material substance. Whereupon the Bishop\nof Worcester took him to task about it; to which Locke said in his own\ndefense--and in his reply something further may be learned in relation\nto his idea of God:\n\n\"Perhaps my using the word spirit for a thinking substance, without\nexcluding materiality out of it, will be thought too great a liberty,\nand such as deserves censure, because I leave immateriality out of\nthe idea I make it a sign of. I readily own, that words should be\nsparingly ventured on in a sense wholly new, and nothing but absolute\nnecessity can excuse the boldness of using any term in a sense whereof\nwe can produce no example. But in the present case, I think I have\ngreat authorities to justify me. The soul is agreed, on all hands, to\nbe that in us which thinks. And he that will look into the first book\nof Cicero's 'Tusculan Questions,' and into the sixth book of Virgil's\n'Aeneid,' will find that these two great men, who, of all the Romans,\nbest understood philosophy, thought, or at least did not deny, the\nsoul to be a subtle matter, which might come under the name of aura,\nor ignis, or ether, and this soul they both of them called spiritus;\nin the notion of which, it is plain, they included only thought and\nactive motion, without the total exclusion of matter. Whether they\nthought right in this I do not say--that is not the question; but\nwhether they spoke properly, when they called an active, thinking,\nsubtle substance, out of which they excluded only gross and palpable\nmatter, spiritus, spirit? * * * * * I would not be thought hereby to\nsay, that spirit never does signify a purely immaterial substance. In\nthat sense the Scripture, I take it, speaks, when it says 'God is a\nspirit'; and in that sense I have used it, and in that sense I have\nproved from my principles that there is a spiritual substance, and am\ncertain that there is a spiritual, immaterial substance; which is, I\nhumbly conceive, a direct answer to your lordship's question in the\nbeginning of this argument, viz: 'How we come to be certain that there\nare spiritual substances supposing this principle to be true, that the\nsimple ideas, by sensation and reflection, are the soul-matter and\nfoundation of all our reasoning?' But this hinders not, but that if\nGod, that infinite, omnipotent, and perfectly immaterial spirit, should\nplease to give a system of very subtle matter, sense and motion, it\nmight with propriety of speech be called spirit, though materiality\nwere not excluded out of its complex idea. Your lordship proceeds:\n'It is said, indeed, elsewhere, that it is repugnant to the idea of\nsenseless matter, that it would put into itself sense, perception, and\nknowledge.' But this doth not reach the present case, which is not what\nmatter can do of itself, but what matter prepared by an Omnipotent hand\ncan do. And what certainty can we have that He hath not done it? We\ncan have none from the ideas, for those are given up in this case, and\nconsequently we can have no certainty, upon these principles, whether\nwe have any spiritual substance within us or not.\" (Works, Vol. II, pp.\n388-9).\n\n3. _Berkley's Views of the Doctrine of Diety:_ George Berkley was\nborn at Killkrin, Ireland, 1684; died at Oxford, 1753. I follow Locke\nwith Berkley because he stands somewhat in contrast with him, although\nhe was, like Locke, an experimentalist in method; but he regarded Locke\nas a materialist, and he runs to the opposite extreme, as will appear\nin what follows:\n\n\"Locke had allowed to pass the hypothesis that matter can think.\nBerkley justly argued that if this were allowed, we could not affirm\nthe immateriality and perpetuity of the thinking principle in man.\nFor, with the disintegration of the matter there must be an end to\nthe individual. If it be allowed that matter can think, then, as\nLocke offers no proof to the contrary, it might be inferred that our\nthinking principle, the substratum of our thoughts, is but matter.\nThis, Berkeley undertook to combat. But how did he do so? By trying\nto establish that there is no matter, that we can not affirm its\nexistence; and, hence, as something at least, is, as we do exist, that\nthe thinking principle in us, the soul, must be immaterial.\" (Truth of\nThought--Poland--pp. 24, 25).\n\n\"To counteract the influence of Locke's quasi-materialism, Berkley\ncrossed to the other extreme, in the exaltation of spirit which, of\ncourse, he held to be immaterial. \"The possibility that hereafter this\nexaltation of spirit might lead to a denial of any Being higher than\nman--that the universe might appear to him his own creation--scarcely\npresented itself to the mind of Berkley. It was not the peril of his\ntime. A creator was not denied by any of the minute philosophers with\nwhom Berkeley contended. What he desired to impress them with was, the\nbelief that the Being who made the outward world was a Spirit, who took\ncognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart; that the words to\nthe poor woman who drew water at the well ascended above the philosophy\nof the eighteenth century; that they were real and scientific, that it\nwas conversant with phantasies and shadows.\" (Moral and Metaphysical\nPhilosophy--Maurice--Vol. II, p. 457).\n\n4. _Fichte's Conception of God--God as Will:_ Born 1762; died 1814.\nThere seems to be something of a distinction between Fichte's earlier\nand later views. In his earlier writings he appears to hold to the\ndoctrine that God was manifest in \"Will\" alone, which was the cause of\nthe moral order. \"The living and working moral order is God himself,\nand we can conceive no other.\" He quotes with approval a passage from\nSchiller, saying that it expressed his own views:\n\n  \"And God is!--a holy Will that abides,\n  Though the human will may falter;\n  High over both Space and Time it rides,\n  The high Thought that will never alter;\n  And while all things in change eternal roll,\n  It endures, through change, a motionless soul.\"\n\nFor these views Fichte was charged with atheism, which he resented:\n\"He contends,\" says Leighton, \"that his opponents regard God as a\nparticular substance. Substance means with them 'a sensible being\nexisting in time and space.' This God, extended in time and space,\nthey deduce from the sense-world. Fitche claims that extension or\ncorporeality cannot be predicated of the Diety. The sensuous world is\nonly the reappearance of the supersensuous, or moral world, through\nour attempt to grasp the latter by means of our sensuous faculty of\npresentation. The sensuous, is mere appearance, and can furnish no\nground for the existence of God. The Diety is not to be understood as\nthe underlying ground of phenomena, for, so conceived, he is made a\ncorporeal substrate. He is an order of events, not a substance. The\nsensuous predicate of existence is not to be applied to Him, for the\nsupersensuous God alone is. He is not dead Being, but rather pure\naction, the life and principle of the supersensuous World-Order. *\n* * * * To characterize God as a spirit, is of negative value in\ndistinguishing Him from things material. It gives us no positive\ninformation, for we know as little wherein the being of a spirit\nconsists as wherein the being of God consists. Inasmuch as all our\nthinking is limited, God is inconceivable. To determine him is to make\nhim finite. If personality and consciousness are to be denied of God,\nit is only in the sense in which we conceive ourselves as personal and\nconscious. God is wider consciousness than we are, a pure intelligence,\nspiritual life and actuality. He is neither one nor many, neither man\nnor spirit.\"\n\nIn his later views he seems to add \"Intelligence\" to his \"will,\" or\nmoral order. Leighton, summing up both the earlier and later views\nof the philosopher, says: \"When we put together what Fichte said at\ndifferent times and from various points of view, his doctrine becomes\na unity, and his thought exhibits a consistent development. He always\nconceived God as immanent in the moral universe--the only universe\nwhich he recognized. He consistently held that the human mind could\nnot conceive God in His transcendence. But he did not deny that\ntranscendence; and, indeed, in his later writings he emphasized it by\nhis doctrine of the 'Absolute Being.' While in his innermost nature he\n[God] is beyond the reach of thought, God manifests Himself eternally\nas active intelligence or Will, and by the free act of his own\nintelligence, man can rise to an intuitive knowledge of God and enter\ninto union with Him. In the earlier form of the 'Science of Knowledge',\nthe Absolute I is the expression of God. In the final form which his\nphilosophy assumes, Fichte emphasizes the doctrine that God is more\nthan the Absolute I. The idea of God is more fully defined. Beyond His\nmanifestation of Himself, He exists as Absolute Being. He alone is. But\nthis Being is not an abstract motionless One. Fichte says again and\nagain, in the 'Way to the Blessed Life,' that the nature of Being is to\nmanifest itself, that it is ever-active, ever-living and loving. 'Being\nand Life are one and the same.' 'The Divine is thinking and living in\none organic unity.' Being becomes conscious of itself in Existence.\nThe universal form in which the Divine Essence appears, is 'Knowing,\nthe Concept, Freedom,' and these are all equivalent expressions.\nKnowing is the first image or scheme of the Divine Being. We have not\nyet reached self-consciousness. But free Knowing, or the Concept,\nunderstands or becomes conscious of itself in life, and Life appears in\nthe Multiplicity of finite, self-conscious individuals.\" (Conceptions\nof God--Leighton--pp. 27-28).\n\n5. _Kant:_ Born at Konigsburg, 1724; died 1804. It is said that\nKant's influence in the world of thought is second only, if second, to\nAristotle's (Elmendorf).\n\n\"Kant's Organon--[a code of rules or principles for scientific\ninvestigation--Kant uses the term to denote the particular rules for\nacquiring the Knowledge of a given class of objects.--Cent. Dict.]\nis immeasurably more severe than Aristotle's or than Bacon's. At\ntimes, everything which we think we have gained when we entered upon\nthis division of our subject, appears again to be slipping from us.\nGod--Immortality, Freedom--these we find to be the ideas or postulates\nof the reason. We have them; they are with us. But what are they? Can\nwe proceed to reason from them, to build any conclusions upon the\nfact that such ideas are? If we do, we at once involve ourselves in\ncontradictions. They are ideas assuredly--fundamental principles; but\nthey cannot be treated as realities external to the mind. They are\nonly within it. If the Atheist, or the denier of immortality, begins\nto dispute with me, I can defy him to prove a negative. But I can go\nno further. I cannot make that into an object which exists in me,\nthe subject. If I do, I shall invest it with some of the conditions\nand limitations of my own nature, or I shall call in experience to\nrepresent to me that which is above experience.\n\n\"Are, then, senses, understanding, reason, all equally at fault? Are\nthey, all alike, prone to deception, all alike, unproductive? If that\nis the case, let no one dream that he can help out our weakness by\nspeaking of a divine communication--a revelation from above. We have\nnothing which can receive such a communication; nothing which can turn\nit to any account. The voice may speak, there is no ear which can take\nit in. But Kant does not leave us in this utter desolation of heart\nand hope. No results can follow from trying to speculate with those\nideas of the reason. They will only turn round and round upon us; we\ncan never get them outside of us to act upon us. But let us look at\nthem practically. I have the idea of freedom, and I want a law over\nme--over me, this being who has this demand for freedom. A law; that\nis, something which commands me--something which I did not make for\nmyself. If it is not imperative, it is nothing; if I may alter it\naccording to some taste or fancies of mine, it is nothing. Yet, it\nmust be the law of a free being; this idea of freedom, if it is only\nnegative, affirms so much. And the law must tell me what is right--what\nI, with my freedom, ought to do. The freedom calls for the law, the\nlaw respects the freedom. Now contemplate those other ideas of God and\nImmortality in this light, and see whether they remain ineffectual and\nbarren. The idea of God becomes that of the lawgiver; the lawgiver who\ncommands what is right. But such an idea involves an actual Being--one\nwho is right--one who is not under our limitations in the exercise\nof right--one who will make right prevail. The idea of immortality\ncombines itself with this idea of God. The limitations of our mind\ninterferes with the full accomplishment of His purpose. We demand an\nunlimited range for the success of the right will, for the attainment\nof what is implied in our freedom and in our sense of law. God stands\nout before us as the eternal and absolutely good Being. The happiness\nof man must consist in the pursuit of that goodness, in the conformity\nto it. Happiness in any sense but this, in any sense which it is merely\nidentical with eudaemonism[1]--good luck or good fortune--never can be\nthe end of any creature constituted as man is constituted.\n\n\"We have thus been driven--fairly driven--to a ground beyond those\nconditions which appear to limit all our knowledge, our acts, and\nour hopes. Let the reader observe carefully how Kant has been led to\ntransgress those boundaries which no one had so rigorously defined as\nhimself, which it was part--this should always be kept in mind--of\nhis function as a transcendental philosopher to define. It is not\nfrom any passion for the excesses of the reason; it is not from any\nweariness of the restraint of laws. He is in the act of prohibiting\nthe excesses of the reason when the discovery of this necessity bursts\nupon him. He accepts it, because he can find no laws that are adequate\nto hold fast human creatures, if he does not. He has listened to the\ndiscussions and demonstrations of those who think they can establish\nthe existence of a Creator of nature from the facts of nature. They\nappear to him feeble and unsatisfactory; but, were they ever so strong,\nsuch a Creator, so setting in motion the machinery of the universe,\ncould not satisfy him. He has examined the metaphysical reasonings\nwhich lead to the same conclusion, or which are urged in support of\nthe immortality of the soul. He can make nothing of them; but if he\ncould, what God, what immortality, would they establish? Leaving, then,\ndogmatists and skeptics to conduct these controversies, and to arrive\nat any results they can--being convinced inwardly that they will arrive\nat no result, that each can say just enough to make the conclusions of\nthe other untenable--he falls back upon this moral law, this law for\nfree creatures. Once admitting that, he can, nay, he must, recognize\nall nature as subject to the same Righteous Being; he must contemplate\nthe world as a moral world, the universe as designed for a good end.\"\n(Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy, Vol. II, pp. 631-633.)\n\nThe doctrine of Kant, summed up by Elmendorf, stands: \"God the moral\nruler of nature, and reconciler of it with reason, giving that harmony\nto happiness and morality which nature does not provide. This postulate\nalso necessary to morality. These postulates are given by practical\nreason, not as cognitions, not in the relations of phenomenon and\nnoumenon, but as realities serving practical ends. Rational faith is a\nnecessity of man's nature.\"\n\nFrom all which, it appears that according to Kant, and especially\naccording to his treatise, \"Critique of Practical Reason\"--1788--the\nideas of \"God, Human Liberty and Immortality, are postulates of\npractical reason.\"\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. \"The type of utilitarian ethical theory that makes the pursuit\nenjoyment and production of happiness the supreme end in moral\nconduct.\"--(Standard Dictionary.)\n\n\n\nLESSON XXX.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_TYPICAL MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF GOD--(Continued)._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                          _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. Typical Views of God--Philosophers:_              The works cited in\n                                                            Lesson xxvii and xxviii,\n        6. Schleiermacher;                                  will be available in this\n                                                            lesson; also the works\n        7. Hegel;                                           quoted in the notes of\n                                                            this lesson.\n        8. Schelling;\n                                                            The notes aim to convey\n        9. Spencer;                                         in condensed form\n                                                            the generalized view of\n        10. Fiske.                                          each Philosopher quoted.\n                                                            They make difficult\n                                                            reading, but--master\n                                                            them.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom\nconcerning all things that are done under heaven; this sore travail\nhath God given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith.\" Solomon:\nEcclesiastes, Ch. i, 13_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Schleiermacher's Conception of God:_ Schleiermacher was born\nat Breslau, 1768; died at Berlin, 1834. The primary thought of God\nfor Schleiermacher, is that of Feeling, which apprehends the unity of\nthings in a single and immediate act of consciousness. \"He regards\nthe God-consciousness as immediate. The direct organ of the Knowledge\nof God is feeling.\" * * * * \"The infinite is not outside the world\nof phenomena. On the contrary the latter exists within the 'Infinite\nOne.' The 'Infinite One' is the completion of the series of conditioned\nexistences, and not something separated from them. 'The Infinite exists\nin the finite.' The Infinite One 'is a living Spirituality, dynamically\nconceived, in which thought holds the primacy.'\" (Modern Conception of\nGod--Leighton--p. 93).\n\nSchleiermacher is contrasted with Spinoza, by one author, in the\nfollowing manner (For Spinoza views see note I, Lesson XXIX.):\n\n\"Spinoza's Absolute is the static indifference-point of an infinite\nnumber of attributes, of which two, thought and extension, are\nknown to us. Moreover, Schleiermacher's most original and important\nphilosophical doctrine, that of the worth of individuality, separated\nhim from Spinoza. Whilst the latter holds that Body and Soul are\nrelated only in and through the Divine substance, Schleiermacher\nregards every human individual as a unique manifestation of the\nunity of the ideal and the real, of thought and being. Hence, human\nindividuality is with him a sacred and significant manifestation of the\nAbsolute.\" (Ibid, p. 94).\n\n2. _Hegel--Extreme Idealist:_ Born at Stuttgart, 1770. \"Hegel\ngives to idealism its full systematic development\" (Elmendorf). He\nconceives the Absolute \"as wholly immanent in the temporal world of\nhuman experience. He labors to subjugate all spheres of existence,\nevery phase of human experience to the dominion of the immanent\nDivine Reason\" (Leighton, \"Typical Modern Conceptions of God,\"\nIntroduction). \"A reason-derived Knowledge of God is the highest\nproblem of philosophy.\" (Wallace, \"The Logic of Hegel,\" p. 73). \"God\nis for him [Hegel] the self-conditioning, self-centered totality\nof all that is, i. e., the ultimate unity\" (Leighton, \"Typical\nConceptions of God,\" p. 35). \"Truth, for him, is the agreement of a\nthought content with itself; i. e., self-consistency\" (Ibid, p. 36).\n\"Hegel analyzes the notion of self-consciousness, and puts it forward\nwith courageous anthropomorphism as the ultimate explanation of the\nuniverse\" (Ibid, p. 42). \"The task of philosophy is to know God. * *\n* * Immediate Knowledge tells us that God is not what he is. But if\nGod is not an empty Being beyond the stars, He must be present in the\ncommunion of human spirits, and, in His relation to them, He is the\nOne Spirit Who pervades reality and thought. Hence, there can be no\nfinal separation between our immediate consciousness of Him and our\nmediate Knowledge of reality\" (Ibid, pp. 46-47). \"The three aspects\nof God are treated respectively under the realm of the Father; the\nrealm of the Son; the realm of the Spirit; God is the absolute eternal\nIdea Who exists under these aspects\" (Ibid, p. 50). \"The question has\nbeen raised as to whether Hegel's God is not better described as a\nsociety than as a single person. Now, Hegel's God is certainly not an\nindividual spirit, existing in single blessedness apart from all the\ncontents of His universe. He therefore is not a single person in the\nsense in which we are individuals. But He is forever the unity of the\nsociety of individual finite spirits. In Him the scattered rays of\nlight which issue from the multitude of finite selves, converge to a\nsingle point--to the unstained purity and translucency of an absolute\nself-consciousness. God, then, is the unity of spirits. The society of\nfinite individuals exists as the object of his thought. Without them\nhis life would be blind. Without Him they would be chaos, and anarchy,\nand naught.\"\n\nIn brief, \"God,\" in Hegel's philosophy, \"is the universal\nself-consciousness which comprehends within itself all concrete\ndifferences, men and things--'God is a spirit in His own concrete\ndifferences, of which every finite spirit is one.' Man truly knows\nGod when he sees nature and himself as manifestations of God, and\nrecognizes himself as the highest of these manifestations, capable of\ngrasping in thought the whole of which he is a part.\n\n\"It has been doubted whether there is any place in Hegel's system for\nindividuals. It seems to me that the most insistent note in Hegel's\nwritings, is the emphasis on the concrete individual. He never wearies\nof attacking abstractions like 'being' and 'substance.' The movement\nof the 'Logic' is towards the category of individuality.\" (Modern\nConceptions of God, pp. 65-66.)\n\n3. _Schelling Conceptions:_ Born in Wurtemburg, 1775; died 1854.\nThe philosopher of \"identity\"--i. e., he identifies subject and object\nas one. Schelling is best understood by being placed in contrast with\nFichte. I quote from Maurice: \"Fichte, combining the enthusiasm of\nthe French revolution with a cordial acceptance of the lessons he had\nlearned in Konigsberg, was, from the beginning of his life to the\nend of it, asking what was needful to make him a free man--to enable\nhim to do the work which he had to do--to be what he was meant to\nbe. He was sure that he could find the answer to that question. He\nsaid boldly that neither he nor any man could find the answer to any\nother. What was not himself he must leave. It sounded like atheistical\ndoctrine. People said it was atheistical doctrine. But in demanding\nwhat was needful to make him true, he found that he needed a true\nGod. His rivals charged him with inconsistency. He had taken into\nhis doctrine that which did not belong to it--he was borrowing from\nthem. That did not signify. He must have what he required. That was\nhis consistency. He was happy, not only in the nobleness of his life,\nbut in the opportunity of his death. He died just as his country\nbecame free--before it was again reduced into slavery by monarchs\nand system-mongers. Schelling was the thinker who most denounced\nFichte's methods and Fichte's departures from his own maxims. For\nhe had been led to feel profoundly the worth of that which Fichte\nignored--the worth of a method which he [Fichte] thought impossible.\nHe [Schelling] could not start from that which he is, or thinks, or\nknows, or believes. He could not forget that a whole world is presented\nto us. He must proceed from that which is given; he must see how that\naffects the man, meets the demands of man, prevents him from losing\nhimself in himself. He must have a nature-philosophy. That Schelling\nthinks, will include all things, be the end of all things. Is not\nthat atheism? cry his opponents. Is not Nature taking the place of\nGod? He replies to them vehemently, contemptuously. He does not want\nto make all the shifting forms of nature into God. There is a Being\nworking through these, working behind them. To know that Being is what\nman requires. He must have an object for all his search. That Object\ncannot only be an Object. It must be a subject--thinking as well as\nthought of. In that confession of a Subject-Object is a depth which a\nNature-philosophy might disclose, but which it could not contain. It\nmust, as some of Schelling's critics said--at first exciting only his\nscorn by the remark--lie beyond the bounds of philosophy; it must be\nthat which philosophy asks for. Perhaps Schelling may have discovered\nafterwards, or partly discovered, that they were right. If he did,\nit was by faithfully pursuing his inquiry as far as it would go, by\nholding fast to the thought that man's first demand is for a revelation\nof something. If of a Subject-Object, perhaps 'something' does not\nexactly meet the demand; perhaps the thing will not be able to reveal\nitself, or to make persons know what is revealed. We are not careful\nto inquire what the conclusions were at which Schelling ultimately\narrived. He often angrily discouraged the attempts of his disciples\nand of his opponents to explain those conclusions; not unnaturally or\nunreasonably, it seems to us, if he felt that the explanations were to\nbe fitted into a compact system, and if he knew that what he had done,\nsupposing he had done anything, was to point to that which is, or to\nHim Who is, above all systems--to the only ground, as well as the only\nend, of knowledge.\n\n\"It is clear, at all events, that we are once more in that ocean of\nBeing, which our guides of the eighteenth century were so anxious\nthat we should avoid. Being and Not Being, Being and Becoming, are,\nas in the days of Plato, the watchwords which will be rung in our\nears; to which we may shut our ears if we please, but which will\nencounter us when we least expect them.\" (Moral and Metaphysical\nPhilosophy--Maurice--Vol. II, pp. 655-6).\n\n\"God\" for Schelling, says Elmendorf, \"is the absolute indifference of\ncontraries; the unity of being and thought, of subject and object, of\nideal and real; this is the potentiality of the actual from which the\ntwo opposites differentiate themselves without losing their unity in\nthe absolute.\" (History of Philosophy, p. 257).\n\n4. _Herbert Spencer:_ God unknown, and unknowable, would be the\ndescription of Spencer's conception of the \"Absolute Being.\" \"Spencer's\nprimary doctrine is evolution, both in psychical and physical\nphenomenon\"; evolution he describes as a change from 'an indefinite,\nincoherent homogeneity, to a definite coherent heterogeneity.'\" \"This\nprinciple is an induction from experience, of which no further account\ncan be given, for the absolute in any form is unthinkable, although\nthere is an ultimate reality in which subject and object coincide; yet\nour concept of the Absolute is positive though indefinite.\" (Elmendorf).\n\nSpencer's own declarations of our inability to know the \"unknowable,\"\nis as follows:\n\n\"Every religion, setting out, though it does, with the tacit assertion\nof a mystery; and so asserts that it is not a mystery passing human\ncomprehension. But an examination of the solutions they severally\npropound, shows them to be uniformly invalid. The analysis of\nevery possible hypothesis proves, not simply that no hypothesis is\nsufficient, but that no hypothesis is even thinkable. And thus the\nmystery which all religions recognize, turns out to be a far more\ntranscendent mystery than any of them suspect--not a relative, but an\nabsolute mystery.\n\n\"Here, then, is an ultimate religious truth of the highest possible\ncertainty--a truth in which religions in general are at one with each\nother, and with a philosophy antagonistic to their special dogmas. And\nthis truth, respecting which there is a latent agreement among all\nmankind, from the fetish-worshipper to the most stoical critic of human\ncreeds, must be the one we seek. If Religion and Science are to be\nreconciled, the basis of reconciliation must be this deepest, widest,\nand most certain of all facts--that the Power which the Universe\nmanifests to us is utterly inscrutable.\" (First Principles, pp. 47-48).\n\nOn this passage from Spencer, Leighton justly remarks:\n\n\"This, certainly is a species of knowledge unique in kind. How can we\nknow that we can know absolutely nothing about a conceivable object\nof knowledge? Mr. Spencer's knowledge of the unknowability of the\nultimate reality is, so far as it goes, very positive. And, furthermore\nhe knows that the Unknowable is a Power, \"an infinite and Eternal\nEnergy from which all things proceed. The certainty that such a power\nexists, while, on the other hand, its nature transcends intuition,\nis the certainty towards which intelligence has from the first been\nprogressing. Furthermore, we know the modes in which this inscrutable\nPower manifests itself. 'The Power manifested throughout the universe\ndistinguished as material, is the same Power, which in ourselves, wells\nup under the form of consciousness.' (Principles of Sociology, 3, p.\n174). \"Notwithstanding the antinomies which Mr. Spencer finds to be\ninvolved in thinking 'Infinite' and 'Eternal' and notwithstanding that\nthe deepest nescience is the goal of human thought, he confidently\nasserts that 'amid the mysteries which become the more mysterious\nthe more they are thought about, there will remain (to man) the one\nabsolute certainty, that he is ever in the presence of an Infinite and\nEternal Energy, from which all things proceed.'\n\n\"The positiveness of this conclusion, when compared with Mr. Spencer's\ndeclaration of the impotence of knowledge when it is confronted with\nontological problems, is sufficient of itself to awaken doubts as to\nthe legitimacy of his procedure.\" (Modern Conceptions of God, pp.\n104-105).\n\n5. _John Fiske:_ I select John Fiske to represent what I take to\nbe the most recent conception of God in the Ultra intellectual world;\nand it is to be noted that he marks a drift of thought (gradually\nbeing emphasized by more recent writers), from what I shall call\nultra anti-anthropomorphic conceptions toward at least a thin\nanthropomorphism. His most definite conception of God is found in the\nfollowing statement:\n\n\"We may hold that the world of phenomena is intelligible only\nwhen regarded as the multiform manifestation of an Omnipresent\nEnergy that is in some way--albeit in a way quite above our finite\ncomprehension--anthropomorphic or quasi-personal. There is a\ntrue objective reasonableness in the universe; its events have\nan orderly progression, and, so far as those events are brought\nsufficiently within our ken for us to generalize them exhaustively,\ntheir progression is toward a goal that is recognizable by human\nintelligence; 'the process of evolution is itself the working out of\na mighty teleology, of which our finite understandings can fathom but\nthe scantiest rudiments' (Cosmic Philosophy, Part 3, ch. 2); it is,\nindeed, but imperfectly, that we can describe the dramatic tendency in\nthe succession of events, but we can see enough to assure us of the\nfundamental fact that there is such a tendency; and this tendency is\nthe objective aspect of that which, when regarded on its subjective\nside, we call Purpose. Such a theory of things is Theism. It recognizes\nan Omnipresent Energy, which is none other than the living God.\"\n\n\"It is this theistic doctrine which I hold myself, and which in the\npresent essay I have sought to exhibit as the legitimate outcome of\nmodern scientific thought.\" * * * * * * \"As to the conception of\nDeity, in the shape impressed upon it by our modern knowledge, I\nbelieve I have now said enough to show that it is no empty formula or\nmetaphysical abstraction which we would seek to substitute for the\nliving God. The infinite and eternal Power that is manifested in every\npulsation of the universe is none other than the living God. We may\nexhaust the resources of metaphysics in debating how far his nature may\nfitly be expressed in terms applicable to the psychical nature of Man;\nsuch vain attempts will only serve to show how we are dealing with a\ntheme that must ever transcend our finite powers of conception. But of\nsome things we may feel sure. Humanity is not a mere local incident in\nan endless and aimless series of cosmical changes. The events of the\nuniverse are not the work of chance, neither are they the outcome of\nblind necessity. Practically there is a purpose in the world whereof\nit is our highest duty to learn the lesson, however well or ill we may\nfare in rendering a scientific account of it. When from the dawn of\nlife we see all things working together toward the evolution of the\nhighest spiritual attributes of Man, we know, however the words may\nstumble in which we try to say it, that God is in the deepest sense a\nmoral Being. The everlasting source of phenomena is none other than\nthe infinite Power that makes for righteousness. Thou canst not by\nsearching find him out; yet put thy trust in Him, and against thee\nthe gates of hell shall not prevail; for there is neither wisdom nor\nunderstanding nor counsel against the Eternal.\" (\"Studies in Religion,\"\npp. 93-94, 209).\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXI.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\nSPECIAL LESSON.\n\n_THE PAGANIZATION OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF DEITY: WHAT PARTICULAR\nTENDENCIES IN HUMAN NATURE LED TO THIS RESULT?_\n\n(AN EXPOSITORY--ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE)\n\n_NOTES._\n\n1. _Character of the Proposed Discourse:_ For suggestion in\nrelation to expository and argumentative discourses, see Lesson XXV,\nnote 2, and the references there given to Seventy's Year Books Nos. I\nand II.\n\n2. _Sources of Information:_ For the Christian Doctrine of God,\nsee, of course, New Testament, especially the Fourth Gospel. Seventy's\nYear Book No. II, Lesson XXXIV; notes 4, 5 and 6 (pp. 190-193). All of\nLesson 37; also Year Book III, Lesson XXV. Mormon Doctrine of Deity\n(pp. 114-119); Also chs. 4 and 5 Orson Pratt's works, \"The Kingdom of\nGod,\" Subdivision, \"The Nature and Character of the King.\" Outlines of\nEcclesiastical History (Roberts), Part II, Section 5.\n\n3. _Suggestions to the Speaker:_ In previous lessons under this\ntopic we have dealt with the \"First Moments of Speech\" and the\n\"Introduction.\" Having done with these, we come now to the main part of\nthe work--to the discussion of the subject. This can only be considered\nin part in this lesson. I quote from Pittenger: \"The passage from the\nintroduction to the discussion should be made smoothly and gradually.\nTo accomplish this, and to strike the subject at just the right angle,\ncontinuing all the interest previously excited, is a most important\nachievement. A definite object is a great assistance in this part of\nthe work. If the object is clearly in view, we go right up to it with\nno wasted words, and the people follow our guidance because they see\nthat we are not proceeding at random. But with no strong purpose, we\nare apt to steer about our subject without ever being quite ready to\nenter upon it. The more brilliant the introduction, the more difficult\nthis transition will be. But all these difficulties may be overcome\nwith the aid of a well-constructed plan.\"\n\n4. _Must be a Controlling Purpose in Discourse:_ \"The whole\ndiscourse must be animated with some controlling purpose, and in its\ngeneral character, tend upward, until its close. The law of climax\nought to be carefully considered by the speaker. There may be more than\none culmination of interest in an address, separated by an interval\nless absorbing and powerful, but this decline should only be allowed in\norder to prepare a second or third climax, grander than all before. To\nviolate this rule and have a speech 'flatten out' toward its close, is\na fearful error. Better reduce the length of the whole by one-half or\nthree-fourths, and maintain interest and attention to the end.\"\n\n5. _Of Diffuseness:_ \"Diffuseness is often supposed to be a\nnecessary quality of extemporaneous speech. Many speakers do fall into\nit, but they need not. They are diffuse because they are unwilling or\nunable to say exactly what they mean, but come near it, and continue\ntheir efforts until they are satisfied. They furnish no clear view of\nany idea, but only a kind of twilight illumination. This serious fault\nmay be overcome in spontaneous speech as readily as in writing. He who\nthinks clearly and forcibly will talk in the same manner. Exquisite\nfinish and elaborate verbal arrangement are not to be looked for in\noff-hand speech, but each idea may be expressed with great force,\nvigor, and accuracy of shading.\n\n\"This ability to say precisely what we mean in few words, and at\nthe first effort, constitutes one of the great beauties of a spoken\nstyle. The hearer is filled with grateful surprise when some new and\nliving idea is suddenly placed before him, clothed in a single word or\nsentence. A diffuse speaker gives so many premonitions of his thought\nthat the audience have guessed it, and may even come to believe that\nthey have always known it, before he has made his formal presentment.\nOf course, they are wearied, and never give him credit for an original\nconception.\n\n\"If troubled with this fault, frequently forecast what to say; drive\nit into the smallest number of vivid, expressive words; then, without\nmemorizing the language, reproduce the same briefly in the hurry of\nspeech. If not successful in making it as brief as before, repeat the\neffort. This exercise will, in time, give the ability to condense. But\nto exercise it, the temptation to fine language must be overcome. No\nsentence should be introduced for mere glitter or sparkle; a single\nunnecessary word may require others to justify or explain it, and thus\nmay ruin a whole discourse. The danger of showy language in speech is\nfar greater than in writing, for if the writer be drawn too far away\nfrom his subject, he can strike out the offending sentences and begin\nagain, while the speaker has but one trial. If beauty lies in his way,\nwell; but if not, he should never abandon his course to seek it.\"\n\n_Concluding the Speech:_ \"There are three principal ways of\nconcluding a speech. (1). One of the most graceful is to condense a\nclear view of the whole argument and tendency of the address into a few\nwords, and leave the summing up thus made to produce its own effect.\nDiscourses aiming principally to produce conviction may very well be\nconcluded in this manner.\n\n(2). \"Another and very common mode is to close with an application or\nwith practical remarks. When the address is a sermon, this form of\nclosing is frequently termed an exhortation, and the whole speech is\nmade to bear upon the duty of the moment.\n\n(3). \"A third method of closing is to simply break off when the last\nitem is finished. The full development of the discourse is thus made\nits ending, care being taken that the last item discussed shall be of\nweight and dignity. This is by no means the easiest form of conclusion\nbut rightly managed it is one of the most effective.\n\n(4). \"A conclusion should always be short and contain no new matter.\nFew things are more disastrous than the practice of drawing toward an\nend and then launching out into a new discussion. All good things that\nhave been said, all previous favorable impressions, are obliterated by\nthis capital fault.\" (Extempore Speech, Pittenger, ch 8).\n\n4. _Strength:_ We have already considered three means of promoting\nstrength of expression. The third suggestion was, that care be taken to\nhave the last word of a sentence a forcible one. The same holds good as\nto the members of a sentence: \"Strength requires that, when the members\nof a sentence differ in length, the shorter should have precedence of\nthe longer; and, when they are of unequal force, that the weaker be\nplaced before the stronger. Both of these principles are violated in\nthe following sentence:\n\n_Example:_ \"In this state of mind, every employment of life becomes\nan oppressive burden, and every object appears gloomy.\"\n\n_Corrected:_ How much more forcible does it become when the shorter\nand weaker member is placed first: \"In this state of mind, every object\nappears gloomy, and every employment of life becomes an oppressive\nburden.\"\n\nThis arrangement of the members of a sentence constitutes what is\ndefined among the rhetorical figures as _Climax_. What is most\nemphatic is brought last, in order that a strong impression may be left\non the reader's mind.\n\n\"This principle, also, requires us to avoid terminating a sentence with\na succession of unaccented words; such as, 'with', 'it', 'in it', 'on\nit', etc.\n\n_Example:_ \"This is a proposition which I did not expect; and I\nmust ask time for privilege of reflecting on it.\"\n\n_Corrected:_ The last member would be more forcible thus: \"This\nis a proposition which I did not expect; and I must ask time for\nreflection.\" (Quackenbos' Rhetoric.)\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\nThe True Doctrine of Deity.\n\nLESSON XXXII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_THE EXISTENCE OF GOD._[1]\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                               _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. Evidences for the Divine Existence                       Part I. Ten Lessons.\n        Found In--_\n                                                                    Lesson i. References\n        1. Tradition;                                            and Notes.\n\n        2. Creation, the Evidence of Design                      Lesson ii. References\n           in Nature;                                            and Notes.\n\n        3. Innate Consciousness of God in                        Lesson iii. References\n           the Human Soul;                                       and Notes.\n\n        4. The General Consent of Mankind;                       Lesson iv. References\n                                                                 and Notes.\n        5. The Necessary Presence of an\n           Eternal Cause in the World;                           Lessons vi, vii. References\n                                                                 and Notes.\n        6. Revelation--Limitation of\n           Revelation.                                           Lessons viii, ix. References\n                                                                 and Notes.\n\n                                                                 Lesson x.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"The Scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all\nthings denote there is a God; yea, the earth and all things that are\nupon the face of it; yea, and its motion; yea, and also all the planets\nwhich move in their regular form [order], do witness that there is a\nSupreme Creator.\" Alma, Ch. xxx._\n\n_NOTES._\n\nOwing to the volume of information supplied in Part I--Ten Lessons--on\nthe various subdivisions of this lesson, it is not thought necessary to\nadd more notes here.\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. It is suggested that this lesson be made simply a review of Part I,\nand that two sessions of the class could be profitably used for this\npurpose.\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXIII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_THE FORM OF GOD._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                        _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. Jesus Divine-Hence God._                        The New Testament\n                                                          and Book of Mormon\n        1. Dependent Upon Revelation                      and Doctrine and Covenants.\n           for Knowledge of Form and\n           Nature of God.                                 Psalms xix, Rom. i,\n                                                          Note 1.\n        2. World's Need of a Revelation\n           of God.                                        Note 2.\n\n        3. Scripture Evidence of the Divinity             See collection of passages\n           of Jesus:                                      of Scripture,\n                                                          Richards and Little's\n           --Jesus Christ is Called God in                Compendium title,\n             Revelation--Hence God;                       \"True and Living God,\"\n                                                          pp. 187-191.\n           --Jesus Declares Himself to be\n             God--The Son of God;                         Note 3 and contexts of\n                                                          passages of Scripture\n           --Jesus is to be Worshipped--Hence             cited.\n             God;\n                                                          Note 4.\n           --Jesus Christ is Creator--Hence\n             God;                                         Note 5.\n\n  _II. Jesus the Express Image of the                    Note 6.\n         Father's Person._\n                                                          Note 7.\n\n                                                          Hebrews i and Notes\n                                                          8, 9, 10, 11 and the\n                                                          Scripture References\n                                                          within the notes.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"For it pleased the Father that in Him [the Christ]\nshould all fulness dwell. * * * For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of\nthe Godhead bodily.\" Colossians._\n\n_NOTES._\n\nThe notes of this Lesson are taken from two discourses by the author:\none the \"Mormon Doctrine of Deity\"; the other \"Jesus Christ, the\nRevelation of God,\" hence the personal character and direct address\nstyle that appears in the notes.\n\n1. _Need of Revelation for Definite Knowledge of God:_ We are\ndependent upon that which God has been pleased to reveal concerning\nHimself for what we know of Him; especially as to His form, nature and\nattributes. While it is true, in a certain sense, that the heavens\ndeclare God's glory; and \"the invisible things of Him from the creation\nof the world,\" in a certain sense, \"are clearly seen, being understood\nby the things that are made\"; and while the spirit in man may be\nintuitively conscious of the being of God; while the general consent of\nmankind may confirm man's own consciousness of the divine existence,\nyet nothing definitely is learned or can be learned concerning the\nform, nature, or attributes of God from these sources. Now, as of old,\nman by searching cannot find out God. He cannot \"find out the Almighty\nunto perfection.\" (Job II, 7.) This can only be learned by revelation.\nIt is the revealed law of the Lord that is perfect, \"converting the\nsoul;\" it is the statutes of the Lord that are right, \"rejoicing the\nheart;\" it is the commandment of the Lord that is pure, \"enlightening\nthe eyes;\" it is the judgments of the Lord that are \"true and righteous\naltogether.\" \"More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much\nfine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honey comb. Moreover, by\nthem is My servant warned, and in the keeping of them there is great\nreward.\" (Psalms 19.)\n\n2. _The World's Need of a Revelation of God:_ In all the survey\nwe have taken of men's conceptions of God in Ancient, Mediaeval and\nModern times, in all their doctrines, outside of the revelations of\nGod--nowhere have we found a knowledge of the true and living God.\nNowhere a teacher who comes with definite knowledge of this subject\nof all subjects--a subject so closely related to eternal life, that\nto know God is said in the scriptures to be life eternal; and, of\ncourse, the corollary naturally follows, viz.: not to know God is not\nto possess eternal life. We can form no other conclusion from the\nsurvey we have taken of the world's ideas respecting the existence and\nnature of God, than that forced upon us--the world stood in sore need\nof a revelation of God. He whom the Egyptians and Hindoos sought for\nin their pantheism must be made known. God, whom Confucius would have\nmen respect, but keep at a distance, must draw near. The \"Alfader\" of\nthe Goths, undefined, incomprehensible to them, must be brought out of\nthe northern darkness into glorious light. The God-idea that prevailed\namong the Greek philosophers must be brought from the mists of their\nspeculations and made to stand before the world. He whom the Jews were\nseeking to deny and forsake must be revealed again to the children of\nmen. And lo! when the veil falls from the revelation that God gives\nof Himself, what form is that which steps forth from the background\nof the world's ignorance and mystery? A Man, as God lives! Jesus of\nNazareth--the great Peasant Teacher of Judea. He is God revealed\nhenceforth to the world. They who thought God impersonal, without form,\nmust know Him henceforth as a person in the form of man. They who have\nheld Him to be without quality, must henceforth know Him as possessed\nof the qualities of Jesus of Nazareth. They who have regarded him\nas infinitely terrible, must henceforth know Him also as infinitely\ngentle. Those who would hold Him at a distance, will now permit Him to\ndraw near. This is the world's mystery revealed. This is God manifested\nin the flesh. This is the Son of God, who comes to reveal the Father,\nfor He is the express image and likeness of that Father's person, and\nthe likeness of that Father's mind. Henceforth when men shall say, Show\nus the Father, He shall point to Himself as the complete revelation of\nthe Father, and say, \"He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also.\"\nHenceforth, when men shall dispute about the \"being\" and \"nature\"\nof God, it shall be a perfect answer to uphold Jesus Christ as the\ncomplete, perfect revelation and manifestation of God, and through all\nthe ages it shall be so; there shall be no excuse for men saying they\nknow not God, for all may know Him, from the least to the greatest, so\ntangible, so real a revelation has God given of Himself in the person\nand character of Jesus Christ. He lived His life on earth--a life of\nsorrow and of gentleness, its pathway strewn with actions fraught with\nmercy, kindness and love. A man He was, approved of God among men, by\nmiracles and wonders and signs which God did by Him. Being delivered\nby the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, men took, and\nby wicked hands crucified and slew him; but God raised him up, having\nloosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should\nbe holden of it; and exalted Him on high at the right hand of God,\nwhence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. (This synopsis of\nthe Christ's life is in Acts, ch. ii.)\n\nMark you, in all this there is not a word about the mysterious,\nineffable generation of the Son of God from the Father, together with\nall the mysteries that men have gathered together in their learned\ndisquisitions about God. No question is raised as to whether Jesus\nwas made out of nothing or begotten by ineffable generation from the\nsubstance of the Father. Whether He is consubstantial, that is, of the\n_same_ substance with the Father, or only of a similar substance.\nNor is there any question raised as to whether Jesus was \"begotten\nbefore or after time began.\" All these and a hundred other questions\narose after the Christian doctrine of Deity began to come in contact\nwith the Greek and other philosophies. Jesus accepted the existence of\nGod as a settled fact, and proclaimed Himself to be the Son of God:\noffending the Jews by so doing, for they saw that He made Himself\nequal with God, (John v, 18) and being a man, held forth Himself to be\nGod (John v: 30-33.) Slow, indeed, were they to learn the great truth\nplainly revealed in Jesus Christ, _that God is a perfect man_. Such\nwas Jesus Christ, and He was God manifested in the flesh. \"Was,\" did\nI say? Nay, \"_is_,\" I should have said; and such will He remain\nforever; a spirit He is, clothed with an immortal body, a resurrected\nbody of tangible flesh and bones made eternal, and now dwelling in\nheaven with His Father, of whom He is the express image and likeness,\nas well now as when He was on earth; and hence the Father also must be\na personage of flesh and bones, as tangible as the exalted man, Christ\nJesus the Lord.\n\n3. _Jesus Is Called God In the Scriptures:_ \"The first proof I\noffer for this statement, is from the writings of Isaiah. You remember,\nperhaps, my former quotation from Isaiah, wherein that prophet says,\n\"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his\nname Immanuel,\" (Isaiah vii: 14) the interpretation of which name\nis, according to Matthew \"God with us.\" (Matt. i: 23.) So that this\nman-child, born of a woman, and called \"Immanuel,\" is God; and,\nmoreover, is \"God with us\"--that is, with men. The same prophet also\nsays: \"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the\ngovernment shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called\nWonderful, Counselor, _The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the\nPrince of Peace_.\" (Isaiah ix: 6.)\n\nAll concede that this is in plain allusion to Jesus Christ, and the\nscriptures here directly call Him \"_The Mighty God_.\" He is also\ncalled God in the testimony of John. Mark this language, for it is a\npassage around which many ideas center, and to which we shall have\noccasion to refer several times. In the preface to his Gospel, John\nsays: \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, _and\nthe Word was God_. The same was in the beginning with God. * * *\n_And_ the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld\nHis glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of\ngrace and truth.\"\n\nThere can be no question but direct reference is here made to the Lord\nJesus Christ, as being the \"Word;\" and the \"Word,\" or Jesus being with\nthe Father in the beginning, and the \"Word,\" or Jesus Christ, also\nbeing God. The \"Word,\" then, as used here by John, is one of the titles\nof Jesus in his pre-existent estate. Why called the \"Word\" I do not\nknow, unless it is that by a \"word\" we make an expression; and since\nJesus Christ was to be the expression of God, the revelation of God to\nthe children of men, he was for that reason called the \"Word.\"\n\n4. _Jesus Declares Himself to be God--the Son of God:_ Jesus was\ncrucified on the charge that He was an imposter--that he, being a man,\nsaid that \"God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.\" (John\nv:18.)\n\nAnd again: \"For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy, and\nbecause that Thou being a man, makest thyself God.\" (John x:33.)\n\nAgain: when accused before Pilate, who declared he could \"find no fault\nin Him,\" the Jews answered him, \"We have a law, and by our law He ought\nto die, because He made Himself the Son of God.\" Moreover, the high\npriest, in the course of the trial before the Sanhedrim of the Jews,\ndirectly said to Jesus, \"I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou\ntell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto\nhim, Thou hast said: nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye\nsee the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in\nthe clouds of heaven.\" (Matt. xxvii: 63, 64.)\n\nAnd finally, when Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples after His\nresurrection, He said unto them, \"All power is given unto Me, in heaven\nand in earth, go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in\nthe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\" (Matt.\nxxviii: 18, 19.) A clearer proclamation of his divinity could not be\nmade than in the statement, \"all power is given unto Me in heaven and\nin earth,\" especially when it is followed by placing Himself on equal\nfooting with the Father and the Holy Ghost, which He does when he\ncommands His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the\nSon, and of the Holy Ghost. Nothing can be added to this, except it be\nthe words of God the Father directly addressed to Jesus, when he says,\n\"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.\" (Heb. i:8.)\n\n5. _Jesus Christ to be Worshipped, Hence God:_ Jesus Christ is to\nbe worshipped by men and angels; and worship is an honor to be paid\nonly to true Deity. The angels of heaven refuse the adoration we call\nworship. You remember when the Apostle John was on the Isle of Patmos,\nand God sent a heavenly messenger to him, how the Apostle, over-awed by\nthe brightness of the angel's glory, fell upon his face to worship him,\nand the angel said: \"See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow servant,\nand of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of\nthis book: Worship God.\" (Rev. xix:10.) So you see the angels refuse\ndivine honors. But the scriptures prove that Jesus was especially to be\nworshipped; hence He must be Deity:\n\n\"For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou are My son,\nthis day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to Him a Father,\nand He shall be to me a Son. And again, when He bringeth in the First\nBegotten into the world, He saith, let all the angels of God worship\nhim.\" (Heb. i: 5, 6.)\n\nThe same doctrine is taught in the epistle to the Philippians:\n\"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which\nis above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,\nof things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;\nand that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the\nglory of God the Father.\" (Phil. ii: 9, 10.)\n\nThere are other passages to the same effect, but it is perhaps\nunnecessary for me to turn to each of these, since the ones here quoted\nwill be sufficient to establish in your minds the fact contended for.\n\n6. _Jesus Christ is the Creator Hence God:_ Jesus Christ is the\nCreator. Evidence of this is found in the testimony of John from which\nI have already quoted: \"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was\nwith God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.\nAll things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made\nthat was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.\"\n(John i: 1-4.)\n\nAgain in the epistle to the Colossians: \"The Father * * * hath\ndelivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into\nthe kingdom of His dear Son. * * * Who is the image of the invisible\nGod, the firstborn of every creature. For by Him were all things\ncreated, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and\ninvisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or\npowers: all things were created by Him, and for Him.\" (Col. i: 12-17.)\n\nAgain in Hebrews: \"God, Who at sundry times and in divers manners spake\nin times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days\nspoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things,\nby whom also He made the worlds.\" (Heb. i: 1.)\n\nNow we begin to see the relation of the Father and the Son; for though\nthe \"Word\" be God, though \"Immanuel\" is God, that is, \"God with us,\" He\ndoes not displace God the Father, but stands in the relationship of a\nson to Him. Under the direction of the Father, He created worlds, and\nin this manner is the Creator of our earth, and the heavens connected\nwith the earth. And everywhere the scriptures command that men should\nworship the Creator. In fact, the burden of the cry of that angel\nwho is to restore the gospel in the hour of God's judgment is: \"Fear\nGod, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come; and\nworship Him that made heaven and earth and the seas and the fountains\nof waters.\" (Rev. xiv: 7.)\n\n7. _Jesus Christ Equal with God the Father, Hence God:_ After the\nresurrection, Jesus appeared unto His disciples, and said to them, as\nrecorded in the closing chapter of Matthew: \"All power is given unto\nMe in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,\nbaptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have\ncommanded you.\" (Matt. xxviii: 18, 19.)\n\nObserve that the Lord Jesus Christ is placed upon a footing of equal\ndignity with God the Father, and with the Holy Ghost. This brings to\nmind the scripture of Paul, where he says, speaking of Jesus: \"Who,\nbeing in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.\"\n(Phil. ii: 6.)\n\nSo also is Christ given equal station with the Father and with the Holy\nGhost in the apostolic benediction over and over again. \"May the grace\nof the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the Holy\nGhost be with you all.\"\n\nIn these several passages we have Jesus Christ, after His resurrection,\nasserting that all power had been given unto Him, both in heaven and\nin earth; He is placed upon a footing of equal dignity with God the\nFather in the holy Trinity--in the Grand Triumvirate which constitutes\nthe Presiding Council or Godhead reigning over our heavens and our\nearth--hence God.\n\nI now wish to give you the proof that Jesus Christ is the express\nimage of the Father; the express image of His person, as well as the\nrevelation of the attributes of God.\n\nFollowing that language in Hebrews where Jesus is spoken of as having\ncreated worlds under the direction of the Father, it is said: \"Who\nbeing the brightness of His [the Father's] glory, and the express image\nof His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when\nHe had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the\nMajesty on high.\" (Heb. iii: 3.)\n\nSo Paul to the Corinthians: \"The God of this world hath blinded the\nminds of those which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel\nof Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.\" (II Cor.\niv: 4.)\n\nSo also, in his letter to the Colossians, when speaking of Christ, Paul\nsays: \"Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every\ncreature.\" (Col. i: 5.)\n\nBeing \"the express image of His person,\" then the \"image of the\ninvisible God,\" Jesus becomes a revelation of the person of God to\nthe children of men, as well as a revelation of His character and\nattributes. Again, you have the scriptures saying: \"For it pleased the\nFather that in Him [Christ Jesus] should all fulness dwell. * * * For\nin Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.\" (Col. i: 19;\nii: 9.)\n\nAll there is, then, in God, there is in Jesus Christ. All that Jesus\nChrist is, God is. And Jesus Christ is an immortal man of flesh and\nbone and spirit, and with His Father and the Holy Spirit will reign\neternally in the heavens, verily the Godhead.\n\n8. _God Created Man in His Own Image:_ Let us now consider the\nform of God. In those scriptures which take us back to the days of\ncreation, when God created the earth and all things therein--God is\nrepresented as saying to someone: \"Let us make man in Our image, after\nOur likeness. * * * So God created man in His own image, in the image\nof God created He him, male and female created He them.\" (Gen. i: 26,\n27.)\n\nNow, if that were untouched by \"philosophy,\" I think it would not be\ndifficult to understand. Man was created in the image and likeness of\nGod. What idea does this language convey to the mind of man, except\nthat man, when his creation was completed, stood forth the counterpart\nof God in form? But neither philosophers nor theologians have been\nwilling to let it stand so. They will not have God limited to any form.\nThey will not have Him prescribed by the extensions of His person to\nsome line or other of limitation. No: He must needs be in His person,\nas well as in mind or spirit, all-pervading, filling the universe with\nHis \"being,\" with a center nowhere, with a circumference everywhere.\nWe must expand the person of God out until it fills the universe. And\nso they tell us that this plain, simple, straightforward language of\nMoses, which says that man was created in the image of God--and which\neverybody can understand--means, not the \"full length\" image of God,\nbut God's \"moral image!\" Man was created in the \"moral image\" of God,\nthey say.\n\nThe meaning of this language from the 26th and 27th verses of the\nfirst chapter of Genesis, is made perfectly clear when compared with\nthe third verse of the fifth chapter of Genesis, where it is written:\n\"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own\nlikeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.\" What do these\nwords imply, but that Seth was like his father in features, and also,\ndoubtless, in intellectual and moral qualities? And if, when it is said\nAdam begat a son in his \"own likeness, after his image,\" it simply\nmeans that Seth, in form and features, and intellectual and moral\nqualities, was like his father--then there can be no other conclusion\nformed upon the passage that says God created man in his own image and\nlikeness, than that man, in a general way, in form and feature, and\nintellectual and moral qualities, was like God.\n\n9. _Bodily Form May Not be Excluded from Being \"In God's Image\":_\nIt is rather refreshing, in the midst of so much nonsense that is\nuttered upon this subject, in order to hide the truth and perpetuate\nthe false notions of a paganized Christianity, to find now and then a\nChristian scholar who rises out of the vagaries of modern Christianity\nand proclaims the straightforward truth. Let me read to you the words\nof such an one--the Rev. Dr. Charles A. Briggs. It may be said, of\ncourse, by Presbyterians that Dr. Briggs is a heretic; that he has been\ncast out of their church. Grant it; but with open arms he has been\nreceived by the Episcopal church, and ordained into its priesthood;\nand has an influence that is considerable in the Christian world. But\nhowever heretical Dr. Briggs' opinions may be considered by his former\nPresbyterian brethren, his scholarship at least cannot be challenged.\nSpeaking of man being formed in the image and likeness of God, he says:\n\n\"Some theologians refer the form to the higher nature of man [that\nis, to that 'moral image' in likeness of which it is supposed man was\ncreated]; but there is nothing in the text or context to suggest such\nan interpretation. The context urges us to think of the entire man as\ndistinguished from the lower forms of creation--that which is essential\nto man, and may be communicated by descent to his seed.--The bodily\nform cannot be excluded from the representation.\" (Messianic Prophecy,\np. 70.)\n\nI say it is rather refreshing to hear one speak like that, whose\nscholarship, at least, is above all question. And yet still another\nvoice; and this time from one who stands high in scientific circles,\none who has written a work on the \"Harmony of the Bible and Science,\"\nwhich is a most valuable contribution to that branch of literature. The\ngentleman I speak of is a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society,\nand principal of the College at Highbury New Park, England. On this\nsubject of man being created in the image of God, he says: \"I think\nthe statement that man was made in the Divine image is intended to be\nmore literal than we generally suppose; for judging from what we read\nthroughout the scriptures, it seems very clear that our Lord, as well\nas the angels, had a bodily form similar to that of man, only far more\nspiritual and far more glorious; but which, however, is invisible to\nman, unless special capabilities of sight are given him, like that\nexperienced by Elisha's servant when, in answer to the prophet's\nprayer, he saw the heavenly hosts surrounding the city of Dothan.\"\n\nAfter discussing this question at some length, and bringing to bear\nupon it numerous Biblical illustrations, this celebrated man--Dr.\nSamuel Kinns--whose scientific and scholarly standing I have already\nreferred to, speaks of the effect of this belief upon man, and thus\nconcludes his statement on that head: \"I am sure if a man would only\nconsider a little more the divinity of His human form, and would\nremember that God has indeed created him in His own image, the thought\nwould so elevate and refine him that he would feel it his duty to\nglorify God in His body as well as in His spirit.\"\n\n10. _Captain of the Lord's Host--A Deity:_ But we have higher and\nbetter authority to which we can appeal--the scriptures. And here I\npass by that marvelous appearance of God unto Abraham in the plains of\nMamre, when three \"men\" came into his tent, one of whom was the Lord,\nwho conversed with him, and partook of his hospitality, and disclosed\nto him His intention with reference to the destruction of Sodom and\nGomorrah. (Gen. xviii.)\n\nI come now to that marvelous revelation of God to Joshua, when Joshua\ndrew near to Jericho and saw a person in the form of a man standing\nwith sword in hand. Joshua approached him and said: \"Art thou for us,\nor for our adversaries?\" \"Nay,\" replied the person, \"but as captain\nof the host of the Lord am I now come.\" And Joshua bowed himself to\nthe very earth in reverence, and worshipped that august warrior.\n(Joshua v: 13, 14.) Do not tell me that it was an \"angel\"; for had it\nbeen an angel, the divine homage paid by Israel's grand old warrior\nwould have been forbidden. Do you not remember the time when John,\nthe beloved disciple, stood in the presence of an angel and, awed by\nthe glory of his presence, he bowed down to worship him, and how the\nangel quickly caught him up and said: \"See thou do it not; for I am\nthy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them\nwhich keep the sayings of this book: worship God!\" (Rev. xvii: 8, 9.\nAlso Rev. xix: 10.) The fact that this personage, before whom Joshua\nbowed to the earth, received without protest divine worship from him,\nproclaims trumpet-tongued that He indeed was God. Furthermore, that\npersonage bade Joshua to remove the shoes from his feet for even the\nground on which he stood was holy.\n\nI call attention to that marvelous vision given of the Son of God to\nthe pagan king of Babylon. This king had cast the three Hebrew children\ninto the fiery furnace, and lo! before his startled vision were \"four\nmen\" walking about in the furnace, \"and,\" said he, \"the form of the\nfourth is like the Son of God.\" (Dan. iii: 25.)\n\nThe great Apostle to the Gentiles, writing to the Colossian saints,\nspeaks of the Lord Jesus Christ, \"in whom we have redemption through\nHis blood, even the forgiveness of sins,\" as being in the \"image of\nthe invisible God.\" (Col. i, 15.) Again, writing to the Hebrew saints,\nand speaking of Jesus, he says: \"Who, being the brightness of his [the\nFather's] glory, and the express image of his [the Father's] person,\nand upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by\nHimself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on\nhigh.\" (Heb. i: 1, 2.)\n\nIn the face of these scriptures, will anyone who believes in the Bible\nsay that it is blasphemy to speak of God as being possessed of a bodily\nform? We find that the Son of God Himself stood among His fellows a\nman, with all the limitations, as to His body, which pertain to man's\nbody; with head, trunk, and limbs; with eyes, mouth and ears; with\naffections, with passions; for He exhibited anger as well as love in\nthe course of His ministry; He was a man susceptible to all that man\ncould suffer, called by way of pre-eminence, the \"man of sorrows,\" and\none \"acquainted with grief\"; for in addition to His own, He bore the\nworld's sins, and suffered that men might not suffer if they would but\nobey His gospel.\n\n11. _\"What Think Ye of Christ?\"_ What think ye of Christ? Is he\nGod? Yes. Is he man? Yes--there is no doubting it. His resurrection,\nand the immortality of His body, as well as of His spirit that succeeds\nHis resurrection, is a reality. He Himself attested it in various ways.\nHe appeared to a number of the apostles, who, when they saw him, were\nseized with fright, supposing they had seen a spirit; but He said unto\nthem, \"Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts?\nBehold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; handle Me and see;\nfor a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have.\" (Luke xxiv:\n36-39.) Then, in further attestation of the reality of His existence,\nas if to put away all doubt, He said, \"Have ye here any meat?\" And they\nbrought Him some broiled fish and honeycomb, and \"He did eat before\nthem.\" (Luke xxiv: 41-43.) Think of it! A resurrected, immortal person\nactually eating of material food! I wonder that our spiritually-minded\nfriends, both philosophers and theologians, do not arraign Him for such\na material act as that after His resurrection!\n\nBut not only did the risen Messiah eat in the presence of His\ndisciples, but with His resurrected hands He prepared a meal on the\nseashore for His own disciples, and invited them to partake of the food\nwhich He, with His resurrected hands, had provided. (John xxi: 9-13,\nand Acts x: 41.) Moreover, for forty days He continued ministering to\nHis disciples after His resurrection, eating and drinking with them\n(Acts x: 41, and Acts i: 2, 3); and then, as they gathered together on\none occasion, lo! He ascended from their midst, and a cloud received\nHim out of their sight. Presently two personages in white apparel stood\nbeside them and said. \"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into\nheaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall\nso come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.\" (Acts\nI:11.) What! With His body of flesh and bones, with the marks in His\nhands and in His feet? Shall He come again in that form? The old Jewish\nprophet, Zechariah, foresaw that He would. He describes the time of His\nglorious coming, when His blessed, nail-pierced feet shall touch the\nMount of Olives again, and it shall cleave in twain, and open a great\nvalley for the escape of the distressed house of Judah, sore oppressed\nin the siege of their great city, Jerusalem. We are told that \"They\nshall look upon Him Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for\nHim as one mourneth for his only son,\" and one shall look upon Him in\nthat day and shall say, \"What are these wounds in Thy hands and in Thy\nfeet?\" and He shall answer, \"These are the wounds that I received in\nthe house of my friends.\" (Zech. the 12th, 13th and 14th chapters).\n\nWhat think ye of Christ? Will that resurrected, immortal, glorified man\never be distilled into some bodiless, formless essence, to be diffused\nas the perfume of a rose is diffused throughout the circumambient air?\nWill He become an impersonal, incorporeal, immaterial God, without\nbody, without parts, without passions? Will it be? Can it be? What\nthink ye of Christ? Is He God? Is He an exalted man? Yes; in the name\nof all the Gods He is. And one wonders why Christian ministers arraign\nthe faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because\nthey believe and affirm that God is an exalted man, and that He has a\nbody, tangible, immortal, indestructible, and will so remain embodied\nthroughout the countless ages of eternity?--And since the Son is in\nthe form and likeness of the Father, being, as Paul tells us, \"in the\nexpress image of His [the Father's] person\"--so, too, the Father, God\nmust be a man of immortal tabernacle, glorified and exalted: for as the\nSon is, so also is the Father, a personage of tabernacle, of flesh and\nof bone as tangible as man's, as tangible as Christ's most glorious,\nresurrected body (See article in Improvement Era for March, 1910, for\nfurther treatment of this theme).\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXIV.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_THE CHARACTER OF GOD REVEALED IN JESUS CHRIST._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                          _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. Humility._                                        Note 1, and the Scripture\n                                                            references within\n  _II. Obedience._                                      the note.\n\n  _III. Compassion and Impartiality of                    Note 2 and the Scriptures\n          God:_                                           quoted.\n\n          1. Ministration to Rich and Poor                  Note 3, and citations\n             Alike;                                         in the note.\n\n          2. His Treatment of Sinners;                      Notes 4 and 5.\n\n          3. His Mercy and Toleration.                      Note 6, and citations\n                                                            of Scriptures in the\n  _IV. His Love Manifested in the Atonement._           notes.\n\n  _V. The Justice and Severity of God._                 Note 7.\n\n  _VI. The Revelation of God Complete in                  Note 8, and Lectures\n         Jesus Christ._                                   on Faith, Doc. & Cov.,\n                                                            Lecture III.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"God was manifested on the flesh (margin), justified in\nthe Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in\nthe world, received up into glory.\" I Tim. ii:16._\n\n_NOTES._\n\nThe notes of this Lesson are taken from two discourses by the author:\none the \"Mormon Doctrine of Deity\"; the other \"Jesus Christ, the\nRevelation of God,\" hence the personal character and direct address\nstyle that appears in the notes.\n\n1. _The Humility of God Manifested Through Jesus Christ:_ First\nof all, I call your attention to the deep, the profound humility of\nGod; His great condescension in living among men, as He did, for their\ninstruction; and from that circumstance would draw to your attention\nthe lesson of humility His life teaches. The heights of glory to\nwhich Jesus had attained, the power and dignity of His position in\nthe heavenly kingdom, of course, cannot be comprehended by us in our\npresent finite condition, and with our limited knowledge of things.\nGreat and exalted as we might think Him to be, you may depend upon it\nHe was exalted infinitely higher than that. Then when you think of one\nliving and moving in the courts of heaven and mingling in the councils\nof the Gods, consenting to come down to this earth and pass through\nthe conditions that Jesus passed through, do you not marvel at His\nhumility? To be born under such circumstances as would enable wicked\nman to cast reflection upon His very birth! (St. John viii:41.) To be\nborn, too, in a stable, and to be cradled in a manger! To grow up a\npeasant, with a peasant's labor to perform, and a peasant's fare to\nsubsist upon from childhood to manhood--do you not marvel at this great\nhumility, at this great condescension of God? And by His humility, are\nnot men taught humility, as they are taught it by no other circumstance\nwhatsoever?\n\n2. _The Obedience of God Manifested Through Jesus Christ:_ Of His\nyouth, we know but little; but the little we know reveals a shining\nquality, either for God or man to possess. You must remember, in all\nour consideration of the life of Messiah, one great truth, which\ncomes to us from the scriptures in an incidental way, viz., that \"In\nHis humiliation His judgment was taken from Him.\" (Acts viii:33.) As\nthe veil is drawn over our minds when our pre-existent spirits come\ninto this world and we forget the Father and mother of the spirit\nworld, and the positions we occupied there, so, too, with Jesus; in\nHis humiliation His judgment was taken from Him; He knew not at first\nwhence He came, nor the dignity of His station in heaven. It was only\nby degrees that He felt the Spirit working within Him and gradually\nunfolding the sublime idea that He was peculiarly and pre-eminently the\nSon of God in very deed. When at Jerusalem, about twelve years of age,\nHe began to be conscious of the suggestions of the Spirit within Him,\nthat he had a work to do in the world for His Father, and hence allowed\nthe caravan with which He had come from distant Galilee to Judea to\nstart upon the return journey without Him, much to the perplexity and\nsorrow of His supposed father, Joseph, and His mother, Mary. They\nmissing Him, returned and found Him in the temple disputing with the\ndoctors and lawyers. They reprimanded Him, as they would reprimand any\nboy guilty of similar conduct; but when they reproved Him, He answered,\n\"Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business.\" He began to\nunderstand His mission. The spirit promptings were at work in His\nsoul. And while ultimately the spirit was given without measure unto\nHim (John iii:24), it was not so at first, for \"He received not of the\nfulness at the first, but received grace for grace.\" (Doc. and Cov.,\nSec. 93: 12, 13.) The child Jesus \"grew, and waxed strong in spirit,\nfilled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. * * * And Jesus\nincreased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.\" (Luke\nii; 40, 52.) But notwithstanding, Jesus, at twelve years of age, and\nearlier, began to experience the operations of the Spirit calling\nHis soul to His mission, still we are told that He returned with His\nparents to Galilee, \"and was subject unto them,\" He who had given the\nlaw, \"Honor thy father and thy mother,\" in this act exemplified the\nhonor that He entertained for that law, in His practice of it.\n\nWe next see Him coming to the banks of Jordan, where a prophet of God\nis baptizing--one of those strange, eccentric men, who lived for the\nmost part in the wilderness, whose food was locusts and wild honey,\nand whose clothing was the skins of wild animals; and yet through all\nthis eccentricity, through all this oddness of character, shone the\ndivine powers of God in this messenger, and multitudes of people were\ngathered by his preaching to the Jordan, where he baptized them for the\nremission of their sins. By and by, Jesus comes and demands baptism at\nthis man's hands; and as he enters the water, the prophet stays Him,\nand says, \"I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?\"\nAlready, doubtless, shining through this \"expression of God,\"--this\nJesus of Nazareth,--the servant of the Lord, in attune, through the\nspirit of inspiration, with the very God who was approaching Him,\nfelt the divinity of His presence, and would fain acknowledge His own\ninferiority. What was the reply? \"Suffer it to be so now: for thus it\nbecometh us to fulfill all righteousness.\" He Who had said that men\nmust be baptized for the remission of sins, though Himself sinless,\nwould honor that law by obedience unto it. Thus we learn that God not\nonly gives law, but He obeys law.\n\n3. _The Compassion and Impartiality of God:_ Jesus was possessed\nof infinite compassion. The incidents that I shall relate to you, in\nsupport of this statement, are in quotations that are free, and yet,\nI think, justified by the spirit of the several occasions. After all,\nit is the spirit that giveth life; the letter killeth; so let us look\nat these things in the spirit of them. You see Him one day with some\nof His disciples approaching the little village of Nain, \"His raiment\ndusty and His sandals worn.\" As they draw near, the gate is opened and\na funeral procession marches out. The mother of the young man whose\nbody is being borne by his neighbors to the final resting place, walks\nfeebly and weeping beside the bier, desolate in her loneliness. As\nJesus saw that poor woman in the midst of her sorrow, His heart--I pray\nyou think of it, for we are speaking of God when we speak of Jesus\nChrist, the Creator of heaven and earth--the heart of God is moved with\ncompassion towards this woman. He stops the bier, takes the dead by\nthe hand, and says, \"Young man, I say unto you, Arise.\" And he arose.\nJesus Christ gave this woman back her son. It was an act of beautiful\ncompassion, one of many, which illustrates how tender and sympathetic\nis the heart of our God!\n\nNor was His ministry confined exclusively to the poor, to the widows,\nto the lonely. He despised not rulers, nor the rich, because they were\nrich; but was willing, if only they could put themselves in a position\nto receive the manifestations of His compassion--He was willing to\nminister unto them. This is proved in the case of Jairus, one of the\nrulers of the Jews, and a man of great wealth. You will remember that\nhe came running to the Master with his sorrow--his daughter was lying\ndangerously ill at home; and such was his faith that if the Master\nwould but speak the word, she would be healed. While yet he spake, one\nof his servants came running, saying, \"Thy daughter is dead: trouble\nnot the Master.\" But Jesus heeded not the word of the servant. He had\nheard Jairus' cry of faith, and responsive to that faith-cry, he made\nHis way to the home of the ruler, put out those who were unbelieving,\nand taking the maid by the hand, gave her back to the gladness of life,\ninto the arms of the joyous father. The faith of that rich man was as\ngreat as the faith of any we meet with in all the ministry of the Lord.\nSo, wealth is not necessarily a hindrance to faith. God is as close\nto the faithful rich as to the faithful poor, and as ready to grant\nthem his mercy, according to their faith. I sometimes think we make a\nmistake when we would flout those who are rich and put them outside the\npale of God's mercy and compassion because of what may be nothing but a\nprejudice--which in reality may be envy--of the rich.\n\nWhile on the way to the ruler's house, another incident happened that\nis very remarkable. A woman in the throng, a long time afflicted with\na grievous ailment, said in her heart as she saw Him pass, \"If I may\nbut touch His garment, I shall be whole.\" Accordingly, she crowded her\nway forward, dropped upon her knee, clutched the garment, and received\nthe divine power from Him which cleansed her body and healed her\ncompletely. Jesus, observing that something had happened to him, turned\nto the apostles, and said, \"Who touched Me?\" They replied, \"Master,\nthe multitude throng Thee and press Thee, and sayest thou, Who touched\nME?\" as if that was not to be expected in such a crowd. But, said\nJesus, but \"I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.\" What was it?\nSimply that through this poor woman's faith--who supposed herself so\nfar removed from God that she dare not come into His presence and ask\nfor the blessing she desired, but undertook to obtain it by indirect\nmeans--through her faith and touching the garment of the Lord--the\nhealing virtues passed from God to her in such a tangible manner that\nHe felt their departure, just as some of you elders, when administering\nto one who was full of faith have felt your spiritual strength and\nlife go out from you, leaving you weak and almost helpless, but giving\nhealthful life to the afflicted. I speak to men who have experience in\nthese things, and I know that scores of you could bear witness to the\ntruth of this phenomenon. If our lives can but touch the life of God,\nsuch is His nature that we shall partake of the virtues that go out\nfrom Him.\n\nWhat shall I say of lepers that crowded into Messiah's presence, and\nwho, notwithstanding the loathsomeness of their disease, found sympathy\nand help from contact with him? What of the blind, the lame, the halt?\nWhy, let us not speak of them; for though it is a great thing that\ntheir bodies should be healed, and they should go through the community\nsinging the praises of Him who had restored them, there are better\nthings to speak of--the healing of men's souls, the purifying of their\nspirits.\n\n4. _God's Treatment of Sinners:_ Let us ask, rather, how did Jesus\nChrist--God--deal with sinners? I take one incident that has always\nappealed very strongly to me, and illustrates the spirit in which\nChrist deals with sinners; for this God of ours is peculiarly the\nfriend of sinners, not because of their sins, however, but in spite of\nthem; and because of His compassion upon those so unfortunate as to\nbe under the bondage of sin. The over-righteous Pharisees of Christ's\ntime would not on any account come in contact with sinful men, lest\nthey themselves should be polluted. They gathered the robes of their\nsanctity about them, and considered themselves in such close relation\nwith God that they could afford to despise His poor, unfortunate,\nsinful children, instead of holding out the hand that would bring\nthem from the kingdom of darkness into the brightness and glory of\nthe kingdom of God. But not so with Jesus Christ. When He was accused\nby this class of men of mingling with publicans and sinners, His\nanswer to them was, \"They that are whole need not a physician; but\nthey that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to\nrepentance.\" As if He had said, you who are righteous and have no need\nof healing for sin, stand by yourselves; My mission is not to you,\nbut to those who have need of God's help. Such was the spirit of His\nanswer. The incident to which I refer as illustrative of His compassion\nfor sinners, is this: The Jews were always on the alert to entrap the\nMessiah's feet and bring Him into contradiction with the law of Moses.\nThe law of Moses, as first given to Israel, was that if any should\nbe found in adultery they should be stoned to death; but the Rabbis,\nby nice discriminations of words, practically had rendered that law\na dead letter, by reason of which the adulterers in Israel escaped\nthe punishment that God had decreed against them. Therefore, they\nthought if they could take a person who unquestionably had been guilty\nof this crime and bring him or her into the presence of Jesus, they\nwould either bring Him in conflict with the law of Moses, or with the\ntradition of the elders, and in either case would have sufficient cause\nto denounce Him before the people. So they found a woman, caught in the\nact; they dragged her through the streets, and cast her at His feet.\n\"Master,\" said they, \"this woman was taken in adultery, in the very\nact. Now Moses, in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned;\nbut what sayest Thou?\" He replied, \"He that is without sin among you,\nlet him first cast a stone at her.\" One by one they slunk away, until\nthe woman was left alone with Jesus. When Jesus looked around and saw\nnone but the woman, He said to her, \"Woman, where are thine accusers?\nhath no man condemned thee?\" \"No man, Lord,\" she said. Then Jesus said:\n\"Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.\" That is how God deals\nwith sinners. It is written that God cannot look upon sin with the\nleast degree of allowance, and that is true, he cannot; but how about\nthe sinner? Why, He may look upon the sinner with infinite compassion.\nWhile sin must always be hateful, yet will He help and love the sinner,\nif he will but go his way and sin no more. Such is our human weakness,\nand so nearly the level upon which we all move, that there is none of\nus but will plead mightily for mercy; and, thank God, we shall not\nplead in vain; for, while our Judge cannot look upon sin with any\ndegree of allowance, his heart goes out in compassion and love to men,\nand He will help them to overcome sin, to fight a good fight, to keep\nthe faith, and at last enable them to win the crown of righteousness in\nthe kingdom of God.\n\n5. _God's Toleration:_ Jesus, moreover, was tolerant. You will\nrecall the circumstance of His having to go through Samaria, and you\nremember that the Samaritans hated the Jews, and Jesus was a Jew. Some\nof His disciples went into a village of Samaria, through which Jesus\nwould have to pass, and sought to make arrangements for the Master to\nstay over night; but the Samaritans closed their doors against Him.\nThey had heard of Him; He was a Jew; and in the narrowness of their\nminds they would not admit the hated Jew into their homes. This very\nmuch angered the disciple John, who loved Jesus dearly. He was one of\nthe \"sons of thunder,\" and possessed of a spirit that could love; and\nbeing strong in love, as is often the case--I was going to say as is\nalways the case--he was likewise strong in hating. He was the type of\nman that does both heartily. Hence, he went to the Master and asked Him\nif he might not call down fire from heaven upon those Samaritans for\nthus rejecting the Master. Jesus replied: \"Ye know not what spirit ye\nare of. The Son of Man came to save, not to destroy.\" A broadness, a\nliberality truly glorious.\n\nJesus was properly broad minded--liberal. On one occasion some of the\ndisciples found one casting out devils in the name of Jesus, and they\nforbade him, because he followed not the Master. When they came into\nthe presence of Jesus, they reported this case and told what they had\ndone. Jesus said, \"Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do\na miracle in My name, that can lightly speak evil of me.\" Then He gave\nthe other half of that truth, \"He that is not for Me is against Me,\" by\nsaying, \"For he that is not against us is for us.\" Thus He corrected\nthe narrow-mindedness of His own apostles.\n\n6. _The Love of God:_ \"He that loveth not, knoweth not God: for\nGod is love:--and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God and God in\nhim.\" (I John iv: 8-16).\n\n\"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must\nthe Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should\nnot perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He\ngave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not\nperish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the\nworld to condemn the world; but that the world, through Him, might be\nsaved.\" (John iii: 14-18).\n\nI can think of no greater evidence of God's love than that exhibited\nin the act of permitting his Son, Jesus Christ, to come to the earth\nand suffer as He did for the sins of the world, that they might not\nsuffer if they would but conform to His laws, and thus accept the\nterms of Salvation. (Doc. & Cov., Sec. 19). It would seem, too, that\nthe same attribute of love exists in the breast of the Son, for the\nsacrifice He made for the redemption of the world was a voluntary act.\nHe was not compelled to make the Atonement, but of His own free will\nHe volunteered to become our ransom. (Pearl of Great Price, p. 41.) He\nhimself testified: \"Therefore doth My Father love me, because I lay\ndown My life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but\nI lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power\nto take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father.\" (John\nx: 17, 18.)\n\nThus, the atonement of Jesus, for the children of men, was a voluntary\nact; and His death and suffering for the world, was the strongest\nexpression of love it is possible to conceive--\"Greater love hath no\nman than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.\" (John xv:\n13).\n\n7. _The Justice and the Severity of God:_ \"Justice and judgment are\nthe habitation of Thy Throne.\" (Psalms lxxxix:14.) \"A just God and a\nSavior.\" (Isaiah xlv: 21). \"Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold thy\nking cometh unto thee: He is just and having salvation.\" (Zach. ix:9).\n\"A God of Truth, and without iniquity, just and right is He.\" (Deut.\nxxxii:4).\n\nNotwithstanding all God's mercy, as manifested through the Christ,\nHis tolerance, His patience and gentleness, there were times when He\nWho was so infinitely merciful, could also be infinitely just; He\nWho was so infinitely compassionate, could be infinitely severe. I\ngive you an instance of it. He had struggled long and hard with those\nhypocrites, the Scribes and Pharisees; and finally the voice of justice\nand reproof, as it is to be found in God, speaks forth through Jesus\nChrist, and this is what He said: \"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,\nhypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye\nneither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to\ngo in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour\nwidows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: therefore ye\nshall receive the greater damnation.\" (Matt. xxiii:13, 14.)\n\nThat is not so gentle: Listen again: \"Woe unto you, scribes and\nPharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one\nproselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child\nof hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say,\nWhosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever\nshall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and\nblind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth\nthe gold? And, whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing;\nbut whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye\nfools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that\nsanctifieth the gift? * * * Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat,\nand swallow a camel. Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees! for ye make\nclean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are\nfull of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that\nwhich is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be\nclean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are\nlike unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward,\nbut are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even\nso ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are\nfull of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,\nhypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the\nsepulchres of the righteous, and say, if we had been in the days of our\nfathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of\nthe prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are\nthe children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up, then, the\nmeasure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can\nye escape the damnation of hell?\" (Matt. xxiii:15-33).\n\nAnd this from that gentle, compassionate man! The voice of God in its\nseverity speaks through these tones, and bids us understand that it\nmust be a terrible thing to fall under the displeasure of God. Think of\nthe infinite difference between that sweet compassion which He has for\nthe penitent sinner, and this severe but just arraignment of those who\npersist in their sins! A warning to all men to beware of the justice of\nGod, when once it shall be aroused!\n\n8. _God Completely Revealed Through Christ:_ Jesus Christ is God\nmanifested in the flesh, proved to be so from the scripture; the\ncharacter of God is revealed in the wonderful life that Jesus, the Son\nof God, lived on earth; in it we see God in action; and from it we see\nthe gentleness, the compassion, the love, and also the justice and\nseverity of God. Jesus Christ is God; and He is also man; but I deplore\nthose sectarian refinements which try to tell us about the humanity\nof Jesus being separate from the divinity of Jesus. He Himself made\nno such distinctions. He was divine, spirit and body, and spirit and\nbody was exalted to the throne of His Father, and sits there now with\nall the powers of the Godhead residing in Him bodily, an immortal,\nglorified, exalted man! The express image and likeness God of the\nFather; for as the Son is, so is the Father. Yet when the Latter Day\nSaints announce to the world that we believe God to be an exalted man,\nwe are told that we are blasphemers. But as long as the throne of Jesus\nChrist stands sure, so long as His spirit remains in His immortal\nbody of flesh and bones, glorified and everlasting, shall keep His\nplace by the side of the Father, so long will the doctrine that God\nis an exalted man hold its place against the idle sophistries of the\nlearned world. The doctrine is true. It cannot be unthroned. A truth\nis a solemn thing. Not the mockery of ages, not the lampooning of the\nschoolmen, not the derision of the multitude, not the blasphemy of the\nworld, can affect it; it will always remain true. And this doctrine,\nannounced by Joseph Smith to the world, that God is an exalted man,\nthat Jesus Christ is the revelation of God to the world and that He is\njust like his Father, and that those who are His brethren may become as\nHe is, when they have walked in His footsteps--that is a doctrine that\nwill stand sure and fast as the throne of God itself. For Jesus Christ\nwas God manifested in the flesh. He was the revelation of God to the\nworld. He was and is and ever will remain an exalted man. He is, and\nalways will remain, God.\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXV.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_THE GODHEAD._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                          _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. Plurality of Persons in the Godhead._             The notes of this Lesson\n                                                            and Scriptural references\n  _II. Plurality of Divine Intelligences._              in the notes, 1 to 5.\n\n                                                            The references in\n                                                            Richards and Little's\n                                                            Compendium, Art. \"Plurality\n                                                            of Gods,\" p. 184.\n\n                                                            The notes, and Scripture\n                                                            citations within\n                                                            them, this Lesson.\n\n                                                            Also \"Avatars of\n                                                            God,\" Improvement Era\n                                                            for March, 1910.\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"God standeth in the congregations of the mighty; he\njudgeth among the Gods. * * * I have said ye are Gods; and all of you\nare children of the Most High.\"_\n\n_NOTES._\n\nThe notes of this Lesson are taken from two discourses by the Author:\none the \"Mormon Doctrine of Deity\"; the other, \"Jesus Christ, the\nRevelation of God,\" hence the personal character and direct address\nstyle that appears in the notes. The discourses referred to will be\nfound in \"Mormon Doctrine of Deity.\"\n\n1. _The Three Persons of the Godhead Revealed--The Father:_ It is\nto be observed in passing that Jesus Himself came with no abstract\ndefinition of God. Nowhere in His teachings can you find any argument\nabout the existence of God. That He takes for granted; assumes as\ntrue; and from that basis proceeds as a teacher of men. Nay, more; He\nclaims God as His Father. It is not necessary to quote texts in proof\nof this statement; the New Testament is replete with declarations\nof that character. What may be of more importance for us at the\npresent moment is to call attention to the fact that God Himself also\nacknowledged the relationship which Jesus claimed. Most emphatically\ndid He do so on the memorable occasion of the baptism of Jesus in the\nriver Jordan. You remember how the scriptures, according to Matthew,\ntell us that as Jesus came up out of the water from His baptism, the\nheavens were opened, and the Spirit of God descended like a dove upon\nHim; and at the same moment, out of the stillness came the voice of\nGod, saying, \"This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.\" On\nanother occasion the Father acknowledges the relationship--at the\ntransfiguration of Jesus in the mount, in the presence of three of His\napostles, Peter and James and John, and the angels Moses and Elias.\nThe company was overshadowed by a glorious light, and the voice of\nGod was heard to say of Jesus, \"This is My beloved Son; hear him.\" Of\nthis, the apostles in subsequent years testified, and we have on record\ntheir testimony. So that the existence of God the Father, and the\nrelationship of Jesus to Him, is most clearly shown in these scriptures.\n\n2. _The Son:_ Jesus, Himself, claimed to be the Son of God, and in\nthis connection there is clearly claimed for Him divinity, that is to\nsay, Godship. Let me read to you a direct passage upon that subject;\nit is to be found in the gospel according to St. John, and reads as\nfollows: \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and\nthe Word was God. * * * And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among\nus (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the\nFather), full of grace and truth.\" (John i:1-3.)\n\nThe identity between Jesus of Nazareth--\"The Word made flesh\"--and the\n\"Word\" that was \"with God in the beginning,\" and that \"was God,\" is so\nclear that it cannot possibly be doubted. So the Son is God, as well\nas the Father. Other evidences go to establish the fact that Jesus had\nthe Godlike power of creation. In the very passage I have just read,\nit is said: \"All things were made by Him [that is, by the Word, Who is\nJesus]; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was\nlife; and the life was the light of men.\" (John i: 3-4.)\n\nOne other scripture of like import, but perhaps even more emphatic than\nthe foregoing, is that saying of Paul's in the epistle to the Hebrews:\n\"God, Who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto\nthe fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by\nHis Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He\nmade the worlds.\" (Heb. i: 1-3.)\n\nNot only one world, but many \"worlds,\" for the word is used in the\nplural. So that we find that the Son of God was God the Father's agent\nin the work of creation, and that under the Father's direction He\ncreated many worlds. There can be no question then as to the divinity,\nthe Godship, of Jesus of Nazareth, since He is not only God the Son,\nbut God the Creator also--of course, under the direction of the Father.\n\n3. _The Holy Spirit:_ Again, the Holy Ghost is spoken of in the\nscriptures as God. I think, perchance, the clearest verification of\nthat statement is to be found in connection with the circumstance of\nAnanias and his wife attempting to deceive the apostles with reference\nto the price for which they had sold a certain parcel of land they\nowned, which price they proposed putting into the common fund of the\nChurch; but selfishness asserted itself, and they concluded to lie as\nto the price of the land, and only consecrate a part to the common\nfund. It was an attempt to get credit for a full consecration of what\nthey possessed, on what was a partial dedication of their goods. They\nproposed to live a lie, and to tell one, if necessary, to cover the\nlie they proposed to live. When Ananias stood in the presence of the\napostles, Peter put this very pointed question to him: \"Why hath Satan\nfilled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?\" * * * \"Thou hast not lied\nunto men, but unto God.\" (Acts v.) To lie to the Holy Ghost is to lie\nto God, because the Holy Ghost is God. And frequently in the scriptures\nthe Holy Spirit is spoken of in this way.\n\n4. _The Holy Trinity:_ These three, the father, Son, and the Holy\nGhost, it is true, are spoken of in the most definite manner as being\nGod--one; but the distinction of one from the other is also clearly\nmarked in the scriptures. Take that circumstance to which I have\nalready alluded--note 1--the baptism of Jesus. There we may see the\nthree distinct personalities most clearly. The Son coming up out of\nthe water from His baptism; the heavens opening and the Holy Spirit\ndescending upon Him; while out of heaven the voice of God the Father\nis heard saying, \"This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.\"\nHere three Gods are distinctly apparent. They are seen to be distinct\nfrom each other. They appear simultaneously, not as one, but as three,\neach one being a different person, so that however completely they may\nbe one in spirit, in purpose, in will, they are clearly distinct as\npersons--as individuals.\n\n5. _Each of the Three Equal in Dignity:_ In several instances in\nthe scriptures these three personages are accorded equal dignity in\nthe Godhead. An example is found in the commission which Jesus gave to\nHis disciples after His resurrection, when He sent them out into the\nworld to preach the gospel to all nations. He stood in the presence\nof the eleven, and said: \"All power is given unto Me in heaven and in\nearth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the\nname of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\" (Matt.\nxxviii:18-20.)\n\nEach of the three is here given equal dignity in the Godhead. Again, in\nthe apostolic benediction: \"May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the\nlove of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all.\"\n\nIn one particular, at least, Jesus came very nearly exalting the\nHoly Ghost to a seeming superiority over the other personages in\nthe Godhead; for He said: \"All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be\nforgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not\nbe forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of\nMan, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy\nGhost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in\nthe world to come.\" (Matt. xii:31, 32.)\n\nI take it, however, that this seeming superior dignity accorded to\nthe Holy Ghost by the Son of God, is owing to the nature of the third\npersonage in the Trinity, and the kind of testimony He can impart unto\nthe soul of man because of His being a personage of spirit--a testimony\nthat is better than the seeing of the eye, more sure than the hearing\nof the ear, because it is spirit testifying to spirit--soul communing\nwith soul--it is the soul of God imparting to the soul of man; and if\nmen, after receiving that Witness from God, shall blaspheme against\nHim, farewell hope of forgiveness for such a sin, in this world or in\nthe world to come!\n\nThese three personages, then, are of equal dignity in the Godhead,\naccording to the teachings of the New Testament. Each is equally\ndivine--equally God; hence Jesus is God equally with God the Father,\nand with God the Holy Ghost.\n\nThis simple Christian teaching respecting the Godhead gave birth to\nwhat, in ecclesiastical history, is called \"The Apostles' Creed.\" A\nvague tradition has it that before the Apostles dispersed to go into\nthe world to preach the gospel, they formulated a creed with respect of\nthe Church's belief in God. Whether that tradition be true or not, I do\nnot know, and for matter of that, it makes little difference. Suffice\nit to say that the so-called \"Apostles' Creed,\" for two centuries,\nexpressed the faith of the early Christians upon the question of God,\nand is as follows: \"I believe in God, the Father, Almighty; and in\nJesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son, our Lord, Who was born of the\nVirgin Mary by the Holy Ghost, was crucified under Pontius Pilate,\nburied, arose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the heavens,\nand sits at the right hand of the Father, whence He will come, to judge\nthe living and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost.\"\n\n6. _Plurality of Divine Intelligences:_ We have already shown that\nthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct\npersons, and, so far as personality is concerned, are three Gods. Their\n\"oneness\" consists in being possessed of the same mind; they are one,\ntoo, in wisdom, in knowledge, in will and purpose; but as individuals\nthey are three, each separate and distinct from the other, and three\nis plural. Now, that is a long way on the road towards proving the\nplurality of Gods. But, in addition to this, I would like to know from\nour friends--the critical sectarian ministers who complain of this\npart of our faith--the meaning of the following expressions, carefully\nselected from the scriptures:\n\n\"The Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords.\" (Deut. x:17.)\nThat is from Moses.\n\n\"The Lord God of Gods, the Lord God of Gods, He knoweth, and Israel He\nshall know.\" (Josh. xxii:22.) That is from Joshua.\n\n\"O give thanks unto the God of Gods! * * * O give thanks to the Lord of\nLords!\" (Psalm cxxxvi: 2, 3.) That is David.\n\n\"And shall speak marvelous things against the God of Gods.\" (Daniel xi:\n36.) That is Daniel.\n\n\"The Lamb shall overcome them; for He is Lord of Lords, and King of\nKings.\" (Rev. xvii:14.) That is the beloved disciple of Jesus--John the\nRevelator.\n\nHad I taken such expressions from the lips of the pagan kings or false\nprophets, who are sometimes represented as speaking in the scriptures,\nyou might question the propriety of making such quotations in support\nof the doctrine I teach; but since these expressions come from prophets\nand recognized servants of God, I ask those who criticize our faith in\nthe matter of a plurality of Gods, to explain away those expressions of\nthe scriptures. Furthermore, there is Paul's language, in his letter\nto the Corinthians, already quoted, where he says, \"that there be Gods\nmany and Lords many, whether in heaven or in earth.\" Had his expression\nbeen confined to those that are called gods in earth, it is possible\nthat there might be some good ground for claiming that he had reference\nto the heathen gods, and not true Gods; but he speaks of those that\n\"are Gods in heaven\" as well as gods in earth. Right in line with this\nidea is the following passage from the Psalms of the Prophet David:\n\"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the\nGods.\" (Psalm lxxxii:1.) These, undoubtedly, are the Gods in heaven to\nwhom Paul alludes, among whom the God referred to stands; among whom He\njudges. This is no reference to the heathen gods, but to the Gods in\nheaven, the true Gods.\n\nIn this same Psalm, too, is the passage which seems to introduce some\ntelling evidence from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, viz.: \"I have said\nye are Gods, and all of you are the children of the Most High.\" You\nremember how on one occasion the Jews took up stones to stone Jesus,\nand He called a halt for just a moment, for He wanted to reason with\nthem about it. He said: \"Many good works have I shown you from the\nFather; for which of these works do ye stone me?\"\n\nTheir answer was: \"For a good work we stone Thee not; but for\nblasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.\"\n\nWhat an opportunity here for Jesus to teach them that there was but one\nGod! But He did not do that. On the contrary, He affirmed the doctrine\nof a plurality of Gods. He said to them: \"Is it not written in your\nlaw, I said, Ye are Gods? If He called them Gods, unto whom the word\nof God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of Him, Whom\nthe Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest;\nbecause I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of My\nFather, believe Me not. But if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe\nthe works.\"\n\nHigher authority on this question cannot be quoted than the Son of God\nHimself.\n\n7. _Further Evidence for a Plurality of Divine Intelligences:_ I\nfind a word on the subject fitly spoken by the late Orson Pratt, in a\ndiscourse delivered in 1855, in Salt Lake City. He said: There is one\nrevelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think\nit has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church\nHistory. It is given in questions and answers. The first question\nis, \"What is the name of God in the pure language?\" The answer says,\n\"Ahman.\" \"What is the name of the Son of God?\" Answer, \"Son Ahman, the\ngreatest of all the parts of God, excepting Ahman.\" \"What is the name\nof men?\" \"Sons Ahman,\" is the answer. \"What is the name of angels in\nthe pure language?\" \"Anglo--man.\" The revelation goes on to say that\nSons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son\nAhman, and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts\nof God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman and Ahman, showing that the\nangels are a little lower than man.[1] What is the conclusion to be\ndrawn from this? It is that these intelligent beings are all parts of\nGod. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 342.)\n\nThis, it will be said, is a bold doctrine; and indeed it is bold. I\nlove it for its boldness, but not so much for that, as for the reason\nthat it is true. It is in harmony with another revelation given through\nJoseph Smith, wherein it is said:\n\n\"Man was also [as well as Jesus] in the beginning with God.\nIntelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither\nindeed can be. * * * For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and\nspirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy;\nand when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements\nare the tabernacle of God; yea, man in the tabernacle of God, even\ntemples\" (Doc. and Cov., sec. 93: 29-35).\n\nNor is the doctrine less in harmony with the Jewish scriptures:\n\n\"For it became him, for whom are all things and by whom are all\nthings, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their\nsalvation perfect through suffering. For both he that sanctifieth and\nthey who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not\nashamed to call them brethren.\"\n\nIn this same chapter of Hebrews, Jesus, as well as man, is spoken of\nas being made \"a little while inferior to the angels\" (verses 7 and 9\nmarginal reading); and he is spoken of by the same apostle in another\nplace as being but \"the first born among many brethren\" (Rom. 8:29).\nAlso in his great discourse in Mars Hill, Paul not only declares that\nGod \"hath made of one blood all nations of men\"--but he also quoted\nwith approval the Greek poet Aratus,[2] where the latter says: \"For\nwe are also his [God's] offspring;\" and to this the apostle adds:\n\"For as much, then, as we are the offspring of God [hence of the same\nrace and nature], we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto\ngold, or silver, or stone, graven by art after man's device\" (Acts 17:\n26-30). The nature of our own being, one might add, in continuation of\nthe apostle's reasoning, should teach those who recognize men as the\noffspring of God, better than to think of the Godhead as of gold, or\nsilver, or stone, graven by art after man's device, since the nature of\nthe offspring partakes of the nature of the parent; and our own nature\nteaches us that men are not as stocks and stones, though the latter be\ngraven by art after the devices of men.\n\nPaul might also have quoted the great Hebrew poet: \"God standeth in the\ncongregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods. * * * I have\nsaid ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High\" (Ps.\n82: 1, 6, 7); and though he adds, \"But ye shall die like men, and fall\nlike one of the princes,\" it does not detract from the assertion, \"and\nall of you are children of the Most High;\" for Jesus died, even as men\ndie; but he was the Son of God, nevertheless, and he himself a Deity.\n\nThe matter is clear, then, men and Gods are of the same race; Jesus\nis the Son of God, and so, too, are all men the offspring of God, and\nJesus but the first born of many brethren. Eternal Intelligences are\nbegotten of God, spirits, and hence are sons of God--a dignity that\nnever leaves them. \"Beloved,\" said one of old, \"now are we the sons of\nGod, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when\nhe [Christ] shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as\nhe is\" (I John 3:2). For additional matter on this point see \"Avatars\nof God\" in March and April Nos. of Improvement Era, 1910.\n\n8. _Of God the Spirit of the Gods:_ From the presence of the Gods\ngoes out the influence and power men sometimes call God, or the Spirit\nof God; from whose presence David could not flee:\n\n\"If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell,\nbehold thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in\nthe uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and\nthy right hand shall hold me. Yea the darkness hideth not from thee;\nbut the light shineth as the day; the darkness and the light are both\nalike to thee\" (Ps. 139: 7-12).\n\nThis Spirit is that \"Something sacred and sublime,\" which men recognize\nas moving \"wool-shod\" behind the worlds; \"weighing the stars; weighing\nthe deeds of men.\" (Edward Markham.) This that Spirit that permeates\nall space; that makes all presence bright; all motion guides; the Power\n\"unchanged through time's all-devastating flight;\" that upholds and\nsustains all worlds. Hence it is said, in one of the most beautiful of\nthe revelations God has given in this last dispensation:\n\n\"As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power\nthereof by which it was made. As also the light of the stars and the\npower thereof by which they were made. And the earth also and the power\nthereof; even the earth upon which you stand. And the light which now\nshineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your\neyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;\nwhich light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the\nimmensity of space. The light which is in all things; which giveth\nlight to all things; which is the law by which all things are governed:\neven the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom\nof eternity, who is in the midst of all things; * * * The earth rolls\nupon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon\ngiveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they\nroll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.\n* * * Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any\nor the least of these, hath seen God moving in his majesty and power\"\n(Doc. and Cov., sec. 88 8-13 and 45, 47).\n\nThis, then, is God, who is not far removed from every one of us; in\nwhom we live, and move, and have our being. This is God immanent in\nnature.\n\nAnd as we dwell in him, so, too, dwells he in us; and, as man more\nexpands towards divinity, more and more of the divine enters into his\nbeing, until he attains unto a fullness of light and truth; of power\nand glory; until he becomes perfectly one in God, and God in him. This\nthe meaning of the Messiah's prayer, made for all those who become his\ndisciples--\"That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I\nin thee: that they also may be one in us\" (John 17: 21).\n\nTo the same effect Paul also prayed:\n\n\"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus\nChrist, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named that\nhe would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be\nstrengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may\ndwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in\nlove, may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth,\nand length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ which\npasseth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fullness of God\"\n(Eph. 3: 14-19).\n\nThen again he said: Let this mind be in you which was also in Jesus\nChrist: who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be\nequal with God (Philippians 2: 5, 6).\n\nIt is possible for the mind of God to be in man, to will and to do, as\nseemeth [God] good. The nature of the Whole clings to the Parts, and\nthey may carry with them the light and truth and glory of the Whole.\nMoreover, by appointment, any One or Three of the unit Intelligences\nmay become the embodiment and representative of all the power and\nglory and authority of the sum total of the Divine Intelligences; in\nwhich capacity either the One or the Three would no longer stand only\nin their individual characters as Gods, but they would stand also as\nthe sign and symbol of all that is divine--and would act as and be\nto all intents and purposes The One God. And so in every inhabited\nworld, and in every system of worlds, a God presides. Deity in his\nown right and person, and by virtue of the essence of him; and also\nby virtue of his being the sign and symbol of the Collectivity of\nthe Divine Intelligences of the universe. Having access to all the\ncouncils of the Gods, each individual Deity becomes a partaker of the\ncollective knowledge, wisdom, honor, power, majesty, and glory of the\nBody Divine--in a word, the embodiment of the Spirit of the Gods whose\ninfluence permeates the universe.\n\nThis doctrine of Deity teaches a divine government for the world that\nis in harmony with our modern knowledge of the universe; for, as I\nhave remarked elsewhere in effect: (New Witness for God, pp. 473-5.)\nAn infinitude of worlds and systems of worlds rising one above another\nin ever-increasing splendor, in limitless space and eternal duration,\nhave, as a concomitant, an endless line of exalted, divine men to\npreside over and within them, as Priests, Kings, Patriarchs, Gods! Nor\nis there confusion, disorder, or strife in their vast dominions; for\nthey all govern upon the same righteous principles that characterize\nthe government of God everywhere. These Divine Intelligences have\nattained unto the excellence that Jesus prayed for in behalf of his\napostles, and those who might believe on their word, when he said:\n\"Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given\nme, that they may be one as we are.\" I say Divine Intelligences have\nattained unto the excellence of oneness that Jesus prayed his disciples\nmight possess, and since they have attained unto it, and all govern\ntheir worlds and systems of worlds by the same spirit, and by the same\nprinciples, there is a unity in their government that makes it one even\nas they are one. Let worlds and systems of worlds galaxies of systems\nand universes, extend as they may throughout limitless space, Joseph\nSmith has revealed the existence of a divine government which, while\ncharacterized by unity, is co-extensive with all these worlds and\nworld-systems.\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. It may be thought, at the first reading of this statement, \"the\nangels are a little lower than man,\" is in conflict with the scripture,\n\"Thou madest him [man] a little lower than the angels\" (Heb. 2: 7).\nBut I call attention to the marginal rendering of the passage in\nKing James' translation, \"Thou madest him a little while inferior to\nthe angels.\" Without stopping here to consider which is the better\ntranslation of the passage, it may be said of the latter that it is in\nbetter harmony with the context of the passage as it stands here in\nHebrews, and also in Psalms, than the preferred rendering of it in the\nregular text; for in both places it says of man, \"Thou crownedst him\nwith glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands;\nthou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he\nput all things in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put\nunder him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.\" Moreover,\nwe see the same thing is said of Jesus that is said of man: \"We see\nJesus who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of\ndeath, crowned with glory and honor\" (Heb. 2: 9). Surely \"made a little\nlower than the angels,\" when said of Jesus could be but for \"a little\nwhile inferior to,\" etc.; and that only in the matter of \"the suffering\nof death.\" So, too, with man; he is made \"a little while inferior to\nthe angels,\" after which period he would rise to the dignity of his\nplace, when it would be seen, as said in the text with which this note\ndeals, \"the angels are a little lower than man,\" that is, of course,\nwhen man shall have attained unto his exaltation and glory.\n\n2. He was a poet of Cilicia, of which province Tarsus, Paul's native\ncity, was the capital. He wrote about four hundred years before Paul's\ntime.\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXVI.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF DEITY._\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                              _REFERENCES._\n\n  _I. God Is a Spirit, Hence Not Material--Without             The Mormon Doctrine\n        Form or Body._                                         of Deity--Roberts-Van Der Donckt\n                                                                 Discussion.\n  _II. God Is Invisible--Hence Immaterial,                     Chs. i, ii, iii and the\n         Without Body or Form._                                notes of this Lesson.\n\n  _III. Anthromorphic Appearances and Descriptions             Also Chapter v in the\n          of God Only Used to                                    above work. It is a\n          Make Plain Spiritual Things._                        Collection of Passages\n                                                                 from leading Elders of\n  _IV. The Answers._                                         the Church, setting\n                                                                 forth \"Mormon Views of the Deity.\"\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: Stephen, \"being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up\nsteadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing\non the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened,\nand the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.\" Acts vii: 55, 56._\n\n_NOTES._\n\nThese notes are taken from the Roberts-Van Der Donkt Discussion on\nDeity. The Catholic Father states the objections and presents the\nargument for them; Elder Roberts gives the answers, and argues for\ntheir accuracy and efficiency. The debate in full is found in \"Mormon\nDoctrine of Deity,\" chs. ii and iii.\n\n1. _The First Objection--God is a Spirit--Hence Immaterial:_ \"God\nis a Spirit\" (John iv., 24). \"Another strong and explicit statement\nis: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood hath\nnot revealed it unto thee, but My Father who is in heaven.' (Matt.\nxvi). \"As the Christ has asked, what[1] do men say the Son of Man\nis (Matt. xvi, 16, 17), there is an evident antithesis and contrast\nbetween the opinions of men and the profession of Peter, which is based\nupon revelation. The striking opposition between _men, flesh and\nblood_, and the Father, evidently conveys the sense that God hath\nnot flesh and blood like man, but is a Spirit (Roberts-Van Der Donckt\nDiscussion--Mormon Doctrine of Deity--p. 45).\n\n2. _God is Invisible, Hence Immaterial:_ It is also held that God\nis described as being \"invisible,\" in the Bible. Then it is added:\n\"All material beings are visible. Absolute invisible beings are\nimmaterial or bodiless: God is absolutely invisible, therefore God\nis immaterial or bodiless. * * * * * * Tertullian, (A. D. 160-245),\nAmbrose (330-397), Augustine (354-430) and other Fathers, whose deep\nscholarship is acknowledged by Protestants and Catholics alike, informs\nus that God the Father is called invisible because He never appeared\nto bodily eyes; whereas the Son manifested Himself as an angel, or\nthrough an angel, and as man, after His incarnation. He is the eternal\nrevelation of the Father. It is necessary to remark that whenever the\neternal Son of God, or angels at God's behest, showed themselves to\nman, they became visible only through a body or a material garb assumed\nfor the occasion (see Cardinal Newman's \"Development of Christian\nDoctrine,\" 9th edition, pp. 136 and 138).\" (Ibid.)\n\n3. _The Purpose of Anthropomorphic Appearances and Descriptions of\nGod:_ \"Again, Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but\nagainst the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits\nof this wickedness\"--Eph. vi: 12--Could plainer words be found to teach\nthat angels both good and bad, are spirits devoid of bodies. Now, the\nCreator is certainly more perfect than His creatures, and pure minds\nare more perfect than minds united to bodies (men). [\"The corruptible\nbody is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down\nthe mind\" (Wis 9:15.) \"Who shall deliver me from this body of death?\"\n(St. Paul).] Therefore, the Creator is a pure spirit.\n\n\"It is a well known fact that all men, after the example of\nthe inspired Writings, make frequent use of the figure called\nanthropomorphism, attributing to the Deity a human body, human members,\nhuman passions, etc.; and that is done, not to imply that God is\npossessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things or\ncertain truths more intelligible to man, who, while he tarries in this\nworld, can perceive things and even ideas only through his senses or\nthrough bodily organs.\" (Ibid).\n\n4. _The Answers:_ The whole fabric of this objection and argument,\nis built upon the assumption that \"spirit\" is immaterial. I say\n\"assumption,\" because it is nowhere declared in revelation that\n\"spirit\" is immaterial. On the other hand, whenever spirits have been\nseen, or God has been revealed, they have appeared to the eyes of\nthe beholder in human form. They were tangible to human sight; they\nhad configuration; they occupied space; and as form and extension\nare qualities of matter, spirits must be material, albeit of finer\nsubstance than the bodies tangible to the senses in normal states\nof consciousness. The argument quoted in the preceding notes of the\nlesson, were treated in part in the following manner:\n\n5. _Of God Being a Spirit:_ \"Mr. Van Der Donckt's first premise\nis that \"God is a Spirit,\" quoting the words of the Savior (John 4:\n24); and Paul's words, \"The Lord is a spirit,\" (II Cor. 3: 17.) He\nthen argues that a spirit is different from a man, and quotes the\nremark of Jesus to His disciples, when He appeared to them after His\nresurrection: \"A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have\"\n(Luke 24: 37-39). Also the words of Jesus to Peter, \"Flesh and blood\nhath not revealed it [that is, that Jesus is the Christ] unto thee,\nbut My Father Who is in heaven.\" (Matt. 16: 17.) The gentleman, in all\nthis, sees a striking contrast between men, flesh and blood, and the\nFather; which \"conveys the sense that God hath not flesh and blood like\nman, but is a spirit.\" * * * * With reference to the passage--\"Flesh\nand blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in\nheaven,\" and the Reverend gentleman's remarks thereon, I wish to say,\nin passing, that the antithesis between man and God in the passage,\nextends merely to the fact that the source of Peter's revelation was\nGod, not man; and is no attempt at defining a difference between the\nnature of God and the nature of man. Here, also, I may say, that the\nLatter-day Saints do not hold that God is a personage of flesh and\nblood, but a personage of flesh and bone, inhabited by a spirit, just\nas Jesus was after His resurrection. Joseph Smith taught, concerning\nthe resurrection, that \"all [men] will be raised by the power of God,\nhaving spirit in their bodies, and not blood.\" Again, in speaking of\nthe general assembly and church of the first-born in heaven (Heb.\n12:23), he said: \"Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and\nbones, quickened by the Spirit of God, can.\" So it must be remembered,\nthroughout this discussion, that the Latter-day Saints do not believe\nthat God is a personage of flesh and blood; but a personage of flesh\nand bone and spirit, united. * * * * * * * * But now for the \"Mormon\"\nexposition of the text. Is Jesus Christ God? Was He God as He stood\nthere among His disciples in His glorious and, to use Mr. V's own\nword, \"sacred,\" resurrected body? There is but one answer that the\nReverend Catholic gentleman or any orthodox Protestant can give, and\nthat is in the affirmative--\"yes, Jesus is God.\" But \"God is a spirit!\"\nTrue, He is; but Jesus is a spirit inside a body--inside an immortal,\nindestructible body of flesh and bone; therefore, if Jesus is God,\nand God is a spirit, He is an embodied spirit, just as the Latter-day\nSaints teach.\n\nMr. Van Der Donckt endeavors to anticipate the \"Mormon\" answer to\nthis argument by saying: \"I am well aware that the Latter-day Saints\ninterpret those texts as meaning a spirit clothed with a body, but what\nnearly the whole of mankind, Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans, have\nbelieved for ages, cannot be upset by the gratuitous assertions of a\nreligious innovator of this last century.\"\n\nAt this point, I will not appeal to or quote the \"gratuitous assertions\nof a religious innovator of this last century\"--meaning Joseph Smith.\nThere is no need of that. If I were an unbeliever in the true Deity of\nChrist, I might take up the gentleman's argument in this way: You say\nGod is a spirit, and hence bodiless, immaterial? His answer must be,\n\"Yes.\" But Jesus says, \"a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me\nhave.\"--Hence Jesus is not God, because He is a personage of flesh and\nbone, in the form of man--not bodiless or immaterial. (This refers to\nthe Christ after his resurrection when he was a resurrected man and\nimmortal in that state). This, of course, is not my point. I merely\nrefer to it in the beaten way of good fellowship, and by way of caution\nto my Catholic friend, who, I am sure, in his way, is as anxious to\nmaintain the true Deity of the Nazarene as I am; but his method of\nhandling the text, \"God is a spirit,\" might lead him into serious\ndifficulty in upholding the truth that Jesus was and is true Deity, if\nin argument with an infidel.\n\n6. _Of God Being Invisible:_ Mr. Van Der Donckt thinks he sees\nfurther proof of God's being a \"Spirit,\" and therefore immaterial\nor bodiless, in the fact that He is spoken of in the Bible as being\n\"invisible.\" Moses \"was strong as seeing Him that is invisible,\" (Heb.\n11:27); \"No man hath seen God at any time\" (I John 4: 12). \"The King\nof kings--whom no man hath seen nor can see,\" (I Tim. 6: 16); are the\npassages he relies upon for the proof of his contention.\n\nOf course, Mr. V. is aware of the fact--for he mentions it--that these\npassages are confronted with the explicit statement of scripture\nthat God has been seen by men. Moses saw Him. At one stage of his\nexperience, the great Hebrew prophet was told that he could not see\nGod's face; \"for,\" said the Lord, \"there shall no man see Me and live.\"\nBut even at that time, Moses was placed in a cleft of the rock, \"and\nthou shalt see My back parts,\" said the Lord to him; \"but My face shall\nnot be seen\" (Exodus 23: 18-23). On another occasion, Moses, Aaron,\nNadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, saw God. \"And\nthey saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet as it were, a\npaved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his\nclearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not\nhis hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.\" (Ex. 24: 9-11).\n\nIsaiah saw Him: 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted\nup, and His train filled the temple.' At the same time the seraphims\nproclaimed His holiness, saying, \"Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of\nhosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.\" Then said Isaiah: \"Woe is\nme! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell\nin the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the\nKing, the Lord of hosts.\" (Isaiah 6: 1-5).\n\nTo harmonize these apparitions of God to men with his theory of the\ninvisibility of God, Mr. V. appeals to the writings of some of the\nChristian fathers, and Cardinal Newman, from whose teachings he\nconcludes that God the Father is called \"invisible\" because \"he never\nappeared to bodily eyes; whereas the Son manifested Himself as an\nangel, and as a man after His incarnation. * * * Whenever the Eternal\nSon of God, or angels at God's behest, showed themselves to man, they\nbecame visible only through a body, or a material garb assumed for the\noccasion!\" \"Surely Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, the great English\nCardinal of the Roman church, and Mr. V. are in sore straits when they\nmust needs take refuge in the belief of such jugglery with matter as\nthis, in order to reconcile apparently conflicting scriptures. And\nwhat a shuffling off and on of material garbs there must have been,\nas from time to time hosts of angels and spirits appeared unto men!\nIt is but the materialization of the spiritualist mediums on a little\nlarger scale. But there is a better way of harmonizing the seeming\ncontradictions; and better authority for the conclusion to be reached\nthan the Christian fathers and Cardinal Newman. I mean the scriptures\nthemselves.\" (The argument in illustration of the last statement is\ntoo extended to quote here. See Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion, pp.\n80-84.)\n\n7. _Of Anthropomorphism and Understanding the Bible Literally:_\nI must say a word upon Mr. V's remarks respecting the plain\nanthropomorphism of the Bible, and the matter of understanding that\nsacred book literally. With reference to the first he says: \"All men,\nafter the example of the inspired writings, make frequent use of the\nfigure called anthropomorphism, attributing to the Deity a human\nbody, human members, human passions, etc., and that is done, not to\nimply that God is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make\nspiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man.\"\n\nI would like to know upon what authority Mr. V. adjudges the \"inspired\nwritings\" not to imply that God is really possessed of form, limbs,\npassions, etc., after attributing them to Him in the clearest manner.\nThe \"inspired writings\" plainly and most forcibly attribute to Deity\na form like man's, with limbs, organs, etc., but the Bible does not\nteach that this ascription of form, limbs, organs and passions to God,\nis unreal, and \"simply to make spiritual things or certain truths\nmore intelligible to man.\" On the contrary, the Bible emphasizes the\ndoctrine of anthropomorphism by declaring in its very first chapter\nthat man was created in the image of God: \"So God created man in His\nown image, in the image of God created he him.\" The explanation is\noffered that it was necessary to attribute human form, members and\npassions, to God, in order to make spiritual things intelligible to\nman; but what is the reason for ascribing the divine form to man, as in\nthe passage just quoted? Was that done to make human beings or certain\ntruths more intelligible to God? Or was it placed in the word of God\nbecause it is simply true?\n\nThe truth that God in form is like man, is further emphasized by the\nfact that Jesus is declared to have been in \"the express image\" of the\nFather's person (Heb. 1: 3); and until Mr. V. or some other person of\nhis school of thought, can prove very clearly that the word of God\nsupports his theory of the unreality of the Bible's ascription of form,\norgans, proportions, passions and feelings, to God and other heavenly\nbeings, the truth that God in form is like man, will stand secure on\nthe foundation of the revelations it has pleased God to give of His own\nbeing and nature.\n\n8. _\"The Morbid Terror of Anthropomorphism\":_ Dean Mansel, in his\n\"Limits of Religious Thought,\" administers a scathing reproof to the\nGerman philosophers Kant and Fichte (and also to Professor Jowett,\nin his note xxii in Lecture 1) for what he calls \"that morbid terror\nof what they are pleased to call anthropomorphism, which poisons the\nspeculation of so many modern philosophers, when they attempt to be\nwise above what is written, and seek for a metaphysical exposition of\nGod's nature and attributes.\" These philosophers, while holding in\nabhorrence the idea that God has a form such as man's--or any form\nwhatsoever--parts, organs, affections, sympathies, passions or any\nattributes seen in man's spirit, are, nevertheless, under the necessity\nof representing God as conscious, as knowing, as determining; all of\nwhich, as pointed out by Dean Mansel in the passage which follows,\nare, after all, qualities of the human mind as well as attributes of\nDeity; and hence the philosophers, after all their labor, have not\nescaped from anthropomorphism, but have merely represented Deity to\nour consciousness, shorn of some of the higher qualities of the human\nmind, which God is represented in the scriptures as possessing in their\nperfection--such as love, mercy, justice. (The very extended passage\nfrom Mansel's work will be found as foot note in \"Mormon Doctrine of\nDeity,\" pp. 85-88.)\n\n9. _Angels Bodiless Beings:_ According to Mr. Van Der Donckt's\ndoctrine, \"Angels as well as God are bodiless beings.\" Angels, both\ngood and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies. The Creator is more\nperfect than His creatures, and pure minds [minds separated from\nbodies] are more perfect than minds united to bodies. * * * Therefore\nthe Creator is a pure spirit.\" But where does this leave Jesus? Was\nand is Jesus God--true Deity? Yes. But Jesus is a spirit and body\nunited into one glorious personage. His mind was and is now united\nto and dwelling in a body. Our Catholic friend says, \"pure minds [i.\ne., minds not united to bodies] are more perfect than minds united to\nbodies.\" He also says, \"Angels, both good and bad, are spirits (i. e.,\nminds) devoid of bodies.\" Therefore, it must follow from his premises\nand argument, that angels are superior to Jesus, since His spirit is\nunited to a body, while they are minds not united to bodies! I will\nnot press the point, that the same conclusions could be drawn from his\npremises and argument with reference even to bad spirits, whom he says\nare bodiless, and hence, upon his theory, superior to minds or spirits\nunited to bodies, for that would be ungenerous upon my part, and would\nlay upon his faulty argument the imputation of awful blasphemy, which I\nam sure was not intended, and would be as revolting to him as it would\nbe to myself. Mr. V., I am sure, would contend as earnestly as I would\nthat Jesus is superior to the angels, though it is perfectly clear that\nHe is a spirit united to a body.\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. The Catholic priest, Van Der Donckt, who is stating this objection,\nuses the word \"what,\" although that word is not used in either the\ncommon English version, nor in the Douay (Catholic) Bible. \"Whom do men\nsay that I the Son of man am?\" Then to the apostles \"But whom say ye\nthat I am? (Matt. xvi, 13-14). This is from the common English version.\nThe Douay Bible gives the same passages, \"Who do men say that the son\nof man is?\" and \"Who do you say that I am?\" So really the question is\nnot _what_ the son of man is, but _who_; hence there is no\nsignificance added to the matter from the questions asked.\n\n\n\nLESSON XXXVII.\n\n(Scripture Reading Exercise.)\n\n_SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF DEITY. (Continued.)_\n\n  _ANALYSIS._                                             _REFERENCES._\n\n  _V. Objection: The Unity of God Excludes                   The same as in Lesson\n        the Idea of Plurality of                               xxxvi.\n        Gods._\n\n  _VI. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost\n         Are One and the Same Identical\n         Divine Essence of Being--Not\n         Three Separate Individuals._\n\n  _VII. The Answers._\n\n_SPECIAL TEXT: \"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God,\nand the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.\" II Cor.\nxiii:14_.\n\n_NOTES._\n\nThese notes are taken from the Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion on\nDeity. The Catholic Father states the objections and presents the\nargument for them; Elder Roberts gives the answers and argues for\ntheir accuracy and efficiency. The Debate in full is found in \"Mormon\nDoctrine of Deity,\" Chs. ii and iii.\n\n1. _Unity of God:_ Mr. Van Der Donckt says: The first chapter of\nthe Bible reveals the supreme fact that there is One Only and Living\nGod, the Creator and moral Governor of the universe. As Moses opened\nthe sacred Writings by proclaiming Him, so the Jew, in all subsequent\ngenerations, has continued to witness for Him, till from the household\nof Abraham, faith in the one only living and true God has spread\nthrough Jerusalem, Christianity and Mahometanism well-nigh over the\nearth.[1] Primeval revelations of God had everywhere become corrupted\nin the days of Moses, save among the chosen people. Therefore, the\nfirst leaf of the Mosaic record, as Jean Paul says, has more weight\nthan all the folies of men of science and philosophers.\n\nWhile all nations over the earth have developed a religious tendency\nwhich acknowledged a higher than human power in the universe, Israel is\nthe only one which has risen to the grandeur of conceiving this power\nas the One Only Living God. If we are asked how it was that Abraham\npossessed not only the primitive conception of the Divinity, as He had\nrevealed Himself to all mankind, but passed through the denial of all\nother gods, to the knowledge of the One God, we are content to answer,\nthat it was by a special divine revelation.[2]\n\nThe record of this divine revelation is to be found in the Bible:\n\"Hear, Israel: Our God is one Lord.\" \"I alone am, and there is no other\nGod besides me\" (Deut. 6:4 and 32:39). \"I am the first and I am the\nlast, and after me there shall be none\" (Isaiah 44:6; 43:10.) \"I will\nnot give my glory to another\" (Isaiah 42: 8; 45: 5, etc., etc.)\n\nAnd as Mr. Roberts admits that our conception of God must be in harmony\nwith the New Testament, it as well as the Old witnesses continually to\nOne True God. Suffice it to quote: \"One is good, God\" (Matthew 19: 17;)\n\"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God\" (Luke 10: 27); \"My Father of whom\nyou say that he is your God\" (John 8: 54). Here Christ testified that\nthe Jews believed in only one God.\n\n\"The Lord is a God of all Knowledge\" (I Kings 2). (\"Mormon\" Catechism\nv. Q. 10 and 11). \"Of that day and hour no one knoweth, no not the\nangels of heaven, but the Father alone\" (Matthew 24: 36). No one\nknoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke 10: 22). Therefore, no one\nis God but one, the Heavenly Father.\n\nIn another form: The All-knowing alone is God. The Father alone is\nall-knowing. Therefore the Father alone is God[3]\n\nFrom these clear statements of the Divine Book it is evident that all\nthe texts quoted by Mr. Roberts do not bear the inference he draws from\nthem; on the contrary, they directly make against him, plainly proving\nthe unity of God.\n\nFirst, then, if God so emphatically declares, both in the Old and in\nthe New Testament, that there is but one God, has anyone the right to\ncontradict Him and to say that there are several or many Gods? But Mr.\nRoberts insists that the Bible contradicts the Bible; in other words,\nthat God, the author of the Bible, contradicts Himself. To say such a\nthing is downright blasphemy.\n\nThe liability of self-contradiction is characteristic of human frailty.\nIt is incompatible with God's infinite perfections. Therefore, I most\nemphatically protest that there is no real contradiction in the Bible,\nthough here and there may exist an apparent one.\"\n\n2. _\"The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost Are One and the Same\nIdentical Divine Essence or Being:_ 'I and the Father are one.' (John\n10-30.) Christ asserts His physical, not merely moral, unity with the\nFather.\n\n\"My sheep hear My voice * * * and I give them everlasting life; and\nthey shall not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of My\nhand.\"\n\nThe following argument, by which Christ proves that no man shall pluck\nHis sheep from His hand, proves His consubstantiality, or the unity of\nHis nature or essence with His Father's:\n\n\"My Father who gave Me the sheep is greater than all men or creatures\n(v. 29), and therefore no one can snatch the sheep or aught else from\nHis hand. (Supreme or almighty power is here predicated of the Father.)\n\n\"Now, I and the Father are one (thing, one being), (v. 30). (Therefore,\nno one can snatch the sheep or aught else from My hand.)\n\nTo perceive the full meaning and strength of Jesus' argument, one must\nread and understand the original text of St. John's Gospel, that is,\nthe Greek; or the Latin translation: Ego et Pater unum sumus.\n\nIf Christ had meant one in mind, or one morally, and not substantially,\nHe would have used the masculine gender, Greek eis, (unus)--and not\nthe neuter en, (unum)--as He did. No better interpreters of our Lord's\nmeaning can be found than His own hearers. Had He simply declared His\nmoral union with the Father, the Jews would not have taken up stones in\nprotest against His making Himself God, and asserting His identity with\nthe Father. Far from retracting His statement or correcting the Jews'\nimpression, Jesus insists that as He is the Son of God, He has far\nmore right to declare Himself God than the scripture had to call mere\nhuman judges gods, and He corroborates His affirmation of His physical\nunity with His Father by saying: 'The Father is in Me, and I am in the\nFather,' which evidently signifies the same as verse 30: 'I and the\nFather are one and the same individual being, the One God.'\n\nThe preceding argument is reinforced by John xiv:8-11: 'Philip saith to\nhim: Lord, show us the Father. * * * Jesus saith: So long a time have\nI been with you and thou hast not known Me. Philip, he that seeth Me\nseeth the Father also. How sayest thou: Show us the Father. Do you not\nbelieve that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I\nspeak, I speak not of Myself. But the Father Who abideth in Me, He doth\nthe works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me.\nWhat things soever the Father doth, these the Son also doth likewise.\n(John v:19.)\n\nThese words are a clear assertion of the physical unity of the Son and\nthe Father. It is plain from the context that Christ means more than\na physical resemblance, no matter how complete, between Him and His\nFather. Of mere resemblance and moral union could never be said that\none is the other, and that the words uttered by one are actually spoken\nby the other. To see the Son and the Father at the same time in the\nSon, the Son and the Father must be numerically one Being. Now, Christ\nsays: 'He that seeth the Father.' Therefore, He and the Father are\nnumerically one Being.\"\n\n3. _The Holy Ghost:_ There remains to prove that the Holy Ghost\nis inseparably one with the Father and the Son. There are three who\ngive testimony in heaven, and these three are one. (1 John v:8.) As\nChrist proved His identity and unity with the Father by texts quoted:\n'The words that I speak, I speak not of Myself. But the Father Who\nabideth in Me, He doth the works,' so He now shows His unity with the\nHoly Ghost by almost the selfsame sentences: 'When the Spirit of Truth\nwill have come, He will teach you all truth; for He will not speak of\nHimself, but He will speak whatever He will hear, and will announce to\nyou the things to come. He will glorify Me, because He will receive of\nmine and announce to you: whatever the Father hath are Mine. Therefore,\nI said: because He will receive of Mine and announce it to you.' (John\nxvi:13-15.)\n\nThat the Holy Ghost is one with the Son, or Jesus, is proved also by\nthe fact that the Christian baptism is indiscriminately called the\nBaptism of the Holy Ghost, the Baptism in or with the Holy Ghost and\nthe Baptism of or in Jesus: 'He [Christ] shall baptize in the Holy\nGhost and fire' (that is, the Holy Ghost acting as purifying fire)\n(Matthew iii:11); 'have you received the Holy Ghost? We have not so\nmuch as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost.' He said: 'In what, then\n[in whose name, then] were you baptized?' Who said: 'In John's baptism\n* * * Having the instrument of the Father? heard these things they were\nbaptized in the name of the Lord Jesus\" (Acts 2:9). All we who are\nbaptized in Christ Jesus\" (Rom. 6:3).\n\n4. _The Answers: Of the Unity of God:_ The Latter-day Saints\nbelieve in the unity of the creative and governing force or power of\nthe universe as absolutely as any orthodox Christian sect in the world.\nOne cannot help being profoundly impressed with the great truth that\ncreation, throughout its whole extent, bears evidence of being one\nsystem, presents at every point unity of design, and harmony in its\ngovernment. Nor am I unmindful of the force there is in the deduction\nusually drawn from these premises, viz.: that the Creator and Governor\nof the universe must necessarily be one. But I am also profoundly\nimpressed by another fact that comes within the experience of man,\nat least to a limited extent, viz.: the possibility of intelligences\narriving at perfect agreement, so as to act in absolute unity. We see\nmanifestations of this principle in human governments, and other human\nassociations of various kinds. And this, too, is observable, viz.:\nthat the greater and more perfect the intelligence, the more perfect\ncan the unity of purpose and of effort become: so that one needs only\nthe existence of perfect intelligences to operate together in order to\nsecure perfect oneness, whence shall come the one system evident in\nthe universe, exhibiting at every point unity of design, and perfect\nharmony in its government. In other words, \"oneness\" can be the result\nof perfect agreement among Many Intelligences, as surely as it can\nbe the result of the existence of One Only Intelligence. Also, the\ndecrees and purposes of the perfectly united Many can be as absolute\nas the decrees and purposes of the One Only Intelligence. One is also\nconfronted with the undeniable fact that inclines him to the latter\nview as the reasonable explanation of the \"Oneness\" that is evidently\nin control of the universe--the fact that there are in existence many\nIntelligences, and, endowed as they are with free will, it cannot be\ndenied that they influence, to some extent, the course of events and\nthe conditions that obtain. Moreover, it will be found, on careful\ninquiry, that the explanation of the \"Oneness\" controlling in the\nuniverse, on the theory that it results from the perfect agreement or\nunity of Many Intelligences,[4] is more in harmony with the revelations\nof God on the subject than the theory that there is but One Only\nPersonal Intelligence that enters into its government. This theory Mr.\nVan Der Donckt, of course, denies, and this is the issue between us\nthat remains to be tested.\n\n5. _The Meaning of Elohim:_ The Reverend gentleman affirms that the\nfirst chapter of the Bible \"reveals the supreme fact that there is but\nOne Only and Living God.\" This I deny; and affirm the fact that the\nfirst chapter of the Bible reveals the existence of a plurality of Gods.\n\nIt is a matter of common knowledge that the word translated \"God\" in\nthe first chapter of our English version of the Bible, in the Hebrew,\nis Elohim--plural of Eloah--and should be rendered \"Gods\"--so as to\nread, \"In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth,\"\netc. * * * The Gods said, \"Let there be light.\" * * * The Gods said,\n\"Let us make man,\" etc., etc. So notorious is the fact that the Hebrew\nplural, Elohim, is used by Moses, that a variety of devices have been\nemployed to make the first chapter of Genesis conform to the \"One Only\nGod\" idea. Some Jews, in explanation of it, and in defense of their\nbelief in One Only God, hold that there are several Hebrew words which\nhave a plural form but singular meaning--of which Elohim is one--and\nthey quote as proof of this the word maim, meaning water, shamaim,\nmeaning heaven, and panim, meaning the face or surface of a person or\nthing. \"But,\" says a Christian Jewish scholar,[5] \"if we examine these\nwords, we shall find that though apparently they may have a singular\nmeaning, yet, in reality, they have a plural or collective one; thus,\nfor instance, 'maim,' water, means a collection of waters, forming\none collective whole; and thus again 'shamaim,' heaven, is also, in\nreality as well as form, of the plural number, meaning what we call in\na similar way in English 'the heavens'; comprehending all the various\nregions which are included under that title.\"\n\nOther Jewish scholars content themselves in accounting for this\ninconvenient plural in the opening chapter of Genesis, by saying that\nin the Hebrew, Elohim better represents the idea of \"Strong,\" \"Mighty,\"\nthan the singular form would, and for this reason it was used--a view\naccepted by not a few Christians. (The argument on the plural Elohim\ncontinues through eight more pages in \"Mormon Doctrine of Deity,\" from\np. 139 to p. 147. It is too elaborate to be reproduced here.)\n\n6. _Of the Father Alone Being God:_ Referring to the admission in\nmy discourse that conceptions of God, to be true, must be in harmony\nwith the New Testament, Mr. Van Der Donckt proceeds to quote passages\nfrom the New Testament, in support of the idea that there is but one\nGod:\n\n\"One is good, God (Matt. xix:17). Thou shalt love the Lord thy God\n(Luke x:27). My Father, of whom you say that He is your God (John\nviii:54). Here Christ testified that the Jews believed in only one God.\nThe Lord is a God of all knowledge (1 Kings ii). (\"Mormon\" Catechism\nV. Q. 10 and 2, 11). Of that day and hour no one knoweth, no, not\nthe angels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matthew xxiv:36). No one\nknoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke x:22). Therefore, no one\nis God but one, the Heavenly Father. In another form: the All-knowing\nalone is God. The Father alone is all-knowing. Therefore, the Father\nalone is God.\"\n\nIn the conclusion of the syllogism, \"Therefore, the Father alone is\nGod,\" Mr. V. himself seems to have become suddenly conscious of having\nstumbled upon a difficulty which he ineffectually seeks to remove in\na foot note. If it be true, as Mr. V. asserts it is, that the Father\nalone is God, then it must follow that the Son of God, Jesus Christ,\nis not God; that the Holy Ghost is not God! Yet the New Testament, in\nrepresenting the Father as addressing Jesus, says--\"Thy throne, O God,\nis forever and forever\" (Heb. i:8). Here is the positive word of the\nFather that Jesus, the Son, is God; for He addresses Him as such. To\nsay, then, that the Father alone is God, is to contradict the Father.\nSlightly paraphrasing the rather stern language of Mr. V., I might ask:\nIf God the Father so emphatically declares that Jesus is God, has any\none the right to contradict him by affirming that the Father alone is\nGod? But Mr. V. insists that the Bible contradicts the Bible; in other\nwords, that God, the author of the Bible, contradicts himself: \"To\nsay such a thing, is downright blasphemy!\" But Mr. V. will say he has\nexplained all that in his foot note. Has he? Let us see. \"Therefore,\nthe Father alone is God,\" is the conclusion of his syllogism; and the\nfoot note--\"To the exclusion of another or separate divine being, but\nnot to the denial of the distinct divine personalities of the Son\nand the Holy Ghost in the One Divine Being.\" But that is the mere\nassumption of my Catholic friend. When he says that the Father alone\nis God, it must be to the exclusion of every other being, or part of\nbeing, or person, and everything else, or language means nothing. Mr.\nV.'s foot note helps him out of his difficulty not at all.\n\n7. _\"The All-Knowing Alone is God\":_ (See note 1 this Lesson). The\ncreed to which Mr. Van Der Donckt subscribes--the Athanasian--says: \"So\nthe Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.\" Now, if\nthe quality of \"all-knowing\" is essential to the attributes of true\nDeity, then Jesus and the Holy Ghost must be all-knowing, or else not\ntrue deity.\n\nBut what of the difficulty presented by Mr. V's contention: \"The\nAll-knowing alone is God, the Father alone is All-knowing, therefore,\nthe Father alone is God?\" Mr. V. constructs this mighty syllogism\nupon a very precarious basis. It reminds one of a pyramid standing on\nits apex. He starts with the premise that \"The Lord is a God of all\nknowledge:\" then he discovers that there is one thing that Jesus, the\nSon of God does not know--the day and hour when Jesus will come to\nearth in his glory--\"Of that day and hour no one knoweth; no, not the\nangels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matt. 24: 36)--therefore, the\nFather alone is God!\" In consideration of facts such as are included\nin Mr. V's middle term, one is bound, in the nature of things, to take\ninto account time, place and circumstances. In the case in question,\nthe Twelve disciples had come to Jesus, and among other questions asked\nhim what should be the sign of his own glorious coming to earth again.\nThe Master told them the signs, but said of the day and hour of that\ncoming no one knew, but his Father only. Hence, Jesus did not know,\nhence Jesus did not possess all knowledge, hence, according to Mr. V.,\nJesus was not God! But Jesus was referring to the state of matters at\nthe particular time when he was speaking; and it does not follow that\nthe Father would exclude his Son Jesus forever, or for any considerable\ntime, from the knowledge of the time of the glorious advent of the Son\nof God to the earth. As Jesus rose to the possession of all power \"in\nheaven and in earth\" (Matt. 28: 18), so also, doubtless, he rose to the\npossession of all knowledge in heaven and in earth; \"For the Father\nloveth the Son, and showeth him all things that he himself doeth\" (John\n5: 20), and, in sharing with the Son his power, and his purposes, would\ndoubtless make known to him the day and hour of the glorious advent of\nChrist to the earth.\n\n8. _Of the Oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Is it Physical\nIdentity:_ I next consider Mr. Van Der Donckt's argument concerning\nthe Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost being \"the same identical Divine\nEssence.\" Mr. V. bases this part of his argument on the words of\nMessiah--\"I and my Father are one (John 10:30); and claims that here\n\"Christ asserts his physical, not merely moral, union with the Father.\"\n* * * * * * I shall test Mr. V's exegesis of the passage in question,\nby the examination of another passage involving the same ideas, the\nsame expressions; and this in the Latin as well as in the English.\nJesus prayed for His disciples as follows:\n\n\"Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given\nMe, that they may be one, as We are. * * * * Neither pray I for these\n[the disciples] alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me\nthrough their word; that they all may be one: * * * that they may be\none, even as we are one.\" (St. John 17:11, 20, 21, 22.)\n\nIn Latin, the clauses written in the above, stand: Ut sint unum, sicut\net nos (verse 11), \"that they may be one, just as We.\" So in verse 22:\nUt sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus; \"that they may be one in Us,\neven as We one are.\" Here unum, \"one,\" is used in the same manner as\nit is in St. John, 10:30--\"Ego et Pater unum sumus.\" \"I and Father one\nare.\" Mr. V. says that unum in the last sentence means, \"one thing,\"\none essence; hence, Christ's physical union, or identity of substance,\nwith the Father; not agreement of mind, or concord of purpose, or moral\nunion. Very well, for the moment let us adopt his exposition, and see\nwhere it will lead us. If unum in the sentence, Ego et Pater unum\nsumus, means \"one thing,\" \"one substance, or essence,\" and denotes the\nphysical union of the Father and Son in one substance, then it means\nthe same in the sentence--ut sint unum, sicut et nos; that is, \"that\nthey [the disciples] may be one [unum] just as We are.\" So in the other\npassage before quoted where the same words occur.\n\nAgain, to Messiah's statement: \"Ego et Pater unum sumus\"--\"I and my\nFather are one.\"--Mr. V. thinks his view of this passage--that it\nasserts the identity or physical union of the Father and the Son--is\nstrengthened by the fact that it is followed with these remarks of\nJesus: \"The Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.\" \"Which evidently\nsignifies,\" says Mr. V., \"the same as verse 30 (John 10); I and the\nFather are one and the same individual being, the one God.\"\n\nBut the passage from the prayer of Jesus concerning the oneness of the\ndisciples with the Father and the Son, is emphasized by well-nigh the\nsame words in the context, as those which occur in John 10:30 and upon\nwhich Mr. V. lays so much stress as sustaining his exposition of the\nphysical union, viz: \"The Father is in Me, and I in Him\" (verse 38).\n\"Which evidently signifies,\" Mr. V. remarks, \"the same as verse 30: I\nand my Father are one.\" Good; then listen: \"Holy Father, keep through\nThine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one as\nWe are: * * as thou Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they may\nbe one in Us.\" There can be no doubt now but what the union between\nthe disciples and the Father and Son, is to be of the same nature as\nthat subsisting between the Father and Son. If the Father and Son are\nphysically one substance or essence, so, too, if the prayer of Jesus\nis to be realized--as surely it will be--then the disciples are to be\nphysically united with God, in one essence or substance--not just the\nTwelve disciples, either, for whom Jesus immediately prayed, but those,\nalso, in all generations who shall believe on Christ through the words\nof His first disciples; that is, all the faithful believers, through\nall generations, are to become physically united with God, become\nthe same substance or essence as God Himself! Is Mr. Van Der Donckt\nprepared to accept the inevitable conclusion of his own exposition\nof John 10:30? If so, then what advantage has the Christian over\nthe Hindoo, whom he has called a heathen, for so many generations?\nThe sincerest desire of the Hindoo is to be \"physically united with\nGod,\" even if that involve \"a blowing out,\" or the attainment of\nNirvana--annihilation--to encompass it.[6] Of course, we had all hoped\nfor better things from the Christian religion. We had hoped for the\nimmortality of the individual man; for his persistence through the\nages as an individual entity, associated with God in loving converse\nand dearest relations of moral union; but not absorbed, or lost, in\nabsolute physical union with Him. But if Mr. V's exposition of John\n10:30 be correct, and a physical union is meant by the words--\"I and my\nFather are one,\" then all Christians are to be made physically one with\nGod under the prayer of Christ--\"That they may be one, as we are\"--i.\ne., as the Father and Son are one. * * * * * *\n\nMy point is, that the text, \"I and my Father are one,\" refers to a\nmoral union--to a perfect union of purpose and will--not to a unity\nor identity of substance, or essence: and any other view than this is\nshown from the argument to be absurd.\n\nBut Mr. Van Der Donckt would cry out against the physical union\nof man with God. Both his interpretation of scripture and his\nphilosophy--especially the latter--would require it. Man and God, in\nhis philosophy, are not of the same nature. God is not physical, while\nman is. God is not material, but spiritual, that is, according to Mr.\nV., immaterial, while man is material. Man is finite, God infinite;\nnothing can be added to the infinite, therefore, man cannot be added\nto the infinite in physical union. \"The nature of the parts would\ncling to the whole,\" and the infinity of God would be marred by the\nphysical union of finite parts to Him; hence, the oneness of Christians\nwith Christ and God the Father, is not a physical oneness. But if the\nunion of the Christians with Christ and God is not to be physical,\nthen neither is the union of Christ and God the Father physical, for\nthe oneness in the one case, is to be the same as the oneness in the\nother--\"that they all may be one; as thou Father, are in me, and I in\nthee, that they may also be one in us * * * * that they may be one even\nas We are one.\" (John 17:21, 22).\n\nThe doctrine of physical union between the Father and the Son,\ncontended for by Mr. V., must be abandoned. There is no help for it,\nunless he is prepared to admit also the physical union of all the\ndisciples with God--a thing most repugnant to Mr. V's principles. With\nthe doctrine of physical identity gone, the \"oneness\" of the Father\nand the Son, that Mr. V. contends for, goes also, and two separate and\ndistinct personalities, or Gods, are seen, in the Father and the Son,\nwhose oneness consists not of physical identity, but of agreement of\nmind, concord of will, and unity of purpose [the same holds also as to\nthe Holy Ghost]; a oneness born of perfect knowledge, equality of power\nand dominion. But if a perfect oneness, as above set forth, may subsist\nbetween two persons, [or three] it may subsist with equal consistency\namong any number of persons capable of attaining to the same degree of\nintelligence and power, and thus there would appear some reason for\nthe prayer of the Christ, that all His disciples might be one, even\nas He and the Father are one. And thus one may account for the saying\nof David: \"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: He judgeth\namong the Gods\" (Psalm 82: 1); for such congregations existed in heaven\nbefore the foundations of the earth were laid; and such a congregation\nmay yet be made up of the redeemed from our own earth, when they attain\nto perfect union with God and Christ.\n\nFootnotes\n\n1. \"Hours with the Bible,\" by Geikie, Vol. I, Chapters i, ii.\n\n2. \"Chips From a German Workshop,\" by Max Muller, vol. 1, pp. 345-372.\n\n3. To the exclusion of another or separate divine being, but not to the\ndenial of the distinct Divine Personalities of the Son and the Holy\nGhost in the One Divine Being.\n\n4. John Stuart Mill, in his Essay on Theism, in speaking of the evident\nunity in nature, which suggests that nature is governed by One Being,\ncomes very near stating the exact truth in an alternative statement\nto his first remark, viz.: \"At least, if a plurality be supposed, it\nis necessary to assume so complete a concert of action and unity of\nwill among them, that the difference is, for most purposes, immaterial\nbetween such a theory and that of the absolute unity of the Godhead.\"\n(Essays on Religion--Theism, p. 133.)\n\n5. This is Rev. H. Highton, M. A., and Fellow of Queen's College,\nOxford. I quote from his lecture on \"God a Unity and Plurality,\"\npublished in a Christian Jewish periodical called \"The Voice of\nIsrael,\" February number, 1844.\n\n6. Max Muller, \"Chips From a German Workshop,\" Vol. 1, p. 285.","title":"The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year: The Doctrine of Deity","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":97597}