(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF DEITY. (Continued.)

SPECIAL TEXT: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." II Cor. xiii:14.

NOTES.

These notes are taken from the Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion on Deity. The Catholic Father states the objections and presents the argument for them; Elder Roberts gives the answers and argues for their accuracy and efficiency. The Debate in full is found in "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," Chs. ii and iii.

1. Unity of God: Mr. Van Der Donckt says: The first chapter of the Bible reveals the supreme fact that there is One Only and Living God, the Creator and moral Governor of the universe. As Moses opened the sacred Writings by proclaiming Him, so the Jew, in all subsequent generations, has continued to witness for Him, till from the household of Abraham, faith in the one only living and true God has spread through Jerusalem, Christianity and Mahometanism well-nigh over the earth.^[1] Primeval revelations of God had everywhere become corrupted in the days of Moses, save among the chosen people. Therefore, the first leaf of the Mosaic record, as Jean Paul says, has more weight than all the folies of men of science and philosophers.

While all nations over the earth have developed a religious tendency which acknowledged a higher than human power in the universe, Israel is the only one which has risen to the grandeur of conceiving this power as the One Only Living God. If we are asked how it was that Abraham possessed not only the primitive conception of the Divinity, as He had revealed Himself to all mankind, but passed through the denial of all other gods, to the knowledge of the One God, we are content to answer, that it was by a special divine revelation.^[2]

The record of this divine revelation is to be found in the Bible: "Hear, Israel: Our God is one Lord." "I alone am, and there is no other God besides me" (Deut. 6:4 and 32:39). "I am the first and I am the last, and after me there shall be none" (Isaiah 44:6; 43:10.) "I will not give my glory to another" (Isaiah 42: 8; 45: 5, etc., etc.)

And as Mr. Roberts admits that our conception of God must be in harmony with the New Testament, it as well as the Old witnesses continually to One True God. Suffice it to quote: "One is good, God" (Matthew 19: 17;) "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" (Luke 10: 27); "My Father of whom you say that he is your God" (John 8: 54). Here Christ testified that the Jews believed in only one God.

"The Lord is a God of all Knowledge" (I Kings 2). ("Mormon" Catechism v. Q. 10 and 11). "Of that day and hour no one knoweth, no not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone" (Matthew 24: 36). No one knoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke 10: 22). Therefore, no one is God but one, the Heavenly Father.

In another form: The All-knowing alone is God. The Father alone is all-knowing. Therefore the Father alone is God^[3]

From these clear statements of the Divine Book it is evident that all the texts quoted by Mr. Roberts do not bear the inference he draws from them; on the contrary, they directly make against him, plainly proving the unity of God.

First, then, if God so emphatically declares, both in the Old and in the New Testament, that there is but one God, has anyone the right to contradict Him and to say that there are several or many Gods? But Mr. Roberts insists that the Bible contradicts the Bible; in other words, that God, the author of the Bible, contradicts Himself. To say such a thing is downright blasphemy.

The liability of self-contradiction is characteristic of human frailty. It is incompatible with God's infinite perfections. Therefore, I most emphatically protest that there is no real contradiction in the Bible, though here and there may exist an apparent one."

2. "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost Are One and the Same Identical Divine Essence or Being: 'I and the Father are one.' (John 10-30.) Christ asserts His physical, not merely moral, unity with the Father.

"My sheep hear My voice * * * and I give them everlasting life; and they shall not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of My hand."

The following argument, by which Christ proves that no man shall pluck His sheep from His hand, proves His consubstantiality, or the unity of His nature or essence with His Father's:

"My Father who gave Me the sheep is greater than all men or creatures (v. 29), and therefore no one can snatch the sheep or aught else from His hand. (Supreme or almighty power is here predicated of the Father.)

"Now, I and the Father are one (thing, one being), (v. 30). (Therefore, no one can snatch the sheep or aught else from My hand.)

To perceive the full meaning and strength of Jesus' argument, one must read and understand the original text of St. John's Gospel, that is, the Greek; or the Latin translation: Ego et Pater unum sumus.

If Christ had meant one in mind, or one morally, and not substantially, He would have used the masculine gender, Greek eis, (unus)—and not the neuter en, (unum)—as He did. No better interpreters of our Lord's meaning can be found than His own hearers. Had He simply declared His moral union with the Father, the Jews would not have taken up stones in protest against His making Himself God, and asserting His identity with the Father. Far from retracting His statement or correcting the Jews' impression, Jesus insists that as He is the Son of God, He has far more right to declare Himself God than the scripture had to call mere human judges gods, and He corroborates His affirmation of His physical unity with His Father by saying: 'The Father is in Me, and I am in the Father,' which evidently signifies the same as verse 30: 'I and the Father are one and the same individual being, the One God.'

The preceding argument is reinforced by John xiv:8-11: 'Philip saith to him: Lord, show us the Father. * * * Jesus saith: So long a time have I been with you and thou hast not known Me. Philip, he that seeth Me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou: Show us the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak, I speak not of Myself. But the Father Who abideth in Me, He doth the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. What things soever the Father doth, these the Son also doth likewise. (John v:19.)

These words are a clear assertion of the physical unity of the Son and the Father. It is plain from the context that Christ means more than a physical resemblance, no matter how complete, between Him and His Father. Of mere resemblance and moral union could never be said that one is the other, and that the words uttered by one are actually spoken by the other. To see the Son and the Father at the same time in the Son, the Son and the Father must be numerically one Being. Now, Christ says: 'He that seeth the Father.' Therefore, He and the Father are numerically one Being."

3. The Holy Ghost: There remains to prove that the Holy Ghost is inseparably one with the Father and the Son. There are three who give testimony in heaven, and these three are one. (1 John v:8.) As Christ proved His identity and unity with the Father by texts quoted: 'The words that I speak, I speak not of Myself. But the Father Who abideth in Me, He doth the works,' so He now shows His unity with the Holy Ghost by almost the selfsame sentences: 'When the Spirit of Truth will have come, He will teach you all truth; for He will not speak of Himself, but He will speak whatever He will hear, and will announce to you the things to come. He will glorify Me, because He will receive of mine and announce to you: whatever the Father hath are Mine. Therefore, I said: because He will receive of Mine and announce it to you.' (John xvi:13-15.)

That the Holy Ghost is one with the Son, or Jesus, is proved also by the fact that the Christian baptism is indiscriminately called the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Baptism in or with the Holy Ghost and the Baptism of or in Jesus: 'He [Christ] shall baptize in the Holy Ghost and fire' (that is, the Holy Ghost acting as purifying fire) (Matthew iii:11); 'have you received the Holy Ghost? We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost.' He said: 'In what, then [in whose name, then] were you baptized?' Who said: 'In John's baptism * * * Having the instrument of the Father? heard these things they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 2:9). All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 6:3).

4. The Answers: Of the Unity of God: The Latter-day Saints believe in the unity of the creative and governing force or power of the universe as absolutely as any orthodox Christian sect in the world. One cannot help being profoundly impressed with the great truth that creation, throughout its whole extent, bears evidence of being one system, presents at every point unity of design, and harmony in its government. Nor am I unmindful of the force there is in the deduction usually drawn from these premises, viz.: that the Creator and Governor of the universe must necessarily be one. But I am also profoundly impressed by another fact that comes within the experience of man, at least to a limited extent, viz.: the possibility of intelligences arriving at perfect agreement, so as to act in absolute unity. We see manifestations of this principle in human governments, and other human associations of various kinds. And this, too, is observable, viz.: that the greater and more perfect the intelligence, the more perfect can the unity of purpose and of effort become: so that one needs only the existence of perfect intelligences to operate together in order to secure perfect oneness, whence shall come the one system evident in the universe, exhibiting at every point unity of design, and perfect harmony in its government. In other words, "oneness" can be the result of perfect agreement among Many Intelligences, as surely as it can be the result of the existence of One Only Intelligence. Also, the decrees and purposes of the perfectly united Many can be as absolute as the decrees and purposes of the One Only Intelligence. One is also confronted with the undeniable fact that inclines him to the latter view as the reasonable explanation of the "Oneness" that is evidently in control of the universe—the fact that there are in existence many Intelligences, and, endowed as they are with free will, it cannot be denied that they influence, to some extent, the course of events and the conditions that obtain. Moreover, it will be found, on careful inquiry, that the explanation of the "Oneness" controlling in the universe, on the theory that it results from the perfect agreement or unity of Many Intelligences,^[4] is more in harmony with the revelations of God on the subject than the theory that there is but One Only Personal Intelligence that enters into its government. This theory Mr. Van Der Donckt, of course, denies, and this is the issue between us that remains to be tested.

5. The Meaning of Elohim: The Reverend gentleman affirms that the first chapter of the Bible "reveals the supreme fact that there is but One Only and Living God." This I deny; and affirm the fact that the first chapter of the Bible reveals the existence of a plurality of Gods.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the word translated "God" in the first chapter of our English version of the Bible, in the Hebrew, is Elohim—plural of Eloah—and should be rendered "Gods"—so as to read, "In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth," etc. * * * The Gods said, "Let there be light." * * * The Gods said, "Let us make man," etc., etc. So notorious is the fact that the Hebrew plural, Elohim, is used by Moses, that a variety of devices have been employed to make the first chapter of Genesis conform to the "One Only God" idea. Some Jews, in explanation of it, and in defense of their belief in One Only God, hold that there are several Hebrew words which have a plural form but singular meaning—of which Elohim is one—and they quote as proof of this the word maim, meaning water, shamaim, meaning heaven, and panim, meaning the face or surface of a person or thing. "But," says a Christian Jewish scholar,^[5] "if we examine these words, we shall find that though apparently they may have a singular meaning, yet, in reality, they have a plural or collective one; thus, for instance, 'maim,' water, means a collection of waters, forming one collective whole; and thus again 'shamaim,' heaven, is also, in reality as well as form, of the plural number, meaning what we call in a similar way in English 'the heavens'; comprehending all the various regions which are included under that title."

Other Jewish scholars content themselves in accounting for this inconvenient plural in the opening chapter of Genesis, by saying that in the Hebrew, Elohim better represents the idea of "Strong," "Mighty," than the singular form would, and for this reason it was used—a view accepted by not a few Christians. (The argument on the plural Elohim continues through eight more pages in "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," from p. 139 to p. 147. It is too elaborate to be reproduced here.)

6. Of the Father Alone Being God: Referring to the admission in my discourse that conceptions of God, to be true, must be in harmony with the New Testament, Mr. Van Der Donckt proceeds to quote passages from the New Testament, in support of the idea that there is but one God:

"One is good, God (Matt. xix:17). Thou shalt love the Lord thy God (Luke x:27). My Father, of whom you say that He is your God (John viii:54). Here Christ testified that the Jews believed in only one God. The Lord is a God of all knowledge (1 Kings ii). ("Mormon" Catechism V. Q. 10 and 2, 11). Of that day and hour no one knoweth, no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matthew xxiv:36). No one knoweth who the Son is but the Father (Luke x:22). Therefore, no one is God but one, the Heavenly Father. In another form: the All-knowing alone is God. The Father alone is all-knowing. Therefore, the Father alone is God."

In the conclusion of the syllogism, "Therefore, the Father alone is God," Mr. V. himself seems to have become suddenly conscious of having stumbled upon a difficulty which he ineffectually seeks to remove in a foot note. If it be true, as Mr. V. asserts it is, that the Father alone is God, then it must follow that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is not God; that the Holy Ghost is not God! Yet the New Testament, in representing the Father as addressing Jesus, says—"Thy throne, O God, is forever and forever" (Heb. i:8). Here is the positive word of the Father that Jesus, the Son, is God; for He addresses Him as such. To say, then, that the Father alone is God, is to contradict the Father. Slightly paraphrasing the rather stern language of Mr. V., I might ask: If God the Father so emphatically declares that Jesus is God, has any one the right to contradict him by affirming that the Father alone is God? But Mr. V. insists that the Bible contradicts the Bible; in other words, that God, the author of the Bible, contradicts himself: "To say such a thing, is downright blasphemy!" But Mr. V. will say he has explained all that in his foot note. Has he? Let us see. "Therefore, the Father alone is God," is the conclusion of his syllogism; and the foot note—"To the exclusion of another or separate divine being, but not to the denial of the distinct divine personalities of the Son and the Holy Ghost in the One Divine Being." But that is the mere assumption of my Catholic friend. When he says that the Father alone is God, it must be to the exclusion of every other being, or part of being, or person, and everything else, or language means nothing. Mr. V.'s foot note helps him out of his difficulty not at all.

7. "The All-Knowing Alone is God": (See note 1 this Lesson). The creed to which Mr. Van Der Donckt subscribes—the Athanasian—says: "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God." Now, if the quality of "all-knowing" is essential to the attributes of true Deity, then Jesus and the Holy Ghost must be all-knowing, or else not true deity.

But what of the difficulty presented by Mr. V's contention: "The All-knowing alone is God, the Father alone is All-knowing, therefore, the Father alone is God?" Mr. V. constructs this mighty syllogism upon a very precarious basis. It reminds one of a pyramid standing on its apex. He starts with the premise that "The Lord is a God of all knowledge:" then he discovers that there is one thing that Jesus, the Son of God does not know—the day and hour when Jesus will come to earth in his glory—"Of that day and hour no one knoweth; no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone (Matt. 24: 36)—therefore, the Father alone is God!" In consideration of facts such as are included in Mr. V's middle term, one is bound, in the nature of things, to take into account time, place and circumstances. In the case in question, the Twelve disciples had come to Jesus, and among other questions asked him what should be the sign of his own glorious coming to earth again. The Master told them the signs, but said of the day and hour of that coming no one knew, but his Father only. Hence, Jesus did not know, hence Jesus did not possess all knowledge, hence, according to Mr. V., Jesus was not God! But Jesus was referring to the state of matters at the particular time when he was speaking; and it does not follow that the Father would exclude his Son Jesus forever, or for any considerable time, from the knowledge of the time of the glorious advent of the Son of God to the earth. As Jesus rose to the possession of all power "in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28: 18), so also, doubtless, he rose to the possession of all knowledge in heaven and in earth; "For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that he himself doeth" (John 5: 20), and, in sharing with the Son his power, and his purposes, would doubtless make known to him the day and hour of the glorious advent of Christ to the earth.

8. Of the Oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Is it Physical Identity: I next consider Mr. Van Der Donckt's argument concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost being "the same identical Divine Essence." Mr. V. bases this part of his argument on the words of Messiah—"I and my Father are one (John 10:30); and claims that here "Christ asserts his physical, not merely moral, union with the Father." * * * * * * I shall test Mr. V's exegesis of the passage in question, by the examination of another passage involving the same ideas, the same expressions; and this in the Latin as well as in the English. Jesus prayed for His disciples as follows:

"Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are. * * * * Neither pray I for these [the disciples] alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; that they all may be one: * * * that they may be one, even as we are one." (St. John 17:11, 20, 21, 22.)

In Latin, the clauses written in the above, stand: Ut sint unum, sicut et nos (verse 11), "that they may be one, just as We." So in verse 22: Ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus; "that they may be one in Us, even as We one are." Here unum, "one," is used in the same manner as it is in St. John, 10:30—"Ego et Pater unum sumus." "I and Father one are." Mr. V. says that unum in the last sentence means, "one thing," one essence; hence, Christ's physical union, or identity of substance, with the Father; not agreement of mind, or concord of purpose, or moral union. Very well, for the moment let us adopt his exposition, and see where it will lead us. If unum in the sentence, Ego et Pater unum sumus, means "one thing," "one substance, or essence," and denotes the physical union of the Father and Son in one substance, then it means the same in the sentence—ut sint unum, sicut et nos; that is, "that they [the disciples] may be one [unum] just as We are." So in the other passage before quoted where the same words occur.

Again, to Messiah's statement: "Ego et Pater unum sumus"—"I and my Father are one."—Mr. V. thinks his view of this passage—that it asserts the identity or physical union of the Father and the Son—is strengthened by the fact that it is followed with these remarks of Jesus: "The Father is in Me, and I am in the Father." "Which evidently signifies," says Mr. V., "the same as verse 30 (John 10); I and the Father are one and the same individual being, the one God."

But the passage from the prayer of Jesus concerning the oneness of the disciples with the Father and the Son, is emphasized by well-nigh the same words in the context, as those which occur in John 10:30 and upon which Mr. V. lays so much stress as sustaining his exposition of the physical union, viz: "The Father is in Me, and I in Him" (verse 38). "Which evidently signifies," Mr. V. remarks, "the same as verse 30: I and my Father are one." Good; then listen: "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one as We are: * * as thou Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they may be one in Us." There can be no doubt now but what the union between the disciples and the Father and Son, is to be of the same nature as that subsisting between the Father and Son. If the Father and Son are physically one substance or essence, so, too, if the prayer of Jesus is to be realized—as surely it will be—then the disciples are to be physically united with God, in one essence or substance—not just the Twelve disciples, either, for whom Jesus immediately prayed, but those, also, in all generations who shall believe on Christ through the words of His first disciples; that is, all the faithful believers, through all generations, are to become physically united with God, become the same substance or essence as God Himself! Is Mr. Van Der Donckt prepared to accept the inevitable conclusion of his own exposition of John 10:30? If so, then what advantage has the Christian over the Hindoo, whom he has called a heathen, for so many generations? The sincerest desire of the Hindoo is to be "physically united with God," even if that involve "a blowing out," or the attainment of Nirvana—annihilation—to encompass it.^[6] Of course, we had all hoped for better things from the Christian religion. We had hoped for the immortality of the individual man; for his persistence through the ages as an individual entity, associated with God in loving converse and dearest relations of moral union; but not absorbed, or lost, in absolute physical union with Him. But if Mr. V's exposition of John 10:30 be correct, and a physical union is meant by the words—"I and my Father are one," then all Christians are to be made physically one with God under the prayer of Christ—"That they may be one, as we are"—i. e., as the Father and Son are one. * * * * * *

My point is, that the text, "I and my Father are one," refers to a moral union—to a perfect union of purpose and will—not to a unity or identity of substance, or essence: and any other view than this is shown from the argument to be absurd.

But Mr. Van Der Donckt would cry out against the physical union of man with God. Both his interpretation of scripture and his philosophy—especially the latter—would require it. Man and God, in his philosophy, are not of the same nature. God is not physical, while man is. God is not material, but spiritual, that is, according to Mr. V., immaterial, while man is material. Man is finite, God infinite; nothing can be added to the infinite, therefore, man cannot be added to the infinite in physical union. "The nature of the parts would cling to the whole," and the infinity of God would be marred by the physical union of finite parts to Him; hence, the oneness of Christians with Christ and God the Father, is not a physical oneness. But if the union of the Christians with Christ and God is not to be physical, then neither is the union of Christ and God the Father physical, for the oneness in the one case, is to be the same as the oneness in the other—"that they all may be one; as thou Father, are in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us * * * * that they may be one even as We are one." (John 17:21, 22).

The doctrine of physical union between the Father and the Son, contended for by Mr. V., must be abandoned. There is no help for it, unless he is prepared to admit also the physical union of all the disciples with God—a thing most repugnant to Mr. V's principles. With the doctrine of physical identity gone, the "oneness" of the Father and the Son, that Mr. V. contends for, goes also, and two separate and distinct personalities, or Gods, are seen, in the Father and the Son, whose oneness consists not of physical identity, but of agreement of mind, concord of will, and unity of purpose [the same holds also as to the Holy Ghost]; a oneness born of perfect knowledge, equality of power and dominion. But if a perfect oneness, as above set forth, may subsist between two persons, [or three] it may subsist with equal consistency among any number of persons capable of attaining to the same degree of intelligence and power, and thus there would appear some reason for the prayer of the Christ, that all His disciples might be one, even as He and the Father are one. And thus one may account for the saying of David: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: He judgeth among the Gods" (Psalm 82: 1); for such congregations existed in heaven before the foundations of the earth were laid; and such a congregation may yet be made up of the redeemed from our own earth, when they attain to perfect union with God and Christ.

Footnotes

1. "Hours with the Bible," by Geikie, Vol. I, Chapters i, ii.2. "Chips From a German Workshop," by Max Muller, vol. 1, pp. 345-372.3. To the exclusion of another or separate divine being, but not to the denial of the distinct Divine Personalities of the Son and the Holy Ghost in the One Divine Being.4. John Stuart Mill, in his Essay on Theism, in speaking of the evident unity in nature, which suggests that nature is governed by One Being, comes very near stating the exact truth in an alternative statement to his first remark, viz.: "At least, if a plurality be supposed, it is necessary to assume so complete a concert of action and unity of will among them, that the difference is, for most purposes, immaterial between such a theory and that of the absolute unity of the Godhead." (Essays on Religion—Theism, p. 133.)5. This is Rev. H. Highton, M. A., and Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford. I quote from his lecture on "God a Unity and Plurality," published in a Christian Jewish periodical called "The Voice of Israel," February number, 1844.6. Max Muller, "Chips From a German Workshop," Vol. 1, p. 285.