on union with god nihil obstat. f. thos. bergh, o.s.b., censor deputatus. imprimatur. edm. can. surmont, vicarius generalis. westmonasterii, _die 7 decembris, 1911_. [_all rights reserved_] _the angelus series_ on union with god by blessed albert the great, o.p. with notes by rev. p. j. berthier, o.p. translated by a benedictine of princethorpe priory _r. & t. washbourne, ltd._ paternoster row, london and at manchester, birmingham, and glasgow preface surely the most deeply-rooted need of the human soul, its purest aspiration, is for the closest possible union with god. as one turns over the pages of this little work, written by blessed albert the great[1] towards the end of his life, when that great soul had ripened and matured, one feels that here indeed is the ideal of one's hopes. simply and clearly the great principles are laid down, the way is made plain which leads to the highest spiritual life. it seems as though, while one reads, the mists of earth vanish and the snowy summits appear of the mountains of god. we breathe only the pure atmosphere of prayer, peace, and love, and the one great fact of the universe, the divine presence, is felt and realized without effort. but is such a life possible amid the whirl of the twentieth century? to faith and love all things are possible, and our author shows us the loving father, ever ready to give as much and more than we can ask. the spirit of such a work is ever true; the application may vary with circumstances, but the guidance of the holy spirit will never be wanting to those souls who crave for closer union with their divine master. this little treatise has been very aptly called the "metaphysics of the imitation," and it is in the hope that it may be of use to souls that it has been translated into english. blessed albert the great is too well known for it to be necessary for us to give more than the briefest outline of his life. the eldest son of the count of bollstädt, he was born at lauingen in swabia in 1205 or 1206, though some historians give it as 1193. as a youth he was sent to the university of padua, where he had special facilities for the study of the liberal arts. drawn by the persuasive teaching of blessed jordan of saxony, he joined the order of st. dominic in 1223, and after completing his studies, received the doctor's degree at the university of paris. his brilliant genius quickly brought him into the most prominent positions. far-famed for his learning, he attracted scholars from all parts of europe to paris, cologne, ratisbon, etc., where he successively taught. it was during his years of teaching at paris and cologne that he counted among his disciples st. thomas aquinas, the greatness of whose future he foretold, and whose lifelong friendship with him then began. in 1254 albert was elected provincial of his order in germany. in 1260 he was appointed bishop of ratisbon, but resigned his see in 1262. he then continued unweariedly until a few years before his death, when his great powers, especially his memory, failed him, but the fervour of his soul remained ever the same. in 1280, at cologne, he sank, at last worn out by his manifold labours. "whether we consider him as a theologian or as a philosopher, albert was undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary men of his age; i might say, one of the most wonderful men of genius who appeared in past times" (jourdain). very grateful thanks are due to rev. p. j. berthier, o.p., for his kind permission to append to this edition a translation of his excellent notes (from the french edition, entitled "de l'union avec dieu"). contents chapter page i. of the highest perfection which man can attain unto in this life 15 ii. how a man may despise all things and cleave to christ alone 19 iii. the law of man's perfection in this life 23 iv. that our labour must be with the understanding and not with the senses 27 v. of purity of heart, which is to be sought above all else 33 vi. that a man truly devout must seek god in purity of mind and heart 40 vii. of the practice of interior recollection 45 viii. that a truly devout man should commit himself to god in all that befalls him 52 ix. the contemplation of god is to be preferred above all other exercises 57 x. that we should not be too solicitous for actual and sensible devotion, but desire rather the union of our will with god 65 xi. in what manner we should resist temptation and endure trials 70 xii. the power of the love of god 76 xiii. of the nature and advantages of prayer,--of interior recollection 82 xiv. that everything should be judged according to the testimony of our conscience 88 xv. on the contempt of self: how it is acquired: its profit to the soul 94 xvi. of the providence of god, which watches over all things 102 "it is good for me to adhere to my god." "be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly father is perfect." on union with god chapter i of the highest perfection which man can attain unto in this life i have felt moved to write a few last thoughts describing, as far as one may in this waiting-time of our exile and pilgrimage, the entire separation of the soul from all earthly things and its close, unfettered union with god. i have been the more urged to this, because christian perfection has no other end but charity, which unites us to god.[2] this union of charity is essential for salvation, since it consists in the practice of the precepts and in conformity to the divine will. hence it separates us from whatever would war against the essence and habit of charity, such as mortal sin.[3] but religious, the more easily to attain to god, their last end, have gone beyond this, and have bound themselves by vow to evangelical perfection, to that which is voluntary and of counsel.[4] with the help of these vows they cut off all that might impede the fervour of their love or hinder them in their flight to god. they have, therefore, by the vow of their religious profession, renounced all things, whether pertaining to soul or body.[5] god is in truth a spirit, and "they that adore him must adore him in spirit and in truth,"[6] that is, with a knowledge and love, an intelligence and will purified from every phantom of earth. hence it is written: "when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber"--_i.e._, into the inmost abode of thy heart--and, "having shut the door" of thy senses, with a pure heart, a free conscience and an unfeigned faith, "pray to thy father" in spirit and in truth, in the "secret" of thy soul.[7] then only will a man attain to this ideal, when he has despoiled and stripped himself of all else; when, wholly recollected within himself, he has hidden from and forgotten the whole world, that he may abide in silence in the presence of jesus christ. there, in solitude of soul, with loving confidence he makes known his desires to god. with all the intensity of his love he pours forth his heart before him, in sincerity and truth, until he loses himself in god. then is his heart enlarged, inflamed, and melted in him, yea, even in its inmost depths. chapter ii how a man may despise all things and cleave to christ alone whosoever thou art who longest to enter upon this happy state or seekest to direct thither thy steps, thus it behoveth thee to act. first, close, as it were, thine eyes, and bar the doors of thy senses. suffer not anything to entangle thy soul, nor permit any care or trouble to penetrate within it. shake off all earthly things, counting them useless, noxious, and hurtful to thee.[8] when thou hast done this, enter wholly within thyself, and fix thy gaze upon thy wounded jesus, and upon him alone. strive with all thy powers, unwearyingly, to reach god through himself, that is, through god made man, that thou mayest attain to the knowledge of his divinity through the wounds of his sacred humanity. in all simplicity and confidence abandon thyself and whatever concerns thee without reserve to god's unfailing providence, according to the teaching of st. peter: "casting all your care upon him,"[9] who can do all things. and again it is written: "be nothing solicitous";[10] "cast thy care upon the lord and he shall sustain thee";[11] "it is good for me to adhere to my god";[12] "i set the lord always in my sight";[13] "i found him whom my soul loveth";[14] and "now all good things came to me"[15] together with him. this is the hidden and heavenly treasure, the precious pearl, which is to be preferred before all. this it is that we must seek with humble confidence and untiring effort, yet in silence and peace. it must be sought with a brave heart, even though its price be the loss of bodily comfort, of esteem, and of honour. lacking this, what doth it profit a religious if he "gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?"[16]. of what value are the religious state, the holiness of our profession, the shaven head, the outward signs of a life of abnegation, if we lack the spirit of humility and truth, in which christ dwells by faith and love? st. luke says: "the kingdom of god," that is, christ, "is within you."[17] chapter iii the law of man's perfection in this life in proportion as the mind is absorbed in the thought and care of the things of this world do we lose the fervour of our devotion, and drift away from the things of heaven. the greater, on the other hand, our diligence in withdrawing our powers from the memory, love and thought of that which is inferior in order to fix them upon that which is above, the more perfect will be our prayer, the purer our contemplation. the soul cannot give itself perfectly at the same time to two objects as contrary one to another as light to darkness;[18] for he who lives united to god dwells in the light, he who clings to this world lives in darkness. the highest perfection, therefore, of man in this life lies in this: that he is so united to god that his soul with all its powers and faculties becomes recollected in him and is one spirit with him.[19] then it remembers naught save god, nor does it relish or understand anything but him. then all its affections, united in the delights of love, repose sweetly in the enjoyment of their creator. the image of god which is imprinted upon the soul is found in the three powers of the reason, memory, and will. but since these do not perfectly bear the divine likeness, they have not the same resemblance to god as in the first days of man's creation.[20] god is the "form" of the soul upon which he must impress his own image, as the seal on the wax or the stamp on the object it marks.[21] this can only be fully accomplished when the reason is wholly illuminated according to its capacity, by the knowledge of god, the sovereign truth; the will entirely devoted to the love of the supreme good; the memory absorbed in the contemplation and enjoyment of eternal felicity, and in the sweet repose of so great a happiness. as the perfect possession of this state constitutes the glory of the blessed in heaven, it is clear that in its commencement consists the perfection of this life. chapter iv that our labour must be with the understanding and not with the senses blessed is he who by continually cleansing his soul from the images and phantoms of earth draws its powers inward, and thence lifts them up to god. at length he in a manner forgets all images, and by a simple and direct act of pure intellect and will contemplates god, who is absolutely simple. cast from thee, therefore, all phantoms, images, and forms, and whatsoever is not god,[22] that all thy intercourse with him may proceed from an understanding, affection, and will, alike purified. this is, in truth, the end of all thy labours, that thou mayest draw nigh unto god and repose in him within thy soul, solely by thy understanding and by a fervent love, free from entanglement or earthly image. not by his bodily organs or outward senses does a man attain to this, but by the intelligence and will, which constitute him man.[23] so long as he lingers, trifling with the objects of the imagination and senses, he has not yet passed beyond the limits and instincts of his animal nature, which he possesses in common with the brute beasts. they know and feel through images and by their senses, nor can it be otherwise, for they have no higher powers. not so is it with man, who, by his intelligence, affections, and will, is created in the image and likeness of god. hence it is by these powers that he ought, without intermediary, purely and directly to commune with god, be united to him, and cleave to him.[24] the devil does his very utmost to hinder us from this exercise, for he beholds in it a beginning and a foretaste of eternal life, and he is envious of man. therefore he strives, now by one temptation or passion, now by another, to turn away our thoughts from god. at one time he assails us by arousing in us unnecessary anxiety, foolish cares or troubles, or by drawing us to irregular conversations and vain curiosity. at another he ensnares us by subtle books, by the words of others, by rumours and novelties. then, again, he has recourse to trials, contradictions, etc. although these things may sometimes seem but very trifling faults, if faults at all, yet do they greatly hinder our progress in this holy exercise. therefore, whether great or small, they must be resisted and driven from us as evil and harmful, though they may seem useful and even necessary. it is of great importance that what we have heard, or seen, or done, or said, should not leave their traces or fill our imagination. neither before nor after, nor at the time, should we foster these memories or allow their images to be formed. for when the mind is free from these thoughts, we are not hindered in our prayer, in meditation, or the psalmody, or in any other of our spiritual exercises, nor do these distractions return to trouble us. then shouldst thou readily and trustfully commit thyself and all that concerns thee to the unfailing and most sure providence of god, in silence and peace. he himself will fight for thee, and will grant thee a liberty and consolation better, nobler, and sweeter than would be possible if thou gavest thyself up day and night to thy fancies, to vain and wandering thoughts, which hold captive the mind, as they toss it hither and thither, wearying soul and body, and wasting uselessly alike thy time and strength.[25] accept all things, whatsoever their cause, silently and with a tranquil mind, as coming to thee from the fatherly hand of divine providence. free thyself, therefore, from all the impressions of earthly things, in so far as thy state and profession require, so that with a purified mind and sincere affection thou mayest cleave to him to whom thou hast so often and so entirely vowed thyself. let nothing remain which could come between thy soul and god, that so thou mayest be able to pass surely and directly from the wounds of the sacred humanity to the brightness of the divinity. chapter v of purity of heart, which is to be sought above all else wouldst thou journey by the shortest road, the straight and safe way unto eternal bliss, unto thy true country, to grace and glory? strive with all thy might to obtain habitual cleanness of heart, purity of mind, quiet of the senses. gather up thy affections, and with thy whole heart cleave unto god. withdraw as much as thou canst from thy acquaintance and from all men, and abstain from such affairs as would hinder thy purpose. seek out with jealous care the place, time, and means most suited to quiet and contemplation, and lovingly embrace silence and solitude. beware the dangers of which the times are full; fly the agitation of a world never at rest, never still.[26] let thy chief study be to gain purity, freedom, and peace of heart. close the doors of thy senses and dwell within, shutting thy heart as diligently as thou canst against the shapes and images of earthly things. of all the practices of the spiritual life purity of heart stands highest, and rightly, for it is the end and reward of all our labours, and is found only with those who live truly according to the spirit and as good religious. wherefore thou shouldst employ all thy diligence and skill in order to free thy heart, senses, and affections from whatever could trammel their liberty, or could fetter or ensnare thy soul. strive earnestly to gather in the wandering affections of thy heart and fix them on the love of the sole and pure truth, the sovereign good; then keep them, as it were, enchained within thee. fix thy gaze unwaveringly upon god and divine things; spurn the follies of earth and seek to be wholly transformed in jesus christ, yea, even to the heart's core. when thou hast begun to cleanse and purify thy soul of earthly images, and to unify and tranquillize thy heart and mind in god with loving confidence, to the end that thou mayest taste and enjoy in all thy powers the torrents of his good pleasure, and mayest fix thy will and intelligence in him, then thou wilt no longer need to study and read the holy scriptures to learn the love of god and of thy neighbour, for the holy spirit himself will teach thee.[27] spare no pains, no labour, to purify thy heart and to establish it in unbroken peace. abide in god in the secret place of thy soul as tranquilly as though there had already risen upon thee the dawn of eternity, the unending day of god. strong in the love of jesus, go forth from thyself, with a heart pure, a conscience at peace, a faith unfeigned; and in every trial, every event, commit thyself unreservedly to god, having nothing so much at heart as perfect obedience to his will and good pleasure. if thou wouldst arrive thus far, it is needful for thee often to enter within thy soul and to abide therein, disengaging thyself as much as thou canst from all things. keep the eye of thy soul ever in purity and peace; suffer not the form and images of this world to defile thy mind; preserve thy will from every earthly care, and let every fibre of thy heart be rooted in the love of the sovereign good. thus will thy whole soul, with all its powers, be recollected in god and form but one spirit with him. it is in this that the highest perfection possible to man here below consists. this union of the spirit and of love, by which a man conforms himself in everything to the supreme and eternal will, enables us to become by grace what god is by his nature.[28] let us not forget this truth: the moment a man, by the help of god, succeeds in overcoming his own will, that is, in freeing himself from every inordinate affection and care, to cast himself and all his miseries unreservedly into the bosom of god, that moment he becomes so pleasing to god that he receives the gift of grace. grace brings charity, and charity drives out all fear and hesitation, and fills the soul with confidence and hope. what is more blessed than to cast all our care on him who cannot fail? as long as thou leanest upon thyself thou wilt totter. cast thyself fearlessly into the arms of god. he will embrace thee, he will heal and save thee.[29] if thou wouldst ponder often upon these truths they would bring to thee more happiness than all the riches, delights, honours, of this false world, and would make thee more blessed than all the wisdom and knowledge of this corruptible life, even though thou shouldst surpass all the wise men who have gone before thee. chapter vi that a man truly devout must seek god in purity of mind and heart as thou goest forward in this work of ridding thee of every earthly thought and entanglement thou wilt behold thy soul regain her strength and the mastery of her inward senses, and thou wilt begin to taste the sweetness of heavenly things. learn, therefore, to keep thyself free from the images of outward and material objects, for god loves with a special love the soul that is thus purified. his "delights" are "to be with the children of men,"[30] that is, with those who, set free from earthly affairs and distractions, and at peace from their passions, offer him simple and pure hearts intent on him alone. if the memory, imagination, and thoughts still dwell below, it follows of necessity that fresh events, memories of the past, and other things will ensnare and drag thee down. but the holy spirit abides not amid such empty thoughts. the true friend of jesus christ must be so united by his intelligence and will to the divine will and goodness that his imagination and passions have no hold over him, and that he troubles not whether men give him love or ridicule, nor heeds what may be done to him. know well that a truly good will does all and is of more value than all. if the will is good, wholly conformed and united to god, and guided by reason, it matters little that the flesh, the senses, the exterior man are inclined to evil and sluggish in good, or even that a man find himself interiorly lacking in devotion.[31] it suffices that he remains with his whole soul inwardly united to god by faith and a good will. this he will accomplish if, knowing his own imperfection and utter nothingness, he understands that all his happiness is in his creator. then does he forsake himself, his own strength and powers, and every creature, and hides himself in complete abandonment in the bosom of god. to god are all his actions simply and purely directed. he seeks nothing outside of god, but knows that of a truth he has found in him all the good and all the happiness of perfection. then will he be in some measure transformed in god. he will no longer be able to think, love, understand, remember aught save god and the things of god. he will no longer behold himself or creatures save in god; no love will possess him but the love of god, nor will he remember creatures or even his own being, save in god. such a knowledge of the truth renders the soul humble, makes her a hard judge towards herself, but merciful to others, while earthly wisdom puffs up the soul with pride and vanity. behold, this is wise and spiritual doctrine, grounded upon the truth, and leading unto the knowledge and service of god, and to familiarity with him. if thou desirest to possess him indeed, thou must of necessity despoil thy heart of earthly affections, not alone for persons, but for every creature, that thou mayest tend to the lord thy god with thy whole heart and with all thy strength, freely, simply, without fear or solicitude, trusting everything in entire confidence to his all-watchful providence.[32] chapter vii on the practice of interior recollection the author of the book entitled "de spiritu et anima" tells us (chap. xxi.)[33] that to ascend to god means nothing else than to enter into oneself. and, indeed, he who enters into the secret place of his own soul passes beyond himself, and does in very truth ascend to god. banish, therefore, from thy heart the distractions of earth and turn thine eyes to spiritual joys, that thou mayest learn at last to repose in the light of the contemplation of god. verily the soul's true life and her repose are to abide in god, held fast by love, and sweetly refreshed by the divine consolations. but many are the obstacles which hinder us from tasting this rest, and of our own strength we could never attain to it. the reason is evident--the mind is distracted and preoccupied; it cannot enter into itself by the aid of the memory, for it is blinded by phantoms; nor can it enter by the intellect, for it is vitiated by the passions. even the desire of interior joys and spiritual delights fails to draw it inward. it lies so deeply buried in things sensible and transitory that it cannot return to itself as to the image of god. how needful is it, then, that the soul, lifted upon the wings of reverence and humble confidence, should rise above itself and every creature by entire detachment, and should be able to say within itself: he whom i seek, love, desire, among all, more than all, and above all, cannot be perceived by the senses or the imagination, for he is above both the senses and the understanding. he cannot be perceived by the senses, yet he is the object of all our desires; he is without shape, but he is supremely worthy of our heart's deepest love. he is beyond compare, and to the pure in heart greatly to be desired. above all else is he sweet and love-worthy; his goodness and perfection are infinite. when thou shalt understand this, thy soul will enter into the darkness of the spirit, and will advance further and penetrate more deeply into itself.[34] thou wilt by this means attain more speedily unto the beholding in a dark manner of the trinity in unity, and unity in trinity, in christ jesus, in proportion as thy effort is more inward; and the greater is thy charity, the more precious the fruit thou wilt reap. for the highest, in spiritual things, is ever that which is most interior. grow not weary, therefore, and rest not from thy efforts until thou hast received some earnest or foretaste of the fulness of joy that awaits thee, and has obtained some first-fruits of the divine sweetness and delights. cease not in thy pursuit till thou shalt behold "the god of gods in sion."[35] in thy spiritual ascent and in thy search after a closer union with god thou must allow thyself no repose, no slipping back, but must go forward till thou hast obtained the object of thy desires. follow the example of mountain-climbers. if thy desires turn aside after the objects which pass below thou wilt lose thyself in byways and countless distractions. thy mind will become dissipated and drawn in all directions by its desires. thy progress will be uncertain, thou wilt not reach thy goal, nor find rest after thy labours. if, on the other hand, the heart and mind, led on by love and desire, withdraw from the distractions of this world, and little by little abandon baser things to become recollected in the one true and unchangeable good, to dwell there, held fast by the bonds of love, then wilt thou grow strong, and thy recollection will deepen the higher thou risest on the wings of knowledge and desire. they who have attained to this dwell as by habit in the sovereign good, and become at last inseparable from it. true life, which is god himself, becomes their inalienable possession;[36] for ever, free from all fear of the vicissitudes of time and change,[37] they repose in the peaceful enjoyment of this inward happiness, and in sweet communication with god. their abode is for ever fixed within their own souls, in christ jesus, who is to all who come to him "the way, the truth, and the life."[38] chapter viii that a truly devout man should commit himself to god in all that befalls him from all that has hitherto been said, thou hast understood, if i mistake not, that the more thou separatest thyself from earthly images and created objects, and the closer thy union with god, the nearer wilt thou approach to the state of innocence and perfection. what could be happier, better, sweeter than this? it is, therefore, of supreme importance that thou shouldst preserve thy soul so free from every trace or entanglement of earth that neither the world nor thy friends, neither prosperity nor adversity, things present, past, or future, which concern thyself or others, not even thine own sins above measure, should have power to trouble thee. think only how thou mayest live, as it were, alone with god, removed from the world, the simple and pure life of the spirit, as though thy soul were already in eternity and separated from thy body. there thou wouldst not busy thyself with earthly things, nor be disquieted by the state of the world, by peace or war, fair skies or foul, or anything here below. but thou wouldst be absorbed and filled by his love. strive even now in this present life to come forth in a manner from thy body and from every creature. as far as thou canst, fix the eye of thy soul steadfastly, with unobscured gaze, upon the uncreated light. then will thy soul, purified from the clouds of earth, be like an angel in a human body, no longer troubled by the flesh, or disturbed by vain thoughts. arm thyself against temptations, persecutions, injuries, so that in adversity as in prosperity, thou mayest still cleave to god in unbroken peace. when trouble, discouragement, confusion of mind assail thee, do not lose patience or be cast down. do not betake thee to vocal prayers or other consolations, but endeavour by an act of the will and reason to lift up thy soul and unite it to god, whether thy sensual nature will or no. the devout soul should be so united to god, should so form and preserve her will in conformity to the divine will, that she is no more occupied or allured by any creature than before it was created, but lives as though there existed but god and herself.[39] she will receive in unvarying peace all that comes to her from the hand of divine providence. in all things she will hope in the lord, without losing patience, peace, or silence. behold, therefore, of how great value it is in the spiritual life to be detached from all things, that thou mayest be interiorly united to god and conformed to him. moreover, there will then be no longer anything to intervene between thy soul and god. whence could it come? not from without, for the vow of voluntary poverty has despoiled thee of all earthly goods, that of chastity has taken thy body. nor could it come from within, for obedience has taken from thee thy very will and soul. there is now nothing left which could come between god and thyself. that thou art a religious, thy profession, thy state, thy habit and tonsure, and the other marks of the religious life declare. see to it whether thou art a religious in truth or only one in name. consider how thou art fallen and how thou sinnest against the lord thy god and against his justice if thy deeds do not correspond with thy holy state, if by will or desire thou clingest to the creature rather than to the creator, or preferrest the creature to the creator. chapter ix the contemplation of god is to be preferred above all other exercises whatever exists outside of god is the work of his hands. every creature is, therefore, a blending together of the actual and the possible, and as such is in its nature limited. born of nothing, it is surrounded by nothingness, and tends to nothingness.[40] of necessity the creature depends each moment upon god, the supreme artist, for its existence, preservation, power of action, and all that it possesses. it is utterly unable to accomplish its own work, either for itself or for another, and is impotent as a thing which is not before that which is, the finite before the infinite. it follows, therefore, that our life, thoughts, and works should be in him, of him, for him, and directed to him, who by the least sign of his will could produce creatures unspeakably more perfect than any which now exist. it is impossible that there should be in the mind or heart a thought or a love more profitable, more perfect or more blessed than those which rest upon god, the almighty creator, of whom, in whom, by whom, towards whom all tend. he suffices infinitely for himself and for others, since from all eternity he contains within himself the perfections of all things. there is nothing within him which is not himself. in him and by him exist the causes of all transitory things; in him are the immutable origins of all things that change, whether rational or irrational. all that happens in time has in him its eternal principle. he fills all; he is in all things by his essence, by which he is more present and more near to them than they are to themselves.[41] in him all things are united and live eternally.[42] it is true that the weakness of our understanding or our want of experience[43] may oblige us to make use of creatures in our contemplation, yet there is a kind of contemplation which is very fruitful, good, and real, which seems possible to all. whether he meditates on the creature or the creator, every man may reach the point at which he finds all his joy in his creator, god, one in trinity, and kindles the fire of divine love in himself or in others, so as to merit eternal life. we should notice here the difference which exists between the contemplation of christians and that of pagan philosophers. the latter sought only their own perfection, and hence their contemplation affected their intellect only; they desired only to enrich their minds with knowledge. but the contemplation of saints, which is that of christians, seeks as its end the love of the god whom they contemplate. hence it is not content to find fruit for the intelligence, but penetrates beyond to the will that it may there enkindle love. the saints desired above all in their contemplation the increase of charity. it is better to know jesus christ and possess him spiritually by grace, than, without grace, to have him in the body, or even in his essence. the more pure a soul becomes and the deeper her recollection, the clearer will be her inward vision. she now prepares, as it were, a ladder upon which she may ascend to the contemplation of god. this contemplation will set her on fire with love for all that is heavenly, divine, eternal, and will cause her to despise as utter nothing all that is of time. when we seek to arrive at the knowledge of god by the method of negation, we first remove from our conception of him all that pertains to the body, the senses, the imagination. then we reject even that which belongs to the reason, and the idea of being as it is found in creatures.[44] this, according to st. denis, is the best means of attaining to the knowledge of god,[45] as far as it is possible in this world. this is the darkness in which god dwells and into which moses entered that he might reach the light inaccessible.[46] but we must begin, not with the mind, but with the body. we must observe the accustomed order, and pass from the labour of action to the repose of contemplation, from the moral virtues to those of sublime contemplation.[47] why, o my soul, dost thou vainly wear thyself out in such multiplicity of things? thou findest in them but poverty. seek and love only that perfect good which includes in itself all good, and it will suffice thee. unhappy art thou if thou knowest and possessest all, and art ignorant of this. if thou knewest at the same time both this good and all other things, this alone would render thee the happier. therefore st. john has written: "this is eternal life: that they may know thee,"[48] and the prophet: "i shall be satisfied when thy glory shall appear."[49] chapter x that we should not be too solicitous for actual and sensible devotion, but desire rather the union of our will with god seek not too eagerly after the grace of devotion, sensible sweetness and tears, but let thy chief care be to remain inwardly united to god by good will in the intellectual part of the soul.[50] of a truth nothing is so pleasing to god as a soul freed from all trace and image of created things. a true religious should be at liberty from every creature that he may be wholly free to devote himself to god alone and cleave to him. deny thyself, therefore, that thou mayest follow christ, thy lord and god, who was truly poor, obedient, chaste, humble, and suffering, and whose life and death were a scandal to many, as the gospel clearly shows.[51] the soul, when separated from the body, troubles not as to what becomes of the shell it has abandoned--it may be burnt, hanged, spoken evil of; and the soul is not afflicted by these outrages,[52] but thinks only of eternity and of the one thing necessary, of which the lord speaks in the gospel.[53] so shouldst thou regard thy body, as though the soul were already freed from it. set ever before thine eyes the eternal life in god, which awaits thee, and think on that only good of which the lord said: "one thing is necessary."[54] a great grace will then descend upon thy soul, which will aid thee in acquiring purity of mind and simplicity of heart. and, indeed, this treasure is close at thy doors. turn from the images and distractions of earth, and quickly shalt thou find it with thee and learn what it is to be united to god without hindrance or impediment. then wilt thou gain an unshaken constancy, which will strengthen thee to endure all that may befall thee. thus was it with the martyrs, the fathers, the elect, and all the blessed. they despised all and thought only of possessing in god eternal security for their souls. thus armed within and united to god by a good will, they despised all that is of this world, as though their soul had already departed from the body. learn from them how great is the power of a good will united to god. by that union of the soul with god it becomes, as it were, cut off from the flesh by a spiritual separation, and regards the outward man from afar as something alien to it. then, whatever may happen inwardly or in the body will be as little regarded as though it had befallen another person or a creature without reason. he who is united to god is but one mind with him. out of regard, therefore, for his sovereign honour, never be so bold as to think or imagine in his presence what thou wouldst blush to hear or see before men. thou oughtest, moreover, to raise all thy thoughts to god alone, and set him before thine inward gaze, as though he alone existed. so wilt thou experience the sweetness of divine union and even now make a true beginning of the life to come. chapter xi in what manner we should resist temptation and endure trials he who with his whole heart draws nigh unto god must of necessity be proved by temptation and trial. when the sting of temptation is felt, by no means give thy consent, but bear all with patience, sweetness, humility, and courage. if thou art tempted to blasphemy or any shameful sin, be well assured thou canst do nothing better than to utterly despise and contemn such thoughts. blasphemy is indeed sinful, scandalous, and abominable, yet be not anxious about such temptations, but rather despise them, and do not let thy conscience be troubled by them. the enemy will most certainly be put to flight if thou wilt thus contemn both him and his suggestions. he is too proud to endure scorn or contempt. the best remedy is, therefore, to trouble no more about these thoughts than we do about the flies which, against our will, dance before our eyes. let not the servant of christ thus easily and needlessly lose sight of his master's presence, nor let him grow impatient, murmur, or complain of these flies; i mean these light temptations, suspicions, sadness, depression, pusillanimity--mere nothings which a good will can put to flight by an elevation of the soul to god. by a good will man makes god his master, and the holy angels his guardians and protectors. good will drives away temptation as the hand brushes away a fly. "peace," therefore, "to men of good will."[55] in truth no better gift than this can be offered to god. good will in the soul is the source of all good, the mother of all virtues. he who possesses it, possesses without fear of loss all he needs to live a good life.[56] if thou desirest what is good and art not able to accomplish it, god will reward thee for it as though thou hadst performed it.[57] he has established as an eternal and unchangeable law that merit should lie in the will, and that upon the will should depend our future of heaven or hell, reward or punishment.[58] charity itself consists in nothing else but a strong will to serve god, a loving desire to please him, and a fervent longing to enjoy him. forget not, therefore, temptation is not sin, but rather the means of proving virtue. by it man may gain great profit,[59] and this the more inasmuch as "the life of man upon earth is a warfare."[60] chapter xii the power of the love of god all that we have hitherto described, all that is necessary for salvation, can find in love alone its highest, completest, most beneficent perfection. love supplies all that is wanting for our salvation; it contains abundantly every good thing, and lacks not even the presence of the supreme object of our desires. it is by love alone that we turn to god, are transformed into his likeness, and are united to him, so that we become one spirit with him, and receive by and from him all our happiness: here in grace, hereafter in glory. love can find no rest till she reposes in the full and perfect possession of the beloved. it is by the path of love, which is charity, that god draws nigh to man, and man to god, but where charity is not found god cannot dwell. if, then, we possess charity we possess god, for "god is charity."[61] there is nothing keener than love, nothing more subtle, nothing more penetrating. love cannot rest till it has sounded all the depths and learnt the perfections of its beloved. it desires to be one with him, and, if it could, would form but one being with the beloved. it is for this reason that it cannot suffer anything to intervene between it and the object loved, which is god, but springs forward towards him, and finds no peace till it has overcome every obstacle, and reached even unto the beloved. love has the power of uniting and transforming; it transforms the one who loves into him who is loved, and him who is loved into him who loves. each passes into the other, as far as it is possible. and first consider the intelligence. how completely love transports the loved one into him who loves! with what sweetness and delight the one lives in the memory of the other, and how earnestly the lover tries to know, not superficially but intimately, all that concerns the object of his love, and strives to enter as far as possible into his inner life! think next of the will, by which also the loved one lives in him who loves. does he not dwell in him by that tender affection, that sweet and deeply-rooted joy which he feels? on the other hand, the lover lives in the beloved by the sympathy of his desires, by sharing his likes and dislikes, his joys and sorrows, until the two seem to form but one. since "love is strong as death,"[62] it carries the lover out of himself into the heart of the beloved, and holds him prisoner there. the soul is more truly where it loves than where it gives life, since it exists in the object loved by its own nature, by reason and will; whilst it is in the body it animates only by bestowing on it an existence which it shares with the animal creation.[63] there is, therefore, but one thing which has power to draw us from outward objects into the depths of our own souls, there to form an intimate friendship with jesus. nothing but the love of christ and the desire of his sweetness can lead us thus to feel, to comprehend and experience the presence of his divinity. the power of love alone is able to lift up the soul from earth to the heights of heaven, nor is it possible to ascend to eternal beatitude except on the wings of love and desire. love is the life of the soul, its nuptial garment, its perfection.[64] upon charity are based the law, the prophets, and the precepts of the lord.[65] hence the apostle wrote to the romans: "love is therefore the fulfilling of the law,"[66] and in the first epistle to timothy: "the end of the commandment is charity."[67] chapter xiii of the nature and advantages of prayer--of interior recollection of ourselves we are utterly unable to attain to charity or any other good thing. we have naught to offer to the lord, the author of all, which was not his already. one thing alone remains to us: that in every occurrence we should turn to him in prayer, as he himself taught us by word and example. let us go to him as guilty, poor, and miserable, as beggars, weak and needy, as subjects and slaves, yet as his children. of ourselves we are utterly destitute. what can we do but cast ourselves at his feet in deepest humility, holy fear mingling in our souls with love, peace, and recollection? and while we are fain to draw nigh with all lowliness and modesty, with minds sincere and simple, let our hearts burn with great desires, with ardour and heartfelt longings. and so let us supplicate our god, and lay before him with entire confidence the perils which menace us on every side. let us freely, unhesitatingly, and in all simplicity, confide ourselves to him, and offer him our whole being, even to the last fibre, for are we not in truth absolutely his? let us keep nothing for ourselves, and then will be fulfilled in us the saying of blessed isaac, one of the fathers of the desert, who, speaking of this kind of prayer, said: "we shall be one being with god, and he will be all in all to us, when that perfect charity by which he loved us first has entered into our inmost hearts."[68] this will be accomplished when god alone becomes the object of all our love, our desires, our striving, of all our efforts and thoughts, of all that we behold, speak of, hope for; when that union which exists between the father and the son, and between the son and the father shall be found also in our mind and soul. since his love for us is so pure, sincere, and unchanging, ought not we in return to give him a love constant and uninterrupted? so intimate should be our union with him that our hopes, thoughts, prayers breathe only god.[69] the truly spiritual man should set before him, as the goal of all his efforts and desires, the possession even in a mortal body, of an image of the happiness to come, and the enjoyment even here below of some foretaste of the delights, the life, and glory of heaven. this, i say, is the end of all perfection--that the soul may become so purified from every earthly longing, and so raised to spiritual things, that at last the whole life and the desires of the heart form one unbroken prayer. when the soul has thus shaken off the dust of earth and aspires unto her god, to whom the true religious ever directs his intention, dreading the least separation from him as a most cruel death; when peace reigns within and she is delivered from the bondage of her passions and cleaves with firmest purpose to the one sovereign good, then will be fulfilled in her the words of the apostle: "pray without ceasing,"[70] and "in every place, lifting up pure hands, without anger and contention."[71] when once this purity of soul has gained the victory over man's natural inclination for the things of sense, when all earthly longings are quenched and the soul is, as it were, transformed into the likeness of pure spirits or angels, then all she receives, all she undertakes, all she does, will be a pure and true prayer. only persevere faithfully in thy efforts and, as i have shown from the beginning, it will become as simple and easy for thee to contemplate god and rejoice in him in thy recollection as to live a purely natural life. chapter xiv that everything should be judged according to the testimony of our conscience there is also another practice which will tend greatly to thy progress in spiritual perfection, and will aid thee to gain purity of soul and tranquil rest in god. whatever men say or think of thee, bring it before the tribunal of thine own conscience. enter within thyself, and there, turning a deaf ear to all else, set thyself to learn the truth. then wilt thou see clearly that the praise and honour of men bring thee no profit, but rather loss, if thou knowest that thou art guilty and worthy of condemnation in the sight of truth. and, just as it is useless to be honoured outwardly by men if thy conscience accuse thee within, so in like manner is it no loss to thee if men despise, blame, or persecute thee without, if within thou art innocent and free from reproach or blame. nay, rather, thou hast then great reason to rejoice in the lord in patience, silence, and peace. adversity is powerless to harm where sin has no dominion; and just as there is no evil which goes unpunished, so is there no good without recompense. seek not with the hypocrites thy reward and crown from men, but rather from the hand of god, not now, but hereafter; not for a passing moment, but for eternity. thou canst, therefore, do nothing higher nor better in every tribulation or occurrence than enter into the sanctuary of thy soul, and there call upon the lord jesus christ, thy helper in temptation and affliction. there shouldst thou humble thyself, confessing thy sins, and praising thy god and father, who both chastises and consoles. there dispose thyself to accept with unruffled peace, readiness, and confidence from the hands of god's unfailing providence and marvellous wisdom all that is sent thee of prosperity or adversity, whether touching thyself or others. then wilt thou obtain remission of thy sins;[72] bitterness will be driven from thy soul, sweetness and confidence will penetrate it, grace and mercy will descend upon it. then a sweet familiarity will draw thee on and strengthen thee, abundant consolation will flow to thee from the bosom of god. then thou wilt adhere to him and form an indissoluble union with him. but beware of imitating hypocrites who, like the pharisees, try to appear outwardly before men more holy than they know themselves in truth to be. is it not utter folly to seek or desire human praise and glory for oneself or others, while within we are filled with shameful and grievous sins? assuredly he who pursues such vanities can hope for no share in the good things of which we spoke just now, but shame will infallibly be his lot. keep thy worthlessness and thy sins ever before thine eyes, and learn to know thyself that thou mayest grow in humility. shrink not from being regarded by all the world as filthy mud, vile and abject, on account of thy grievous sins and defects. esteem thyself among others as dross in the midst of gold, as tares in the wheat, straw among the grain, as a wolf among the sheep, as satan among the children of god. neither shouldst thou desire to be respected by others, or preferred to anyone whatsoever. fly rather with all thy strength of heart and soul from that pestilential poison, the venom of praise, from a reputation founded on boasting and ostentation, lest, as the prophet says, "the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul."[73] again, in isaias, we read: "they that call thee blessed, the same deceive thee, and destroy the way of thy steps."[74] also the lord says: "woe to you when men shall bless you!"[75] chapter xv on the contempt of self: how it is acquired: its profit to the soul the more truly a man knows his own misery, the more fully and clearly does he behold the majesty of god. the more vile he is in his own eyes for the sake of god, of truth, and of justice, the more worthy of esteem is he in the eyes of god. strive earnestly, therefore, to look on thyself as utterly contemptible, to think thyself unworthy of any benefit, to be displeasing in thine own eyes, but pleasing to god. desire that others should regard thee as vile and mean. learn not to be troubled in tribulations, afflictions, injuries; not to be incensed against those that inflict them, nor to entertain thoughts of resentment against them. try, on the contrary, sincerely to believe thyself worthy of all injuries, contempt, ill-treatment and scorn. in truth, he who for god's sake is filled with sorrow and compunction dreads to be honoured and loved by another. he does not refuse to be an object of hatred, or shrink from being trodden under foot and despised as long as he lives, in order that he may practise real humility and cleave in purity of heart to god alone. it does not require exterior labour or bodily health to love god only, to hate oneself more than all, to desire to seem little in the eyes of others: what is needed is rather repose of the senses, the effort of the heart, silence of the mind. it is by labouring with the heart, by the inward aspiration of the soul, that thou wilt learn to forsake the base things of earth and to rise to what is heavenly and divine. thus wilt thou become transformed in god, and this the more speedily if, in all sincerity, without condemning or despising thy neighbour, thou desirest to be regarded by all as a reproach and scandal--nay, even to be abhorred as filthy mire, rather than possess the delights of earth, or be honoured and exalted by men, or enjoy any advantage or happiness in this fleeting world. have no other desire in this perishable life of the body, no other consolation than unceasingly to weep over, regret and detest thy offences and faults. learn utterly to despise thyself, to annihilate thyself and to appear daily more contemptible in the eyes of others. strive to become even more unworthy in thine own eyes, in order to please god alone, to love him only and cling to him. concern not thyself with anything except thy lord jesus christ, who ought to reign alone in thy affections. have no solicitude or care save for him whose power and providence give movement and being to all things.[76] it is not now the time to rejoice but rather to lament with all the sincerity of thy heart. if thou canst not weep, sorrow at least that thou hast no tears to shed; if thou canst, grieve the more because by the gravity of thy offences and number of thy sins thou art thyself the cause of thy grief. a man under sentence of death does not trouble himself as to the dispositions of his executioners; so he who truly mourns and sheds the tears of repentance, refrains from delight, anger, vainglory, indignation, and every like passion. citizens and criminals are not lodged in like abodes; so also the life and conduct of those whose faults call for sighs and tears should not resemble those of men who have remained innocent and have nothing to expiate. were it otherwise, how would the guilty, great though their crimes may have been, differ in their punishment and expiation from the innocent? iniquity would then be more free than innocence. renounce all, therefore, contemn all, separate thyself from all, that thou mayest lay deep the foundations of sincere penance. he who truly loves jesus christ, and sorrows for him, who bears him in his heart and in his body, will have no thought, or care, or solicitude for aught else. such a one will sincerely mourn over his sins and offences, will long after eternal happiness, will remember the judgment and will think diligently on his last end in lowly fear. he, then, who wishes to arrive speedily at a blessed impassibility and to reach god, counts that day lost on which he has not been ill-spoken of and despised. what is this impassibility but freedom from the vices and passions, purity of heart, the adornment of virtue? count thyself as already dead, since thou must needs die some day. and now, but one word more. let this be the test of thy thoughts, words, and deeds. if they render thee more humble, more recollected in god, more strong, then they are according to god. but if thou findest it otherwise, then fear lest all is not according to god, acceptable to him, or profitable to thyself. chapter xvi of the providence of god, which watches over all things wouldst thou draw nigh unto god without let or hindrance, freely and in peace, as we have described? desirest thou to be united and drawn to him in a union so close that it will endure in prosperity and adversity, in life and in death? delay not to commit all things with trustful confidence into the hands of his sure and infallible providence. is it not most fitting that thou shouldst trust him who gives to all creatures, in the first place, their existence, power, and movement, and, secondly, their species and nature, ordering in all their number, weight, and measure? just as art presupposes the operations of nature, so nature presupposes the work of god, the creator, preserver, organizer, and administrator. to him alone belong infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, essential mercy, justice, truth, and charity, immutable eternity, and immensity. nothing can exist and act of its own power, but every creature acts of necessity by the power of god, the first moving cause, the first principle and origin of every action, who acts in every active being. if we consider the ordered harmony of the universe, it is the providence of god which must arrange all things, even to the smallest details. from the infinitely great to the infinitely small nothing can escape his eternal providence; nothing has been drawn from his control, either in the acts of free-will, in events we ascribe to chance or fate, or in what has been designed by him. we may go further: it is as impossible for god to make anything which does not fall within the dominion of his providence as it is for him to create anything which is not subject to his action. divine providence, therefore, extends over all things, even the thoughts of man. this is the teaching of holy scripture, for in the epistle of st. peter it is written: "casting all your care upon him, for he hath care of you."[77] and, again, the prophet says: "cast thy care upon the lord and he shall sustain thee."[78] also in ecclesiasticus we read: "my children, behold the generations of men; and know ye that no one hath hoped in the lord, and hath been confounded. for who hath continued in his commandment, and hath been forsaken?"[79] and the lord says: "be not solicitous, therefore, saying, what shall we eat?"[80] all that thou canst hope for from god, however great it may be, thou shalt without doubt receive, according to the promise in deuteronomy: "every place that your foot shall tread upon shall be yours."[81] as much as thou canst desire thou shalt receive, and as far as the foot of thy confidence reaches, so far thou shalt possess. hence st. bernard says: "god, the creator of all things, is so full of mercy and compassion that whatever may be the grace for which we stretch out our hands, we shall not fail to receive it."[82] it is written in st. mark: "whatsoever ye shall ask when ye pray, believe that you shall receive, and they shall come unto you."[83] the greater and more persistent thy confidence in god, and the more earnestly thou turnest to him in lowly reverence, the more abundantly and certainly shalt thou receive all thou dost hope and ask. but if, on account of the number and magnitude of his sins, the confidence of any should languish, let him who feels this torpor remember that all is possible to god, that what he wills must infallibly happen, and what he wills not cannot come to pass, and, finally, that it is as easy for him to forgive and blot out innumerable and heinous sins as to forgive one. on the other hand, it is just as impossible for a sinner to deliver himself from a single sin as it would be for him to raise and cleanse himself from many sins; for, not only are we unable to accomplish this, but of ourselves we cannot even think what is right.[84] all comes to us from god. it is, however, far more dangerous, other things being equal, to be entangled in many sins than to be held only by one. in truth, no evil remains unpunished, and for every mortal sin is due, in strict justice, an infinite punishment, because a mortal sin is committed against god, to whom belong infinite greatness, dignity, and glory. moreover, according to the apostle, "the lord knoweth who are his,"[85] and it is impossible that one of them should perish, no matter how violently the tempests and waves of error rage, how great the scandal, schisms and persecutions, how grievous the adversities, discords, heresies, tribulations, or temptations of every kind. the number of the elect and the measure of their merit is eternally and unalterably predestined. so true is this that all the good and evil which can happen to them or to others, all prosperity and adversity, serve only to their advantage. nay more, adversity does but render them more glorious, and proves their fidelity more surely. delay not, therefore, to commit all things without fear to the providence of god, by whose permission all evil of whatever kind happens, and ever for some good end. it could not be except he permitted it; its form and measure are allowed by him who can and will by his wisdom turn all to good. just as it is by his action that all good is wrought, so is it by his permission that all evil happens.[86] but from the evil he draws good, and thus marvellously shows forth his power, wisdom, and clemency by our lord jesus christ. so also he manifests his mercy and his justice, the power of grace, the weakness of nature, and the beauty of the universe. so he shows by the force of contrast the glory of the good, and the malice and punishment of the wicked. in like manner, in the conversion of a sinner we behold contrition, confession, and penance; and, on the other hand, the tenderness of god, his mercy and charity, his glory and his goodness. yet sin does not always turn to the good of those who commit it; but it is usually the greatest of perils and worst of ills, for it causes the loss of grace and glory. it stains the soul and provokes chastisement and even eternal punishment. from so great an evil may our lord jesus vouchsafe to preserve us! amen. r. and t. washbourne, ltd., printers, london. footnotes: [1] following the general tradition, we attribute this work to albert the great, but not all critics are agreed as to its authenticity. [2] albert the great is speaking here in a special manner of religious perfection, although what he says is also true of christian perfection in general. [3] he speaks here of the obligation laid upon all christians. [4] religious bind themselves to observe as a duty that which was only of counsel. to them, therefore, the practice of the counsels becomes an obligation. [5] the vows of religion have as their immediate object the removal of obstacles to perfection, but they do not in themselves constitute perfection. perfection consists in charity. albert the great speaks of only one vow, because in his day the formulas of religious profession mentioned only the vow of obedience, which includes the other two vows. [6] john iv. 24. [7] matt. vi. 6. [8] when albert the great and the other mystics warn us against solicitude with regard to creatures, they refer to that solicitude which is felt for creatures in themselves; they do not mean that we ought not to occupy ourselves with them in any way for god's sake. the great doctor explains his meaning in clear terms later on in this work. [9] 1 pet. v. 7. [10] phil. iv. 6. [11] ps. liv. 23. [12] ps. lxxii. 28. [13] ps. xv. 8. [14] cant. iii. 4. [15] wis. vii. 11. [16] matt. xvi. 26. [17] luke xvii. 21. [18] albert the great supposes here that we give ourselves equally to god and to creatures, which would be wrong, and not that creatures are subordinated to god, which would be a virtue. [19] this must be understood to mean that god is the principal and supreme end of all created activities. [20] the perfect image of god in man does not consist merely in the possession of those faculties by which we resemble him, but rather in performing by faith and love, as far as is in our power, acts like those which he performs, in knowing him as he knows himself, in loving him as he loves himself. [21] in scholastic theology the term "form" is used of that which gives to anything its accidental or substantial being. god is the "accidental form" of the soul, because in giving it its activity he bestows upon it something of his own activity, by means of sanctifying grace. yet more truly may it be said that god is also the "form" of the soul in the sense that it is destined by the ordinary workings of providence to participate by sanctifying grace in the being of god, enjoying thus a participation real, though created, in the divine nature. [22] we must avoid these things in so far as they separate us from god, but they may also serve to draw us nearer to him if we regard them in god and for god. [23] it is by the intelligence and will that man actually attains to this, but the use of the sensitive faculties is presupposed. [24] the sensitive faculties, if used as a means, often help us to draw near to god, but when used as an end, their activity becomes an obstacle. [25] this teaching is the christian rendering of the axiom formulated by the philosopher: "homo sedendo fit sapiens"--"it is in quiet that man gains wisdom." [26] this is especially true for religious. [27] by this is meant that the holy scriptures, though always presupposed as the foundation of our belief, of themselves give only an objective knowledge of god, while that which the holy ghost gives is experimental. [28] god knows and loves himself in himself by his own nature, while we know and love him in himself by grace. [29] a very striking feature in the doctrine of this book is that it requires first the perfection of the soul and the faculties, whence proceeds that of our actions. some modern authors, confining themselves to casuistry, speak almost exclusively of the perfection of actions, a method less logical and less thorough. [30] prov. viii. 31. [31] the exterior powers of a man are the imagination and passions; the interior his intelligence and will, which sometimes find themselves deprived of all the aids of sensible devotion. [32] in truth, all the designs of god in our regard are full of mercy, and tend especially to our sanctification; the obstacles to these designs come only from our evil passions. [33] the book "de spiritu et anima" is of uncertain authorship. it is printed after the works of st. augustine in migne's "patrologia latina," vol. xl., 779. [34] this darkness is the silence of the imagination, which no longer gains a hearing, and that of the intellect, which is sufficiently enlightened to understand that we can in reality understand nothing of the divinity in itself, and that the best thing we can do is to remove from our conception of god all those limitations which we observe in creatures. the reason of this is that we can only know god naturally by means of what we see in creatures, and these are always utterly insufficient to give us an adequate idea of the creator. [35] ps. lxxxiii. 8. [36] we only lose god, the uncreated good, by an unlawful attachment to created good; if we are free from this attachment, we tend to him without effort. [37] the subsequent condemnation, in 1687, of this doctrine, as taught by molino, could not, of course, be foreseen by blessed albertus writing in the thirteenth century. [38] john xiv. 6. [39] and this she does because creatures no longer occupy her, except for god's sake. [40] this is so because, according to true philosophy, the essence of a thing is distinct from its existence. [41] every actual cause is more intimately present to its accomplished work than the work itself, which it necessarily precedes. [42] john i. 3, 4. [43] we cannot always experience divine things, and at first we can only compare them to the things which we experience here below. [44] we deny that there is in god anything which is a mere potentiality, or an imperfection. we deny in him also the process of reasoning which is the special work of the faculty of reason, because this implies the absence of the vision of truth. we deny "being as it is found in creatures," because in creatures it is necessarily limited, and subject to accident. [45] "nom. div.," i. [46] exod. xxxiii. 11; num. xii. 8; heb. iii. 2. [47] it would be well to quote st. thomas, the disciple of albert the great, upon this important doctrine: "a thing may be said to belong to the contemplative life in two senses, either as an essential part of it, or as a preliminary disposition. the moral virtues do not belong to the essence of contemplation, whose sole end is the contemplation of truth.... but they belong to it as a necessary predisposition ... because they calm the passions and the tumult of exterior preoccupations, and so facilitate contemplation" ("sum.," 2, 2{ae}, q. 180, a. 2). this distinction should never be lost sight of in reading the mystic books of the scholastics. [48] john xvii. 3. [49] ps. xvi. 15. [50] this admirable doctrine condemns a whole mass of insipid, shallow, affected and sensual books and ideas, which have in modern times flooded the world of piety, have banished from souls more wholesome thoughts, and filled them with a questionable and injurious sentimentality. [51] matt. xi. 6; xiii. 57, etc. [52] this shows an excellent grasp of the meaning of the celebrated maxim "perinde ac cadaver." [53] luke x. 42. [54] _ibid._ [55] luke ii. 14. [56] nothing could be more conformable to the teaching of the gospel than this doctrine. at his birth jesus bids the angels sing that peace belongs to men of good will (luke ii. 14); later he will declare that his meat is to do the will of his father (john iv. 34); that he seeks not his own will, but the will of him who sent him (john v. 30); that he came down from heaven to accomplish it (john vi. 38); and when face to face with death he will still pray that the father's will be done, not his (matt. xxvi. 39; luke xxii. 42). over and over again, in the gospel, do we find him using the same language. he would have his disciples act in the same manner. it is not the man, he tells us, who repeats the words: "my father, my father," who shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of god (matt. vii. 21; rom. ii. 13; jas. i. 22); and in the prayer which he dictates to us he bids us ask for the accomplishment of this will as the means of glorifying god, and of sanctifying our souls (matt. vi. 10). finally, he tells us that if we conform ourselves to this sovereign will, we shall be his brethren (matt. xii. 50; mark iii. 35). when certain persons, pious or otherwise, confusing sentiment with true love, ask themselves if they love god, or if they will be able to love him always, we have only to ask them the same question in other words: are they doing the will of god? can they do it?--_i.e._, can they perform their duty for god's sake? put thus, the question resolves itself. the reason for such a doctrine is very simple: to love anyone is to wish him well; that, in the case of god, is to desire his beneficent will towards us. our lord and master recalled this principle when he said to his disciples, "you are my friends, if you do the things that i command you" (john xv. 14). [57] we must, in virtue of the same principle, keep a firm hold of the truth, as indisputable as it is frequently forgotten, that we have the merit of the good which we will to carry out and are unable to accomplish, as we have also the demerit of the evil we should have done and could not. [58] "upon the will depends our future of heaven or hell," because, given the knowledge of god, the will attaches itself to him by love, or hates him with obstinacy. [59] we may notice, in particular, a three-fold benefit: first, temptation calls for conflict, and so strengthens virtue; then it obliges a man to adhere deliberately to that virtue which is assailed by the temptation, and so gain a further perfection; finally, there are necessarily included in both the conflict and the adherence to good numerous virtuous, and therefore meritorious, acts. thus we may reap advantage from temptation both in our dispositions and our acts. [60] job vii. 1. [61] 1 john iv. 8. [62] cant. viii. 6. [63] the author is speaking here of the soul in so far as it is human, and it is as such that it is more where it loves than where it gives life. [64] without charity there is no perfect virtue, since without it no virtue can lead man to his final end, which is god, although it may lead him to some lower end. it is in this sense that, according to the older theologians, charity is the "form" of the other virtues, since by it the acts of all the other virtues are supernaturalized and directed to their true end--_i.e._, to god. _cf._ st. th. "sum.," 2, 2{ae}, q. 23, aa. 7, 8. [65] matt. xxii. 40. [66] rom. xiii. 10. [67] 1 tim. i. 5. [68] god can only love himself or creatures for his own sake; if we have this love within our souls we shall be in a certain sense one being with him. [69] this teaching is based on the definition that prayer is essentially "an elevation of the soul to god." [70] 1 thess. v. 17. [71] 1 tim. ii. 8. [72] remission may be obtained in this way of the fault in the case of venial sins, of the punishment due in all sins. [73] ps. ix. 24. [74] isa. iii. 12. [75] luke vi. 26. [76] st. thomas explains as follows both the possibility and the correctness of this opinion of ourselves: "a man can, without falsehood, believe and declare himself viler than all others, both on account of the secret faults which he knows to exist within him, and on account of the gifts of god hidden in the souls of others." st. augustine, in his work "de virginit.," ch. lii., says: "believe that others are better than you in the depths of their souls, although outwardly you may appear better than they." in the same way one may truthfully both say and believe that one is altogether useless and unworthy in his own strength. the apostle says (2 cor. iii. 5): "not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from god" ("sum.," 2, 2{ae}, q. 161, a. 6, 1{m}). [77] 1 pet. v. 7. [78] ps. liv. 23. [79] ecclus. ii. 11, 12. [80] matt. vi. 31. [81] deut. xi. 24. [82] _cf._ serm. i. in pent. [83] mark xi. 24. [84] 2 cor. iii. 5. [85] 2 tim. ii. 19. [86] the teaching of albert the great on divine providence is truly admirable. it is based upon the axiom that the actions of the creature do not depend partly upon itself and partly upon god, but wholly upon itself and wholly upon god (_cf._ st. thomas "cont. gent.," iii. 70). human causality is not parallel with the divine, but subordinate to it, as the scholastics teach. this doctrine alone safeguards the action of god and of that of the creature. the doctrine of parallelism derogates from both, and leads to fatalism by attributing to god things which he has not done, and suppressing for man the necessary principle of all good, especially that of liberty. it is the doctrine of subordinated causes also which explains how things decreed by god are determined by the supreme authority, and infallibly come to pass, without prejudice to the freedom of action of secondary causes. all this belongs to the highest theology. unhappily, certain modern authors have forgotten it. _the angelus series_ of authorized translations of standard foreign works, original works, and selections the first seven volumes are =on kindness.= by very rev. j. guibert, s.s. _20,000 copies sold in france._ =on character.= by very rev. j. guibert, s.s. _18,000 copies sold in france._ =on thanksgiving.= selected from father faber's works. by the hon. alison stourton. =from a garden jungle.= by an unpaid secretary. =on piety.= by very rev. j. guibert, s.s. _13,000 copies sold in france._ =on the exercises of piety.= by very rev. j. guibert, s.s. _13,000 copies sold in france._ =on union with god.= by blessed albert the great, o.p. with notes by rev. p. j. berthier, o.p. other volumes in preparation. _art linen, gilt, with ingrained paper sides, 1s. 3d. net._ _paste-grain leather, gilt top and back, 2s. 6d. net._ london: r. & t. washbourne, ltd., paternoster row. transcriber's notes: passages in italics or underlined are indicated by _italics_. passages in bold are indicated by =bold=. superscripted letters are indicated by {superscript}. john fiske's writings. =myths and myth-makers=: old tales and superstitions interpreted by comparative mythology. 12mo, $2.00. =outlines of cosmic philosophy.= based on the doctrines of evolution, with criticisms on the positive philosophy. in two volumes, 8vo, $6.00. =the unseen world=, and other essays. 12mo, $2.00. =excursions of an evolutionist.= 12mo, $2.00. =darwinism=, and other essays. 12mo, $2.00. =the destiny of man=, viewed in the light of his origin. 16mo, $1.00. =the idea of god=, as affected by modern knowledge. a sequel to "the destiny of man." 16mo, $1.00. [asterism] _for sale by all booksellers. sent by mail, post-paid, on receipt of price, by the publishers_, houghton, mifflin & co., boston. =american political ideas=, viewed from the stand-point of universal history. 12mo, $1.00. harper & brothers, new york. the idea of god as affected by modern knowledge [illustration; decorative symbol] by john fiske [illustration; decorative panel] boston and new york houghton, mifflin and company the riverside press, cambridge 1886 copyright, 1885, by john fiske. _all rights reserved._ _the riverside press, cambridge_: electrotyped and printed by h. o. houghton & co. to my wife, in remembrance of the sweet sunday morning under the apple-tree on the hillside, when we two sat looking down into fairy woodland paths, and talked of the things since written in this little book, i now dedicate it. * * * * * +arghyrion kai chrysion ouch hyparchei moi; ho de echô, touto soi didômi.+ preface when asked to give a second address before the concord school of philosophy, i gladly accepted the invitation, as affording a proper occasion for saying certain things which i had for some time wished to say about theism. my address was designed to introduce the discussion of the question whether pantheism is the legitimate outcome of modern science. it seemed to me that the object might best be attained by passing in review the various modifications which the idea of god has undergone in the past, and pointing out the shape in which it is likely to survive the rapid growth of modern knowledge, and especially the establishment of that great doctrine of evolution which is fast obliging us to revise our opinions upon all subjects whatsoever. having thus in the text outlined the idea of god most likely to be conceived by minds trained in the doctrine of evolution, i left it for further discussion to decide whether the term "pantheism" can properly be applied to such a conception. while much enlightenment may be got from carefully describing the substance of a philosophic doctrine, very little can be gained by merely affixing to it a label; and i could not but feel that my argument would be simply encumbered by the introduction of any question of nomenclature involving such a vague and uninstructive epithet as "pantheism." such epithets are often regarded with favour and freely used, as seeming to obviate the necessity for that kind of labour to which most people are most averse,--the labour of sustained and accurate thinking. people are too apt to make such general terms do duty in place of a careful examination of facts, and are thus sometimes led to strange conclusions. when, for example, they have heard somebody called an "agnostic," they at once think they know all about him; whereas they have very likely learned nothing that is of the slightest value in characterizing his opinions or his mental attitude. a term that can be applied at once to a comte, a mansel, and a huxley is obviously of little use in the matter of definition. but, it may be asked, in spite of their world-wide differences, do not these three thinkers agree in holding that nothing can be known about the nature of god? perhaps so,--one cannot answer even this plain question with an unqualified yes; but, granting that they fully agree in this assertion of ignorance, nevertheless, in their philosophic attitudes with regard to this ignorance, in the use they severally make of the assertion, in the way it determines their inferences about all manner of other things, the differences are so vast that nothing but mental confusion can come from a terminology which would content itself by applying to all three the common epithet "agnostic." the case is similar with such a word as "pantheism," which has been familiarly applied to so many utterly diverse systems of thought that it is very hard to tell just what it means. it has been equally applied to the doctrine of "the hindu philosophers of the orthodox brahmanical schools," who "hold that all finite existence is an illusion, and life mere vexation and mistake, a blunder or sorry jest of the absolute;" and to the doctrine of the stoics, who "went to the other extreme, and held that the universe was the product of perfect reason and in an absolute sense good." (pollock's "spinoza," p. 356.) in recent times it has been commonly used as a vituperative epithet, and hurled indiscriminately at such unpopular opinions as do not seem to call for so heavy a missile as the more cruel term "atheism." the writer who sets forth in plain scientific language a physical theory of the universe is liable to be scowled at and called an atheist; but, when the very same ideas are presented in the form of oracular apophthegm or poetic rhapsody, the author is more gently described as "tinctured with pantheism." but out of the chaos of vagueness in which this unhappy word has been immersed it is perhaps still possible to extract something like a definite meaning. in the broadest sense there are three possible ways in which we may contemplate the universe. _first_, we may regard the world of phenomena as sufficient unto itself, and deny that it needs to be referred to any underlying and all-comprehensive unity. nothing has an ultimate origin or destiny; there is no dramatic tendency in the succession of events, nor any ultimate law to which everything must be referred; there is no reasonableness in the universe save that with which human fancy unwarrantably endows it; the events of the world have no orderly progression like the scenes of a well-constructed plot, but in the manner of their coming and going they constitute simply what chauncey wright so aptly called "cosmical weather;" they drift and eddy about in an utterly blind and irrational manner, though now and then evolving, as if by accident, temporary combinations which have to us a rational appearance. this is atheism, pure and unqualified. it recognizes no omnipresent energy. _secondly_, we may hold that the world of phenomena is utterly unintelligible unless referred to an underlying and all-comprehensive unity. all things are manifestations of an omnipresent energy which cannot be in any imaginable sense personal or anthropomorphic; out from this eternal source of phenomena all individualities proceed, and into it they must all ultimately return and be absorbed; the events of the world have an orderly progression, but not toward any goal recognizable by us; in the process of evolution there is nothing that from any point of view can be called teleological; the beginning and end of things--that which is alpha and omega--is merely an inscrutable essence, a formless void. such a view as this may properly be called pantheism. it recognizes an omnipresent energy, but virtually identifies it with the totality of things. _thirdly_, we may hold that the world of phenomena is intelligible only when regarded as the multiform manifestation of an omnipresent energy that is in some way--albeit in a way quite above our finite comprehension--anthropomorphic or quasi-personal. there is a true objective reasonableness in the universe; its events have an orderly progression, and, so far as those events are brought sufficiently within our ken for us to generalize them exhaustively, their progression is toward a goal that is recognizable by human intelligence; "the process of evolution is itself the working out of a mighty teleology of which our finite understandings can fathom but the scantiest rudiments" ("cosmic philosophy," vol. ii. p. 406); it is indeed but imperfectly that we can describe the dramatic tendency in the succession of events, but we can see enough to assure us of the fundamental fact that there is such a tendency; and this tendency is the objective aspect of that which, when regarded on its subjective side, we call purpose. such a theory of things is theism. it recognizes an omnipresent energy, which is none other than the living god. it is this theistic doctrine which i hold myself, and which in the present essay i have sought to exhibit as the legitimate outcome of modern scientific thought. i was glad to have such an excellent occasion for returning to the subject as the invitation from concord gave me, because in a former attempt to expound the same doctrine i do not seem to have succeeded in making myself understood. in my "outlines of cosmic philosophy," published in 1874, i endeavoured to set forth a theory of theism identical with that which is set forth in the present essay. but an acute and learned friend, writing under the pseudonym of "physicus," in his "candid examination of theism" (london, 1878), thus criticizes my theory: in it, he says, "while i am able to discern the elements which i think may properly be regarded as common to theism and to atheism, i am not able to discern any single element that is specifically distinctive of theism" (p. 145). the reason for the inability of "physicus" to discern any such specifically distinctive element is that he misunderstands me as proposing to divest the theistic idea of every shred of anthropomorphism, while still calling it a theistic idea. this, he thinks, would be an utterly illegitimate proceeding, and i quite agree with him. in similar wise my friend mr. frederick pollock, in his admirable work on spinoza (london, 1880), observes that "mr. fiske's doctrine excludes the belief in a so-called personal god, and the particular forms of religious emotion dependent on it" (p. 356). if the first part of this sentence stood alone, i might pause to inquire how much latitude of meaning may be conveyed in the expression "so-called;" is it meant that i exclude the belief in a personal god as it was held by augustine and paley, or as it was held by clement and schleiermacher, or both? but the second clause of the sentence seems to furnish the answer; it seems to imply that i would practically do away with theism altogether. such a serious misstatement of my position, made in perfect good faith by two thinkers so conspicuous for ability and candour, shows that, in spite of all the elaborate care with which the case was stated in "cosmic philosophy," some further explanation is needed. it is true that there are expressions in that work which, taken singly and by themselves, might seem to imply a total rejection of theism. such expressions occur chiefly in the chapter entitled "anthropomorphic theism," where great pains are taken to show the inadequacy of the paley argument from design, and to point out the insuperable difficulties in which we are entangled by the conception of a personal god as it is held by the great majority of modern theologians who have derived it from plato and augustine. in the succeeding chapters, however, it is expressly argued that the total elimination of anthropomorphism from the idea of god is impossible. there are some who, recognizing that the ideas of personality and infinity are unthinkable in combination, seek to escape the difficulty by speaking of god as the "infinite power;" that is, instead of a symbol derived from our notion of human consciousness, they employ a symbol derived from our notion of force in general. for many philosophic purposes the device is eminently useful; but it should not be forgotten that, while the form of our experience of personality does not allow us to conceive it as infinite, it is equally true that the form of our experience of force does not allow us to conceive it as infinite, since we know force only as antagonized by other force. since, moreover, our notion of force is purely a generalization from our subjective sensations of effort overcoming resistance, there is scarcely less anthropomorphism lurking in the phrase "infinite power" than in the phrase "infinite person." now in "cosmic philosophy" i argue that the presence of god is the one all-pervading fact of life, from which there is no escape; that while in the deepest sense the nature of deity is unknowable by finite man, nevertheless the exigencies of our thinking oblige us to symbolize that nature in some form that has a real meaning for us; and that we cannot symbolize that nature as in any wise physical, but are bound to symbolize it as in some way psychical. i do not here repeat the arguments, but simply state the conclusions. the final conclusion (vol. ii. p. 449) is that we must not say that "god is force," since such a phrase inevitably calls up those pantheistic notions of blind necessity, which it is my express desire to avoid; but, always bearing in mind the symbolic character of the words, we may say that "god is spirit." how my belief in the personality of god could be more strongly expressed without entirely deserting the language of modern philosophy and taking refuge in pure mythology, i am unable to see. there are two points in the present essay which i hope will serve to define more completely the kind of theism which i have tried to present as compatible with the doctrine of evolution. one is the historic contrast between anthropomorphic and cosmic theism regarded in their modes of genesis, and especially as exemplified within the christian church in the very different methods and results of augustine on the one hand and athanasius on the other. the view which i have ventured to designate as "cosmic theism" is no invention of mine; in its most essential features it has been entertained by some of the profoundest thinkers of christendom in ancient and modern times, from clement of alexandria to lessing and goethe and schleiermacher. the other point is the teleological inference drawn from the argument of my first concord address on "the destiny of man, viewed in the light of his origin." when that address was published, a year ago, i was surprised to find it quite commonly regarded as indicating some radical change of attitude on my part,--a "conversion," perhaps, from one set of opinions to another. inasmuch as the argument in the "destiny of man" was based in every one of its parts upon arguments already published in "cosmic philosophy" (1874), and in the "unseen world" (1876), i naturally could not understand why the later book should impress people so differently from the earlier ones. it presently appeared, however, that none of my friends who had studied the earlier books had detected any such change of attitude; it was only people who knew little or nothing about me, or else the newspapers. whence the inference seemed obvious that many readers of the "destiny of man" must have contrasted it, not with my earlier books which they had not read, but with some vague and distorted notion about my views which had grown up (heaven knows how or why!) through the medium of "the press;" and thus there might have been produced the impression that those views had undergone a radical change. it would be little to my credit, however, had my views of the doctrine of evolution and its implications undergone no development or enlargement since the publication of "cosmic philosophy." to carry such a subject about in one's mind for ten years, without having any new thoughts about it, would hardly be a proof of fitness for philosophizing. i have for some time been aware of a shortcoming in the earlier work, which it is the purpose of these two concord addresses in some measure to remedy. that shortcoming was an imperfect appreciation of the goal toward which the process of evolution is tending, and a consequent failure to state adequately how the doctrine of evolution must affect our estimate of man's place in nature. nothing of fundamental importance in "cosmic philosophy" needed changing, but a new chapter needed to be written, in order to show how the doctrine of evolution, by exhibiting the development of the highest spiritual human qualities as the goal toward which god's creative work has from the outset been tending, replaces man in his old position of headship in the universe, even as in the days of dante and aquinas. that which the pre-copernican astronomy naively thought to do by placing the home of man in the centre of the physical universe, the darwinian biology profoundly accomplishes by exhibiting man as the terminal fact in that stupendous process of evolution whereby things have come to be what they are. in the deepest sense it is as true as it ever was held to be, that the world was made for man, and that the bringing forth in him of those qualities which we call highest and holiest is the final cause of creation. the arguments upon which this conclusion rests, as they are set forth in the "destiny of man" and epitomized in the concluding section of the present essay, may all be found in "cosmic philosophy;" but i failed to sum them up there and indicate the conclusion, almost within reach, which i had not quite clearly seized. when, after long hovering in the background of consciousness, it suddenly flashed upon me two years ago, it came with such vividness as to seem like a revelation. this conclusion as to the implications of the doctrine of evolution concerning man's place in nature supplies the element wanting in the theistic theory set forth in "cosmic philosophy,"--the teleological element. it is profoundly true that a theory of things may seem theistic or atheistic in virtue of what it says of man, no less than in virtue of what it says of god. the craving for a final cause is so deeply rooted in human nature that no doctrine of theism which fails to satisfy it can seem other than lame and ineffective. in writing "cosmic philosophy" i fully realized this when, in the midst of the argument against paley's form of theism, i said that "the process of evolution is itself the working out of a mighty teleology of which our finite understandings can fathom but the scantiest rudiments." nevertheless, while the whole momentum of my thought carried me to the conviction that it must be so, i was not yet able to indicate _how_ it is so, and i accordingly left the subject with this brief and inadequate hint. could the point have been worked out then and there, i think it would have left no doubt in the minds of "physicus" and mr. pollock as to the true character of cosmic theism. but hold, cries the scientific inquirer, what in the world are you doing? are we again to resuscitate the phantom teleology, which we had supposed at last safely buried between cross-roads and pinned down with a stake? was not bacon right in characterizing "final causes" as vestal virgins, so barren has their study proved? and has not huxley, with yet keener sarcasm, designated them the _hetairæ_ of philosophy, so often have they led men astray? very true. i do not wish to take back a single word of all that i have said in my chapter on "anthropomorphic theism" in condemnation of the teleological method and the peculiar theistic doctrines upon which it rests. as a means of investigation it is absolutely worthless. nay, it is worse than worthless; it is treacherous, it is debauching to the intellect. but that is no reason why, when a distinct dramatic tendency in the events of the universe appears as the _result_ of purely scientific investigation, we should refuse to recognize it. it is the object of the "destiny of man" to prove that there is such a dramatic tendency; and while such a tendency cannot be regarded as indicative of purpose in the limited anthropomorphic sense, it is still, as i said before, the objective aspect of that which, when regarded on its subjective side, we call purpose. there is a reasonableness in the universe such as to indicate that the infinite power of which it is the multiform manifestation is psychical, though it is impossible to ascribe to him any of the limited psychical attributes which we know, or to argue from the ways of man to the ways of god. for, as st. paul reminds us, "who hath known the mind of the lord, or who hath been his counsellor?" it is in this sense that i accept mr. spencer's doctrine of the unknowable. how far my interpretation agrees with his own i do not undertake to say. on such an abstruse matter it is best that one should simply speak for one's self. but in his recent essay on "retrogressive religion" he uses expressions which imply a doctrine of theism essentially similar to that here maintained. the "infinite and eternal energy from which all things proceed," and which is the same power that "in ourselves wells up under the form of consciousness," is certainly the power which is here recognized as god. the term "unknowable" i have carefully refrained from using; it does not occur in the text of this essay. it describes only one aspect of deity, but it has been seized upon by shallow writers of every school, treated as if fully synonymous with deity, and made the theme of the most dismal twaddle that the world has been deluged with since the days of mediæval scholasticism. the latest instance is the wretched positivist rubbish which mr. frederic harrison has mistaken for criticism, and to which it is almost a pity that mr. spencer should have felt called upon to waste his valuable time in replying. that which mr. spencer throughout all his works regards as the all-being, the power of which "our lives, alike physical and mental, in common with all the activities, organic and inorganic, amid which we live, are but the workings,"--this omnipresent power it pleases mr. harrison to call the "all-nothingness," to describe it as "a logical formula begotten in controversy, dwelling apart from man and the world" (whatever all that may mean), and to imagine its worshippers as thus addressing it in prayer, "o _x_^n, love us, help us, make us one with thee!" if mr. harrison's aim were to understand, rather than to misrepresent, the religious attitude which goes with such a conception of deity as mr. spencer's, he could nowhere find it more happily expressed than in these wonderful lines of goethe:- "weltseele, komm, uns zu durchdringen! dann mit dem weltgeist selbst zu ringen wird unsrer kräfte hochberuf. theilnehmend führen gute geister, gelinde leitend, höchste meister, zu dem der alles schafft und schuf." mr. harrison is enabled to perform his antics simply because he happens to have such a word as "unknowable" to play with. yet the word which has been put to such unseemly uses is, when properly understood, of the highest value in theistic philosophy. that deity _per se_ is not only unknown but unknowable is a truth which mr. spencer has illustrated with all the resources of that psychologic analysis of which he is incomparably the greatest master the world has ever seen; but it is not a truth which originated with him, or the demonstration of which is tantamount, as mr. harrison would have us believe, to the destruction of all religion. among all the christian theologians that have lived, there are few higher names than athanasius, who also regarded deity _per se_ as unknowable, being revealed to mankind only through incarnation in christ. it is not as failing to recognize its value that i have refrained in this essay from using the term "unknowable;" it is because so many false and stupid inferences have been drawn from mr. spencer's use of the word that it seemed worth while to show how a doctrine essentially similar to his might be expounded without introducing it. for further elucidation i will simply repeat in this connection what i wrote long ago: "it is enough to remind the reader that deity is unknowable just in so far as it is not manifested to consciousness through the phenomenal world,--knowable just in so far as it is thus manifested: unknowable in so far as infinite and absolute,--knowable in the order of its phenomenal manifestations; knowable, in a symbolic way, as the power which is disclosed in every throb of the mighty rhythmic life of the universe; knowable as the eternal source of a moral law which is implicated with each action of our lives, and in obedience to which lies our only guaranty of the happiness which is incorruptible, and which neither inevitable misfortune nor unmerited obloquy can take away. thus, though we may not by searching find out god, though we may not compass infinitude or attain to absolute knowledge, we may at least know all that it concerns us to know, as intelligent and responsible beings. they who seek to know more than this, to transcend the conditions under which alone is knowledge possible, are, in goethe's profound language, as wise as little children who, when they have looked into a mirror, turn it around to see what is behind it." ("cosmic philosophy," vol. ii. p. 470.) * * * * * the present essay must be regarded as a sequel to the "destiny of man,"--so much so that the force of the argument in the concluding section can hardly be appreciated without reference to the other book. the two books, taken together, contain the bare outlines of a theory of religion which i earnestly hope at some future time to state elaborately in a work on the true nature of christianity. some such scheme had begun vaguely to dawn upon my mind when i was fourteen years old, and thought in the language of the rigid calvinistic orthodoxy then prevalent in new england. after many and extensive changes of opinion, the idea assumed definite shape in the autumn of 1869, when i conceived the plan of a book to be entitled "jesus of nazareth and the founding of christianity,"--a work intended to deal on the one hand with the natural genesis of the complex aggregate of beliefs and aspirations known as christianity, and on the other hand with the metamorphoses which are being wrought in this aggregate by modern knowledge and modern theories of the universe. such a book, involving a treatment both historical and philosophical, requires long and varied preparation; and i have always regarded my other books, published from time to time, as simply wayside studies preliminary to the undertaking of this complicated and difficult task. while thus habitually shaping my work with reference to this cherished idea, i have written some things which are in a special sense related to it. the rude outlines of a very small portion of the historical treatment are contained in the essays on "the jesus of history," and "the christ of dogma," published in the volume entitled "the unseen world, and other essays." the outlines of the philosophical treatment are partially set forth in the "destiny of man" and in the present work. it amused me to see that almost every review of the "destiny of man" took pains to state that it was my concord address "rewritten and expanded." such trifles help one to understand the helter-skelter way in which more important things get said and believed. the "destiny of man" was printed exactly as it was delivered at concord, without the addition, or subtraction, or alteration of a single word. the case is the same with the present work. petersham, _september 6, 1885_. contents. _i. difficulty of expressing the idea of god so that it can be readily understood_ _35_ _ii. the rapid growth of modern knowledge_ _46_ _iii. sources of the theistic idea_ _62_ _iv. development of monotheism_ _72_ _v. the idea of god as immanent in the world_ _81_ _vi. the idea of god as remote from the world_ _87_ _vii. conflict between the two ideas, commonly misunderstood as a conflict between religion and science_ _97_ _viii. anthropomorphic conceptions of god_ _111_ _ix. the argument from design_ _118_ _x. simile of the watch replaced by simile of the flower_ _128_ _xi. the craving for a final cause_ _134_ _xii. symbolic conceptions_ _140_ _xiii. the eternal source of phenomena_ _144_ _xiv. the power that makes for righteousness_ _158_ the idea of god. i. _difficulty of expressing the idea of god so that it can be readily understood._ in goethe's great poem, while faust is walking with margaret at eventide in the garden, she asks him questions about his religion. it is long since he has been shriven or attended mass; does he, then, believe in god?--a question easy to answer with a simple yes, were it not for the form in which it is put. the great scholar and subtle thinker, who has delved in the deepest mines of philosophy and come forth weary and heavy-laden with their boasted treasures, has framed a very different conception of god from that entertained by the priest at the confessional or the altar, and how is he to make this intelligible to the simple-minded girl that walks by his side? who will make bold to declare that he can grasp an idea of such overwhelming vastness as the idea of god, yet who that hath the feelings of a man can bring himself to cast away a belief that is indispensable to the rational and healthful workings of the mind? so long as the tranquil dome of heaven is raised above our heads and the firm-set earth is spread forth beneath our feet, while the everlasting stars course in their mighty orbits and the lover gazes with ineffable tenderness into the eyes of her that loves him, so long, says faust, must our hearts go out toward him that upholds and comprises all. name or describe as we may the sustainer of the world, the eternal fact remains there, far above our comprehension, yet clearest and most real of all facts. to name and describe it, to bring it within the formulas of theory or creed, is but to veil its glory as when the brightness of heaven is enshrouded in mist and smoke. this has a pleasant sound to margaret's ears. it reminds her of what the parson sometimes says, though couched in very different phrases; and yet she remains uneasy and unsatisfied. her mind is benumbed by the presence of an idea confessedly too great to be grasped. she feels the need of some concrete symbol that can be readily apprehended; and she hopes that her lover has not been learning bad lessons from mephistopheles. the difficulty which here besets margaret must doubtless have been felt by every one when confronted with the thoughts by which the highest human minds have endeavoured to disclose the hidden life of the universe and interpret its meaning. it is a difficulty which baffles many, and they who surmount it are few indeed. most people content themselves through life with a set of concrete formulas concerning deity, and vituperate as atheistic all conceptions which refuse to be compressed within the narrow limits of their creed. for the great mass of men the idea of god is quite overlaid and obscured by innumerable symbolic rites and doctrines that have grown up in the course of the long historic development of religion. all such rites and doctrines had a meaning once, beautiful and inspiring or terrible and forbidding, and many of them still retain it. but whether meaningless or fraught with significance, men have wildly clung to them as shipwrecked mariners cling to the drifting spars that alone give promise of rescue from threatening death. such concrete symbols have in all ages been argued and fought for until they have come to seem the essentials of religion; and new moons and sabbaths, decrees of councils and articles of faith, have usurped the place of the living god. in every age the theory or discovery--however profoundly theistic in its real import--which has thrown discredit upon such symbols has been stigmatized as subversive of religion, and its adherents have been reviled and persecuted. it is, of course, inevitable that this should be so. to the half-educated mind a theory of divine action couched in the form of a legend, in which god is depicted as entertaining human purposes and swayed by human passions, is not only intelligible, but impressive. it awakens emotion, it speaks to the heart, it threatens the sinner with wrath to come or heals the wounded spirit with sweet whispers of consolation. however mythical the form in which it is presented, however literally false the statements of which it is composed, it seems profoundly real and substantial. just in so far as it is crudely concrete, just in so far as its terms can be vividly realized by the ordinary mind, does such a theological theory seem weighty and true. on the other hand, a theory of divine action which, discarding as far as possible the aid of concrete symbols, attempts to include within its range the endlessly complex operations that are forever going on throughout the length and breadth of the knowable universe,--such a theory is to the ordinary mind unintelligible. it awakens no emotion because it is not understood. though it may be the nearest approximation to the truth of which the human intellect is at the present moment capable, though the statements of which it is composed may be firmly based upon demonstrated facts in nature, it will nevertheless seem eminently unreal and uninteresting. the dullest peasant can understand you when you tell him that honey is sweet, while a statement that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter may be expressed by the formula +p+ = 3.14159 will sound as gibberish in his ears; yet the truth embodied in the latter statement is far more closely implicated with every act of the peasant's life, if he only knew it, than the truth expressed in the former. so the merest child may know enough to marvel at the hebrew legend of the burning bush, but only the ripest scholar can begin to understand the character of the mighty problems with which spinoza was grappling when he had so much to say about _natura naturans_ and _natura naturata_. for these reasons all attempts to study god as revealed in the workings of the visible universe, and to characterize the divine activity in terms derived from such study, have met with discouragement, if not with obloquy. as substituting a less easily comprehensible formula for one that is more easily comprehensible, they seem to be frittering away the idea of god, and reducing it to an empty abstraction. there is a further reason for the dread with which such studies are commonly regarded. the theories of divine action accepted as orthodox by the men of any age have been bequeathed to them by their forefathers of an earlier age. they were originally framed with reference to assumed facts of nature which advancing knowledge is continually discrediting and throwing aside. each forward step in physical science obliges us to contemplate the universe from a somewhat altered point of view, so that the mutual relations of its parts keep changing as in an ever-shifting landscape. the notions of the world and its maker with which we started by and by prove meagre and unsatisfying; they no longer fit in with the general scheme of our knowledge. hence the men who are wedded to the old notions are quick to sound the alarm. they would fain deter us from taking the forward step which carries us to a new standpoint. beware of science, they cry, lest with its dazzling discoveries and adventurous speculations it rob us of our soul's comfort and leave us in a godless world. such in every age has been the cry of the more timid and halting spirits; and their fears have found apparent confirmation in the behaviour of a very different class of thinkers. as there are those who live in perpetual dread of the time when science shall banish god from the world, so, on the other hand, there are those who look forward with longing to such a time, and in their impatience are continually starting up and proclaiming that at last it has come. there are those who have indeed learned a lesson from mephistopheles, the "spirit that forever denies." these are they that say in their hearts, "there is no god," and "congratulate themselves that they are going to die like the beasts." rushing into the holiest arcana of philosophy, even where angels fear to tread, they lay hold of each new discovery in science that modifies our view of the universe, and herald it as a crowning victory for the materialists,--a victory which is ushering in the happy day when atheism is to be the creed of all men. it is in view of such philosophizers that the astronomer, the chemist, or the anatomist, whose aim is the dispassionate examination of evidence and the unbiased study of phenomena, may fitly utter the prayer, "lord, save me from my friends!" thus through age after age has it fared with men's discoveries in science, and with their thoughts about god and the soul. it was so in the days of galileo and newton, and we have found it to be so in the days of darwin and spencer. the theologian exclaims, if planets are held in place by gravitation and tangential momentum, and if the highest forms of life have been developed by natural selection and direct adaptation, then the universe is swayed by blind forces, and nothing is left for god to do: how impious and terrible the thought! even so, echoes the favourite atheist, the lamettrie or büchner of the day; the universe, it seems, has always got on without a god, and accordingly there is none: how noble and cheering the thought! and as thus age after age they wrangle, with their eyes turned away from the light, the world goes on to larger and larger knowledge in spite of them, and does not lose its faith, for all these darkeners of counsel may say. as in the roaring loom of time the endless web of events is woven, each strand shall make more and more clearly visible the living garment of god. ii. _the rapid growth of modern knowledge._ at no time since men have dwelt upon the earth have their notions about the universe undergone so great a change as in the century of which we are now approaching the end. never before has knowledge increased so rapidly; never before has philosophical speculation been so actively conducted, or its results so widely diffused. it is a characteristic of organic evolution that numerous progressive tendencies, for a long time inconspicuous, now and then unite to bring about a striking and apparently sudden change; or a set of forces, quietly accumulating in one direction, at length unlock some new reservoir of force and abruptly inaugurate a new series of phenomena, as when water rises in a tank until its overflow sets whirling a system of toothed wheels. it may be that nature makes no leaps, but in this way she now and then makes very long strides. it is in this way that the course of organic development is marked here and there by memorable epochs, which seem to open new chapters in the history of the universe. there was such an epoch when the common ancestor of ascidian and amphioxus first showed rudimentary traces of a vertebral column. there was such an epoch when the air-bladder of early amphibians began to do duty as a lung. greatest of all, since the epoch, still hidden from our ken, when organic life began upon the surface of the globe, was the birth of that new era when, through a wondrous change in the direction of the working of natural selection, humanity appeared upon the scene. in the career of the human race we can likewise point to periods in which it has become apparent that an immense stride was taken. such a period marks the dawning of human history, when after countless ages of desultory tribal warfare men succeeded in uniting into comparatively stable political societies, and through the medium of written language began handing down to posterity the record of their thoughts and deeds. since that morning twilight of history there has been no era so strongly marked, no change so swift or so far-reaching in the conditions of human life, as that which began with the great maritime discoveries of the fifteenth century and is approaching its culmination to-day. in its earlier stages this modern era was signalized by sporadic achievements of the human intellect, great in themselves and leading to such stupendous results as the boldest dared not dream of. such achievements were the invention of printing, the telescope and microscope, the geometry of descartes, the astronomy of newton, the physics of huyghens, the physiology of harvey. man's senses were thus indefinitely enlarged as his means of registration were perfected; he became capable of extending physical inferences from the earth to the heavens; and he made his first acquaintance with that luminiferous ether which was by and by to reveal the intimate structure of matter in regions far beyond the power of the microscope to penetrate. it is only within the present century that the vastness of the changes thus beginning to be wrought has become apparent. the scientific achievements of the human intellect no longer occur sporadically: they follow one upon another, like the organized and systematic conquests of a resistless army. each new discovery becomes at once a powerful implement in the hands of innumerable workers, and each year wins over fresh regions of the universe from the unknown to the known. our own generation has become so wonted to this unresting march of discovery that we already take it as quite a matter of course. our minds become easily deadened to its real import, and the examples we cite in illustration of it have an air of triteness. we scarcely need to be reminded that all the advances made in locomotion, from the days of nebuchadnezzar to those of andrew jackson, were as nothing compared to the change that has been wrought within a few years by the introduction of railroads. in these times, when puck has fulfilled his boast and put a girdle about the earth in forty minutes, we are not yet perhaps in danger of forgetting that a century has not elapsed since he who caught the lightning upon his kite was laid in the grave. yet the lesson of these facts, as well as of the grandmother's spinning-wheel that stands by the parlour fireside, is well to bear in mind. the change therein exemplified since penelope plied her distaff is far less than that which has occurred within the memory of living men. the developments of machinery, which have worked such wonders, have greatly altered the political conditions of human society, so that a huge republic like the united states is now as snug and compact and easily manageable as the tiny republic of switzerland in the eighteenth century. the number of men that can live upon a given area of the earth's surface has been multiplied manifold, and while the mass of human life has thus increased its value has been at the same time enhanced. in these various applications of physical theory to the industrial arts, countless minds, of a class that formerly were not reached by scientific reasoning at all, are now brought into daily contact with complex and subtle operations of matter, and their habits of thought are thus notably modified. meanwhile, in the higher regions of chemistry and molecular physics the progress has been such that no description can do it justice. when we reflect that a fourth generation has barely had time to appear on the scene since priestley discovered that there was such a thing as oxygen, we stand awestruck before the stupendous pile of chemical science which has been reared in this brief interval. our knowledge thus gained of the molecular and atomic structure of matter has been alone sufficient to remodel our conceptions of the universe from beginning to end. the case of molecular physics is equally striking. the theory of the conservation of energy, and the discovery that light, heat, electricity, and magnetism are differently conditioned modes of undulatory motion transformable each into the other, are not yet fifty years old. in physical astronomy we remained until 1839 confined within the limits of the solar system, and even here the newtonian theory had not yet won its crowning triumph in the discovery of the planet neptune. to-day we not only measure the distances and movements of many stars, but by means of spectrum analysis are able to tell what they are made of. it is more than a century since the nebular hypothesis, by which we explain the development of stellar systems, was first propounded by immanuel kant, but it is only within thirty years that it has been generally adopted by astronomers; and among the outward illustrations of its essential soundness none is more remarkable than its surviving such an enlargement of our knowledge. coming to the geologic study of the changes that have taken place on the earth's surface, it was in 1830 that sir charles lyell published the book which first placed this study upon a scientific basis. cuvier's classification of past and present forms of animal life, which laid the foundations alike of comparative anatomy and of palæontology, came but little earlier. the cell-doctrine of schleiden and schwann, prior to which modern biology can hardly be said to have existed, dates from 1839; and it was only ten years before that the scientific treatment of embryology began with von baer. at the present moment, twenty-six years have not elapsed since the epoch-making work of darwin first announced to the world the discovery of natural selection. in the cycle of studies which are immediately concerned with the career of mankind, the rate of progress has been no less marvellous. the scientific study of human speech may be said to date from the flash of insight which led friedrich schlegel in 1808 to detect the kinship between the aryan languages. from this beginning to the researches of fick and ascoli in our own time, the quantity of achievement rivals anything the physical sciences can show. the study of comparative mythology, which has thrown such light upon the primitive thoughts of mankind, is still younger,--is still, indeed, in its infancy. the application of the comparative method to the investigation of laws and customs, of political and ecclesiastical and industrial systems, has been carried on scarcely thirty years; yet the results already obtained are obliging us to rewrite the history of mankind in all its stages. the great achievements of archæologists--the decipherment of egyptian hieroglyphs and of cuneiform inscriptions in assyria and persia, the unearthing of ancient cities, the discovery and classification of primeval implements and works of art in all quarters of the globe--belong almost entirely to the nineteenth century. these discoveries, which have well-nigh doubled for us the length of the historic period, have united with the quite modern revelations of geology concerning the ancient glaciation of the temperate zones, to give us an approximate idea of the age of the human race[1] and the circumstances attending its diffusion over the earth. it has thus at length become possible to obtain something like the outlines of a comprehensive view of the history of the creation, from the earliest stages of condensation of our solar nebula down to the very time in which we live, and to infer from the characteristics of this past evolution some of the most general tendencies of the future. all this accumulation of physical and historical knowledge has not failed to react upon our study of the human mind itself. in books of logic the score of centuries between aristotle and whately saw less advance than the few years between whately and mill. in psychology the work of fechner and wundt and spencer belongs to the age in which we are now living. when to all this variety of achievement we add what has been done in the critical study of literature and art, of classical and biblical philology, and of metaphysics and theology, illustrating from fresh points of view the history of the human mind, the sum total becomes almost too vast to be comprehended. this century, which some have called an age of iron, has been also an age of ideas, an era of seeking and finding the like of which was never known before. it is an epoch the grandeur of which dwarfs all others that can be named since the beginning of the historic period, if not since man first became distinctively human. in their mental habits, in their methods of inquiry, and in the data at their command, "the men of the present day who have fully kept pace with the scientific movement are separated from the men whose education ended in 1830 by an immeasurably wider gulf than has ever before divided one progressive generation of men from their predecessors."[2] the intellectual development of the human race has been suddenly, almost abruptly, raised to a higher plane than that upon which it had proceeded from the days of the primitive troglodyte to the days of our great-grandfathers. it is characteristic of this higher plane of development that the progress which until lately was so slow must henceforth be rapid. men's minds are becoming more flexible, the resistance to innovation is weakening, and our intellectual demands are multiplying while the means of satisfying them are increasing. vast as are the achievements we have just passed in review, the gaps in our knowledge are immense, and every problem that is solved but opens a dozen new problems that await solution. under such circumstances there is no likelihood that the last word will soon be said on any subject. in the eyes of the twenty-first century the science of the nineteenth will doubtless seem very fragmentary and crude. but the men of that day, and of all future time, will no doubt point back to the age just passing away as the opening of a new dispensation, the dawning of an era in which the intellectual development of mankind was raised to a higher plane than that upon which it had hitherto proceeded. as the inevitable result of the thronging discoveries just enumerated, we find ourselves in the midst of a mighty revolution in human thought. time-honoured creeds are losing their hold upon men; ancient symbols are shorn of their value; everything is called in question. the controversies of the day are not like those of former times. it is no longer a question of hermeneutics, no longer a struggle between abstruse dogmas of rival churches. religion itself is called upon to show why it should any longer claim our allegiance. there are those who deny the existence of god. there are those who would explain away the human soul as a mere group of fleeting phenomena attendant upon the collocation of sundry particles of matter. and there are many others who, without committing themselves to these positions of the atheist and the materialist, have nevertheless come to regard religion as practically ruled out from human affairs. no religious creed that man has ever devised can be made to harmonize in all its features with modern knowledge. all such creeds were constructed with reference to theories of the universe which are now utterly and hopelessly discredited. how, then, it is asked, amid the general wreck of old beliefs, can we hope that the religious attitude in which from time immemorial we have been wont to contemplate the universe can any longer be maintained? is not the belief in god perhaps a dream of the childhood of our race, like the belief in elves and bogarts which once was no less universal? and is not modern science fast destroying the one as it has already destroyed the other? such are the questions which we daily hear asked, sometimes with flippant eagerness, but oftener with anxious dread. in view of them it is well worth while to examine the idea of god, as it has been entertained by mankind from the earliest ages, and as it is affected by the knowledge of the universe which we have acquired in recent times. if we find in that idea, as conceived by untaught thinkers in the twilight of antiquity, an element that still survives the widest and deepest generalizations of modern times, we have the strongest possible reason for believing that the idea is permanent and answers to an eternal reality. it was to be expected that conceptions of deity handed down from primitive men should undergo serious modification. if it can be shown that the essential element in these conceptions must survive the enormous additions to our knowledge which have distinguished the present age above all others since man became man, then we may believe that it will endure so long as man endures; for it is not likely that it can ever be called upon to pass a severer ordeal. all this will presently appear in a still stronger light, when we have set forth the common characteristic of the modifications which the idea of god has already undergone, and the nature of the opposition between the old and the new knowledge with which we are now confronted. upon this discussion we have now to enter, and we shall find it leading us to the conclusion that throughout all possible advances in human knowledge, so far as we can see, the essential position of theism must remain unshaken. iii. _sources of the theistic idea._ our argument may fitly begin with an inquiry into the sources of the theistic idea and the shape which it has universally assumed among untutored men. the most primitive element which it contains is doubtless the notion of _dependence_ upon something outside of ourselves. we are born into a world consisting of forces which sway our lives and over which we can exercise no control. the individual man can indeed make his volition count for a very little in modifying the course of events, but this end necessitates strict and unceasing obedience to powers that cannot be tampered with. to the behaviour of these external powers our actions must be adapted under penalty of death. and upon grounds no less firm than those on which we believe in any externality whatever, we recognize that these forces antedated our birth and will endure after we have disappeared from the scene. no one supposes that he makes the world for himself, so that it is born and dies with him. every one perforce contemplates the world as something existing independently of himself, as something into which he has come, and from which he is to go; and for his coming and his going, as well as for what he does while part of the world, he is dependent upon something that is not himself. between ancient and modern man, as between the child and the adult, there can be no essential difference in the recognition of this fundamental fact of life. the primitive man could not, indeed, state the case in this generalized form, any more than a young child could state it, but the facts which the statement covers were as real to him as they are to us.[a] the primitive man knew nothing of a world, in the modern sense of the word. the conception of that vast consensus of forces which we call the world or universe is a somewhat late result of culture; it was reached only through ages of experience and reflection. such an idea lay beyond the horizon of the primitive man. but while he knew not the world, he knew bits and pieces of it; or, to vary the expression, he had his little world, chaotic and fragmentary enough, but full of dread reality for him. he knew what it was to deal from birth until death with powers far mightier than himself. to explain these powers, to make their actions in any wise intelligible, he had but one available resource; and this was so obvious that he could not fail to employ it. the only source of action of which he knew anything, since it was the only source which lay within himself, was the human will;[3] and in this respect, after all, the philosophy of the primeval savage was not so very far removed from that of the modern scientific thinker. the primitive man could see that his own actions were prompted by desire and guided by intelligence, and he supposed the same to be the case with the sun and the wind, the frost and the lightning. all the forces of outward nature, so far as they came into visible contact with his life, he personified as great beings which were to be contended with or placated. this primeval philosophy, once universal among men, has lasted far into the historic period, and it is only slowly and bit by bit that it has been outgrown by the most highly civilized races. indeed the half-civilized majority of mankind have by no means as yet cast it aside, and among savage tribes we may still see it persisting in all its original crudity. in the mythologies of all peoples, of the greeks and hindus and norsemen, as well as of the north american indians and the dwellers in the south sea islands, we find the sun personified as an archer or wanderer, the clouds as gigantic birds, the tempest as a devouring dragon; and the tales of gods and heroes, as well as of trolls and fairies, are made up of scattered and distorted fragments of nature-myths, of which the primitive meaning had long been forgotten when the ingenuity of modern scholarship laid it bare.[4] [a] see note a at the end of the volume. in all this personification of physical phenomena our prehistoric ancestors were greatly assisted by that theory of ghosts which was perhaps the earliest speculative effort of the human mind. travellers have now and then reported the existence of races of men quite destitute of religion, or of what the observer has learned to recognize as religion; but no one has ever discovered a race of men devoid of a belief in ghosts. the mass of crude inference which makes up the savage's philosophy of nature is largely based upon the hypothesis that every man has _another self_, a double, or wraith, or ghost. this "hypothesis of the _other self_, which serves to account for the savage's wanderings during sleep in strange lands and among strange people, serves also to account for the presence in his dreams of parents, comrades, or enemies, known to be dead and buried. the other self of the dreamer meets and converses with the other selves of his dead brethren, joins with them in the hunt, or sits down with them to the wild cannibal banquet. thus arises the belief in an ever-present world of ghosts, a belief which the entire experience of uncivilized man goes to strengthen and expand."[5] countless tales and superstitions of savage races show that the hypothesis of the other self is used to explain the phenomena of hysteria and epilepsy, of shadows, of echoes, and even of the reflection of face and gestures in still water. it is not only men, moreover, who are provided with other selves. dumb beasts and plants, stone hatchets and arrows, articles of clothing and food, all have their ghosts;[6] and when the dead chief is buried, his wives and servants, his dogs and horses, are slain to keep him company, and weapons and trinkets are placed in his tomb to be used in the spirit-land. burial-places of primitive men, ages before the dawn of history, bear testimony to the immense antiquity of this savage philosophy. from this wholesale belief in ghosts to the interpretation of the wind or the lightning as a person animated by an indwelling soul and endowed with quasi-human passions and purposes, the step is not a long one. the latter notion grows almost inevitably out of the former, so that all races of men without exception have entertained it. that the mighty power which uproots trees and drives the storm-clouds across the sky should resemble a human soul is to the savage an unavoidable inference. "if the fire burns down his hut, it is because the fire is a person with a soul, and is angry with him, and needs to be coaxed into a kindlier mood by means of prayer or sacrifice." he has no alternative but to regard fire-soul as something akin to human-soul; his philosophy makes no distinction between the human ghost and the elemental demon or deity. it was in accordance with this primitive theory of things that the earliest form of religious worship was developed. in all races of men, so far as can be determined, this was the worship of ancestors.[7] the other self of the dead chieftain continued after death to watch over the interests of the tribe, to defend it against the attacks of enemies, to reward brave warriors, and to punish traitors and cowards. his favour must be propitiated with ceremonies like those in which a subject does homage to a living ruler. if offended by neglect or irreverent treatment, defeat in battle, damage by flood or fire, visitations of famine or pestilence, were interpreted as marks of his anger. thus the spirits animating the forces of nature were often identified with the ghosts of ancestors, and mythology is filled with traces of the confusion. in the vedic religion the _pitris_, or "fathers," live in the sky along with yama, the original _pitri_ of mankind: they are very busy with the weather; they send down rain to refresh the thirsty earth, or anon parch the fields till the crops perish of drought; and they rush along in the roaring tempest, like the weird host of the wild huntsman wodan. to the ancient greek the blue sky uranos was the father of gods and men, and throughout antiquity this mingling of ancestor-worship with nature-worship was general. with the systematic development of ethnic religions, in some instances ancestor-worship remained dominant, as with the chinese, the japanese, and the romans; in others, a polytheism based upon nature-worship acquired supremacy, as with the hindus and greeks, and our own teutonic forefathers. the great divinities of the hellenic pantheon are all personifications of physical phenomena. at a comparatively late date the roman adopted these divinities and paid to them a fashionable and literary homage, but his solemn and heartfelt rites were those with which he worshipped the _lares_ and _penates_ in the privacy of his home. his hospitable treatment of the gods of a vanquished people was the symptom of a commingling of the various local religions of antiquity which insured their mutual destruction and prepared the way for their absorption into a far grander and truer system.[8] iv. _development of monotheism._ such an allusion to the romans, in an exposition like the present one, is not without its significance. it was partly through political circumstances that a truly theistic idea was developed out of the chaotic and fragmentary ghost theories and nature-worship of the primeval world. to the framing of the vastest of all possible conceptions, the idea of god, man came but slowly. this nature-worship and ancestor-worship of early times was scarcely theism. in their recognition of man's utter dependence upon something outside of himself which yet was not wholly unlike himself, these primitive religions contained the essential germ out of which theism was to grow; but it is a long way from the propitiation of ghosts and the adoration of the rising sun to the worship of the infinite and eternal god, the maker of heaven and earth, in whom we live, and move, and have our being. before men could arrive at such a conception, it was necessary for them to obtain some integral idea of the heaven and the earth; it was necessary for them to frame, however inadequately, the conception of a physical universe. such a conception had been reached by civilized peoples before the christian era, and by the greeks a remarkable beginning had been made in the generalization and interpretation of physical phenomena. the intellectual atmosphere of alexandria, for two centuries before and three centuries after the time of christ, was more modern than anything that followed down to the days of bacon and descartes; and all the leaders of greek thought since anaxagoras had been virtually or avowedly monotheists. as the phenomena of nature were generalized, the deities or superhuman beings regarded as their sources were likewise generalized, until the conception of nature as a whole gave rise to the conception of a single deity as the author and ruler of nature; and in accordance with the order of its genesis, this notion of deity was still the notion of a being possessed of psychical attributes, and in some way like unto man. but there was another cause, besides scientific generalization, which led men's minds toward monotheism. the conception of tutelar deities, which was the most prominent practical feature of ancestor-worship, was directly affected by the political development of the peoples of antiquity. as tribes were consolidated into nations, the tutelar gods of the tribes became generalized, or the god of some leading tribe came to supersede his fellows, until the result was a single national deity, at first regarded as the greatest among gods, afterwards as the only god. the most striking instance of this method of development is afforded by the hebrew conception of jehovah. the most primitive form of hebrew religion discernible in the old testament is a fetichism, or very crude polytheism, in which ancestor-worship becomes more prominent than nature-worship. at first the _teraphim_, or tutelar household deities, play an important part, but nature-gods, such as baal, and moloch, and astarte, are extensively worshipped. it is the plural _elohim_ who create the earth, and whose sons visit the daughters of antediluvian men. the tutelar deity, jehovah, is originally thought of as one of the _elohim_, then as chief among _elohim_, and lord of the hosts of heaven. through his favour his chosen prophet overcomes the prophets of baal, he is greater than the deities of neighbouring peoples, he is the only true god, and thus finally he is thought of as the only god, and his name becomes the symbol of monotheism. the jews have always been one of the most highly-gifted races in the world. in antiquity they developed an intense sentiment of nationality, and for earnestness and depth of ethical feeling they surpassed all other peoples. the conception of jehovah set forth in the writings of the prophets was the loftiest conception of deity anywhere attained before the time of christ; in ethical value it immeasurably surpassed anything to be found in the pantheon of the greeks and romans. it was natural that such a conception of deity should be adopted throughout the roman world. at the beginning of the christian era the classic polytheism had well-nigh lost its hold upon men's minds; its value had become chiefly literary, as a mere collection of pretty stories; it had begun its descent into the humble realm of folk-lore. for want of anything better people had recourse to elaborate eastern ceremonials, or contented themselves with the time-honoured domestic worship of the _lares_ and _penates_. yet their minds were ripe for some kind of monotheism, and in order that the jewish conception should come to be generally adopted, it was only necessary that it should be freed from its limitations of nationality, and that jehovah should be set forth as sustainer of the universe and father of all mankind. this was done by jesus and paul. the theory of divine action implied throughout the gospels and the epistles was the first complete monotheism attained by mankind, or at least by that portion of it from which our modern civilization has descended. here for the first time we have the idea of god dissociated from the limiting circumstances with which it had been entangled in all the ethnic religions of antiquity. individual thinkers here and there had already, doubtless, reached an equally true conception, as was shown by kleanthes in his sublime hymn to zeus;[9] but it was now for the first time set forth in such wise as to win assent from the common folk as well as the philosophers, and to make its way into the hearts of all men. its acceptance was hastened, and its hold upon mankind immeasurably strengthened, by the divinely beautiful ethical teaching in which jesus couched it,--that teaching, so often misunderstood yet so profoundly true, which heralded the time when man shall have thrown off the burden of his bestial inheritance and strife and sorrow shall cease from the earth.[10] we shall presently see that in its fundamental features the theism of jesus and paul was so true that it must endure as long as man endures. changes of statement may alter the outward appearance of it, but the kernel of truth will remain the same forever. but the shifting body of religious doctrine known as christianity has at various times contained much that is unknown to this pure theism, and much that has shown itself to be ephemeral in its hold upon men. the change from polytheism to monotheism could not be thoroughly accomplished all at once. as christianity spread over the roman world it became encrusted with pagan notions and observances, and a similar process went on during the conversion of the teutonic barbarians. yuletide and easter and other church holidays were directly adopted from the old nature-worship; the adoration of tutelar household deities survived in the homage paid to patron saints; and the worship of the berecynthian mother was continued in that of the virgin mary.[11] even the name _god_, applied to the deity throughout teutonic christendom, seems to be neither more nor less than _wodan_, the personification of the storm-wind, the supreme divinity of our pagan forefathers.[b] [b] see note b. at the end of the volume. that christianity should thus have retained names and symbols and rites belonging to heathen antiquity was inevitable. the system of christian theism was the work of some of the loftiest minds that have ever appeared upon the earth; but it was adopted by millions of men and women, of all degrees of knowledge and ignorance, of keenness and dullness, of spirituality and grossness, and these brought to it their various inherited notions and habits of thought. in all its ages, therefore, christian theism has meant one thing to one person, and another thing to another. while the highest christian minds have always been monotheistic, the multitude have outgrown polytheism but slowly; and even the monotheism of the highest minds has been coloured by notions ultimately derived from the primeval ghost-world which have interfered with its purity, and have seriously hampered men in their search after truth. in illustration of this point we have now to notice two strongly contrasted views of the divine nature which have been held by christian theists, and to observe their bearings upon the scientific thought of modern times. v. _the idea of god as immanent in the world._ we have seen that since the primitive savage philosophy did not distinguish between the human ghost and the elemental demon or deity, the religion of antiquity was an inextricable tangle of ancestor-worship with nature-worship. nevertheless, among some peoples the one, among others the other, became predominant. i think it can hardly be an accidental coincidence that nature-worship predominated with the greeks and hindus, the only peoples of antiquity who accomplished anything in the exact sciences, or in metaphysics. the capacity for abstract thinking which led the hindu to originate algebra, and the greek to originate geometry, and both to attempt elaborate scientific theories of the universe,--this same capacity revealed itself in the manner in which they deified the powers of nature. they were able to imagine the indwelling spirit of the sun or the storm without help from the conception of an individual ghost. such being the general capacity of the people, we can readily understand how, when it came to monotheism, their most eminent thinkers should have been able to frame the conception of god acting in and through the powers of nature, without the aid of any grossly anthropomorphic symbolism. in this connection it is interesting to observe the characteristics of the idea of god as conceived by the three greatest fathers of the greek church, clement of alexandria, origen, and athanasius. the philosophy of these profound and vigorous thinkers was in large measure derived from the stoics. they regarded deity as immanent in the universe, and eternally operating through natural laws. in their view god is not a localizable personality, remote from the world, and acting upon it only by means of occasional portent and prodigy; nor is the world a lifeless machine blindly working after some preordained method, and only feeling the presence of god in so far as he now and then sees fit to interfere with its normal course of procedure. on the contrary, god is the ever-present life of the world; it is through him that all things exist from moment to moment, and the natural sequence of events is a perpetual revelation of the divine wisdom and goodness. in accordance with this fundamental view, clement, for example, repudiated the gnostic theory of the vileness of matter, condemned asceticism, and regarded the world as hallowed by the presence of indwelling deity. knowing no distinction "between what man discovers and what god reveals," he explained christianity as a natural development from the earlier religious thought of mankind. it was essential to his idea of the divine perfection that the past should contain within itself all the germs of the future; and accordingly he attached but slight value to tales of miracle, and looked upon salvation as the normal ripening of the higher spiritual qualities of man "under the guidance of immanent deity." the views of clement's disciple origen are much like those of his master. athanasius ventured much farther into the bewildering regions of metaphysics. yet in his doctrine of the trinity, by which he overcame the visible tendency toward polytheism in the theories of arius, and averted the threatened danger of a compromise between christianity and paganism, he proceeded upon the lines which clement had marked out. in his very suggestive work on "the continuity of christian thought," professor alexander allen thus sets forth the athanasian point of view: "in the formula of father, son, and holy spirit, as three distinct and coequal members in the one divine essence, there was the recognition and the reconciliation of the philosophical schools which had divided the ancient world. in the idea of the eternal father the oriental mind recognized what it liked to call the profound abyss of being, that which lies back of all phenomena, the hidden mystery which lends awe to human minds seeking to know the divine. in the doctrine of the eternal son revealing the father, immanent in nature and humanity as the life and light shining through all created things, the divine reason in which the human reason shares, there was the recognition of the truth after which plato and aristotle and the stoics were struggling,--the tie which binds the creation to god in the closest organic relationship. in the doctrine of the holy spirit the church guarded against any pantheistic confusion of god with the world by upholding the life of the manifested deity as essentially ethical or spiritual, revealing itself in humanity in its highest form, only in so far as humanity recognized its calling and through the spirit entered into communion with the father and the son." great as was the service which these views of athanasius rendered in the fourth century of our era, they are scarcely to be regarded as a permanent or essential feature of christian theism. the metaphysic in which they are couched is alien to the metaphysic of our time, yet through this vast difference it is all the more instructive to note how closely athanasius approaches the confines of modern scientific thought, simply through his fundamental conception of god as the indwelling life of the universe. we shall be still more forcibly struck with this similarity when we come to consider the character impressed upon our idea of god by the modern doctrine of evolution. vi. _the idea of god as remote from the world._ but this greek conception of divine immanence did not find favour with the latin-speaking world. there a very different notion prevailed, the origin of which may be traced to the mental habits attending the primitive ancestor-worship. out of materials furnished by the ghost-world a crude kind of monotheism could be reached by simply carrying back the thought to a single ghost-deity as the original ancestor of all the others. some barbarous races have gone as far as this, as for example the zulus, who have developed the doctrine of divine ancestors so far as to recognize a first ancestor, the great father, unkulunkulu, who created the world.[12] the kind of theism reached by this process of thought differs essentially from the theism reached through the medium of nature-worship. for whereas in the latter case the god of the sky or the sea is regarded as a mysterious spirit acting in and through the phenomena, in the former case the phenomena are regarded as coerced into activity by some power existing outside of them, and this power is conceived as manlike in the crudest sense, having been originally thought of as the ghost of some man who once lived upon the earth. in the monotheism which is reached by thinking along these lines of inference, the universe is conceived as an inert lifeless machine, impelled by blind forces which have been set acting from without; and god is conceived as existing apart from the world in solitary inaccessible majesty,--"an absentee god," as carlyle says, "sitting idle ever since the first sabbath, at the outside of his universe, and 'seeing it go.'" this conception demands less of the intellect than the conception of god as immanent in the universe. it requires less grasp of mind and less width of experience, and it has accordingly been much the more common conception. the idea of the indwelling god is an attempt to reach out toward the reality, and as such it taxes the powers of the finite mind. the idea of god external to the universe is a symbol which in no wise approaches the reality, and for that very reason it does not tax the mental powers; there is an aspect of finality about it, in which the ordinary mind rests content and complains of whatever seeks to disturb its repose. i must not be understood as ignoring the fact that this lower species of theism has been entertained by some of the loftiest minds of our race, both in ancient and in modern times. when once such an ever-present conception as the idea of god has become intertwined with the whole body of the thoughts of mankind, it is very difficult for the most powerful and subtle intelligence to change the form it has taken. it has become so far organized into the texture of the mind that it abides there unconsciously, like our fundamental axioms about number and magnitude; it sways our thought hither and thither without our knowing it. the two forms of theism here contrasted have slowly grown up under the myriad unassignable influences that in antiquity caused nature-worship to predominate among some people and ancestor-worship among others; they have coloured all the philosophizing that has been done for more than twenty centuries; and it is seldom that a thinker educated under the one form ever comes to adopt the other and habitually employ it, save under the mighty influence of modern science, the tendency of which, as we shall presently see, is all in one direction. among ancient thinkers the view of deity as remote from the world prevailed with the followers of epikuros, who held that the immortal gods could not be supposed to trouble themselves about the paltry affairs of men, but lived a blessed life of their own, undisturbed in the far-off empyrean. this left the world quite under the sway of blind forces, and thus we find it depicted in the marvellous poem of lucretius, one of the loftiest monuments of latin genius. it is to all appearance an atheistic world, albeit the author was perhaps more profoundly religious in spirit than any other roman that ever lived, save augustine; yet to his immediate scientific purpose this atheism was no drawback. when we are investigating natural phenomena, with intent to explain them scientifically, our proper task is simply to ascertain the physical conditions under which they occur, and the less we meddle with metaphysics or theology the better. as laplace said, the mathematician, in solving his equations, does not need "the hypothesis of god."[13] to the scientific investigator, as such, the forces of nature are doubtless blind, like the _x_ and _y_ in algebra, but this is only so long as he contents himself with describing their modes of operation; when he undertakes to explain them philosophically, as we shall see, he can in no wise dispense with his theistic hypothesis. the lucretian philosophy, therefore, admirable as a scientific coördination of such facts about the physical universe as were then known, goes but very little way as a philosophy. it is interesting to note that this atheism followed directly from that species of theism which placed god outside of his universe. we shall find the case of modern atheism to be quite similar. as soon as this crude and misleading conception of god is refuted, as the whole progress of scientific knowledge tends to refute it, the modern atheist or positivist falls back upon his universe of blind forces and contents himself with it, while zealously shouting from the housetops that this is the whole story. to one familiar with christian ideas, the notion that man is too insignificant a creature to be worth the notice of deity seems at once pathetic and grotesque. in the view of plato, by which all christendom has been powerfully influenced, there is profound pathos. the wickedness and misery of the world wrought so strongly upon plato's keen sympathies and delicate moral sense that he came to conclusions almost as gloomy as those of the buddhist who regards existence as an evil. in the timaios he depicts the material world as essentially vile; he is unable to think of the pure and holy deity as manifested in it, and he accordingly separates the creator from his creation by the whole breadth of infinitude. this view passed on to the gnostics, for whom the puzzling problem of philosophy was how to explain the action of the spiritual god upon the material universe. sometimes the interval was bridged by mediating æons or emanations partly spiritual and partly material; sometimes the world was held to be the work of the devil, and in no sense divine.[14] the greek fathers under the lead of clement, espousing the higher theism, kept clear of this torrent of gnostic thought; but upon augustine it fell with full force, and he was carried away with it. in his earlier writings augustine showed himself not incapable of comprehending the views of clement and athanasius; but his intense feeling of man's wickedness dragged him irresistibly in the opposite direction. in his doctrine of original sin, he represents humanity as cut off from all relationship with god, who is depicted as a crudely anthropomorphic being far removed from the universe and accessible only through the mediating offices of an organized church. compared with the thoughts of the greek fathers this was a barbaric conception, but it was suited alike to the lower grade of culture in western europe, and to the latin political genius, which in the decline of the empire was already occupying itself with its great and beneficent work of constructing an imperial church. for these reasons the augustinian theology prevailed, and in the dark ages which followed it became so deeply inwrought into the innermost fibres of latin christianity that it remains dominant to-day alike in catholic and protestant churches. with few exceptions every child born of christian parents in western europe or in america grows up with an idea of god the outlines of which were engraven upon men's minds by augustine fifteen centuries ago. nay, more, it is hardly too much to say that three fourths of the body of doctrine currently known as christianity, unwarranted by scripture and never dreamed of by christ or his apostles, first took coherent shape in the writings of this mighty roman, who was separated from the apostolic age by an interval of time like that which separates us from the invention of printing and the discovery of america. the idea of god upon which all this augustinian doctrine is based is the idea of a being actuated by human passions and purposes, localizable in space and utterly remote from that inert machine, the universe in which we live, and upon which he acts intermittently through the suspension of what are called natural laws. so deeply has this conception penetrated the thought of christendom that we continually find it at the bottom of the speculations and arguments of men who would warmly repudiate it as thus stated in its naked outlines. it dominates the reasonings alike of believers and skeptics, of theists and atheists; it underlies at once the objections raised by orthodoxy against each new step in science and the assaults made by materialism upon every religious conception of the world; and thus it is chiefly responsible for that complicated misunderstanding which, by a lamentable confusion of thought, is commonly called "the conflict between religion and science." vii. _conflict between the two ideas, commonly misunderstood as a conflict between religion and science._ in illustration of the mischief that has been wrought by the augustinian conception of deity, we may cite the theological objections urged against the newtonian theory of gravitation and the darwinian theory of natural selection. leibnitz, who as a mathematician but little inferior to newton himself might have been expected to be easily convinced of the truth of the theory of gravitation, was nevertheless deterred by theological scruples from accepting it. it appeared to him that it substituted the action of physical forces for the direct action of the deity. now the fallacy of this argument of leibnitz is easy to detect. it lies in a metaphysical misconception of the meaning of the word "force." "force" is implicitly regarded as a sort of entity or dæmon which has a mode of action distinguishable from that of deity; otherwise it is meaningless to speak of substituting the one for the other. but such a personification of "force" is a remnant of barbaric thought, in no wise sanctioned by physical science. when astronomy speaks of two planets as attracting each other with a "force" which varies directly as their masses and inversely as the squares of their distances apart, it simply uses the phrase as a convenient metaphor by which to describe the manner in which the observed movements of the two bodies occur. it explains that in presence of each other the two bodies are observed to change their positions in a certain specified way, and this is all that it means. this is all that a strictly scientific hypothesis can possibly allege, and this is all that observation can possibly prove. whatever goes beyond this and imagines or asserts a kind of "pull" between the two bodies, is not science, but metaphysics. an atheistic metaphysics may imagine such a "pull," and may interpret it as the action of something that is not deity, but such a conclusion can find no support in the scientific theorem, which is simply a generalized description of phenomena. the general considerations upon which the belief in the existence and direct action of deity is otherwise founded are in no wise disturbed by the establishment of any such scientific theorem. we are still perfectly free to maintain that it is the direct action of deity which is manifested in the planetary movements; having done nothing more with our newtonian hypothesis than to construct a happy formula for expressing the mode or order of the manifestation. we may have learned something new concerning the manner of divine action; we certainly have not "substituted" any other kind of action for it. and what is thus obvious in this simple astronomical example is equally true in principle in every case whatever in which one set of phenomena is interpreted by reference to another set. in no case whatever can science use the words "force" or "cause" except as metaphorically descriptive of some observed or observable sequence of phenomena. and consequently at no imaginable future time, so long as the essential conditions of human thinking are maintained, can science even attempt to substitute the action of any other power for the direct action of deity. the theological objection urged by leibnitz against newton was repeated word for word by agassiz in his comments upon darwin. he regarded it as a fatal objection to the darwinian theory that it appeared to substitute the action of physical forces for the creative action of deity. the fallacy here is precisely the same as in leibnitz's argument. mr. darwin has convinced us that the existence of highly complicated organisms is the result of an infinitely diversified aggregate of circumstances so minute as severally to seem trivial or accidental; yet the consistent theist will always occupy an impregnable position in maintaining that the entire series in each and every one of its incidents is an immediate manifestation of the creative action of god. in this connection it is worth while to state explicitly what is the true province of scientific explanation. is it not obvious that since a philosophical theism must regard divine power as the immediate source of all phenomena alike, therefore science cannot properly explain any particular group of phenomena by a direct reference to the action of deity? such a reference is not an explanation, since it adds nothing to our previous knowledge either of the phenomena or of the manner of divine action. the business of science is simply to ascertain in what manner phenomena coexist with each other or follow each other, and the only kind of explanation with which it can properly deal is that which refers one set of phenomena to another set. in pursuing this, its legitimate business, science does not touch on the province of theology in any way, and there is no conceivable occasion for any conflict between the two. from this and the previous considerations taken together it follows not only that such explanations as are contained in the newtonian and darwinian theories are entirely consistent with theism, but also that they are the only kind of explanations with which science can properly concern itself at all. to say that complex organisms were directly created by the deity is to make an assertion which, however true in a theistic sense, is utterly barren. it is of no profit to theism, which must be taken for granted before the assertion can be made; and it is of no profit to science, which must still ask its question, "how?"[15] we are now prepared to see that the theological objection urged against the newtonian and darwinian theories has its roots in that imperfect kind of theism which augustine did so much to fasten upon the western world. obviously if leibnitz and agassiz had been educated in that higher theism shared by clement and athanasius in ancient times with spinoza and goethe in later days,--if they had been accustomed to conceive of god as immanent in the universe and eternally creative,--then the argument which they urged with so much feeling would never have occurred to them. by no possibility could such an argument have entered their minds. to conceive of "physical forces" as powers of which the action could in any wise be "substituted" for the action of deity would in such case have been absolutely impossible. such a conception involves the idea of god as remote from the world and acting upon it from outside. the whole notion of what theological writers are fond of calling "secondary causes" involves such an idea of god. the higher or athanasian theism knows nothing of secondary causes in a world where every event flows directly from the eternal first cause. it knows nothing of physical forces save as immediate manifestations of the omnipresent creative power of god. in the personification of physical forces, and the implied contrast between their action and that of deity, there is something very like a survival of the habits of thought which characterized ancient polytheism. what are these personified forces but little gods who are supposed to be invading the sacred domain of the ruler zeus? when one speaks of substituting the action of gravitation for the direct action of deity, does there not hover somewhere in the dim background of the conception a vague spectre of gravitation in the guise of a rebellious titan? doubtless it would not be easy to bring any one to acknowledge such a charge, but the unseen and unacknowledged part of a fallacy is just that which is most persistent and mischievous. it is not so many generations, after all, since our ancestors were barbarians and polytheists; and fragments of their barbaric thinking are continually intruding unawares into the midst of our lately-acquired scientific culture. in most philosophical discussions a great deal of loose phraseology is used, in order to find the proper connotations of which we must go back to primitive and untutored ages. such is eminently the case with the phrases in which the forces of nature are personified and described as something else than manifestations of omnipresent deity. this subject is of such immense importance that i must illustrate it from yet another point of view. we must observe the manner in which, along with the progress of scientific discovery, theological arguments have come to be permeated by the strange assumption that the greater part of the universe is godless. here again we must go back for a moment to the primeval world and observe how behind every physical phenomenon there were supposed to be quasi-human passions and a quasi-human will. now the phenomena which were first arranged and systematized in men's thoughts, and thus made the subject of something like scientific generalization, were the simplest, the most accessible, and the most manageable phenomena; and from these the conception of a quasi-human will soonest faded away. there are savages who believe that hatchets and kettles have souls, but men unquestionably outgrew such a belief as this long before they outgrew the belief that there are ghost-like deities in the tempest, or in the sun and moon. after many ages of culture, men ceased to regard the familiar and regularly-recurring phenomena of nature as immediate results of volition, and reserved this primeval explanation for unusual or terrible phenomena, such as comets and eclipses, or famines and plagues. as the result of these habits of thought, in course of time, nature seemed to be divided into two antithetical provinces. on the one hand, there were the phenomena that occurred with a simple regularity which seemed to exclude the idea of capricious volition; and these were supposed to constitute the realm of natural law. on the other hand, there were the complex and irregular phenomena in which the presence of law could not so easily be detected; and these were supposed to constitute the realm of immediate divine action. this antithesis has forever haunted the minds of men imbued with the lower or augustinian theism; and such have made up the larger part of the christian world. it has tended to make the theologians hostile to science and the men of science hostile to theology. for as scientific generalization has steadily extended the region of natural law, the region which theology has assigned to divine action has steadily diminished. every discovery in science has stripped off territory from the latter province and added it to the former. every such discovery has accordingly been promulgated and established in the teeth of bitter and violent opposition on the part of theologians. a desperate fight it has been for some centuries, in which science has won every disputed position, while theology, untaught by perennial defeat, still valiantly defends the little corner that is left it. still as of old the ordinary theologian rests his case upon the assumption of disorder, caprice, and miraculous interference with the course of nature. he naively asks, "if plants and animals have been naturally originated, if the world as a whole has been evolved and not manufactured, and if human actions conform to law, what is there left for god to do? if not formally repudiated, is he not thrust back into the past eternity, as an ultimate source of things, which is postulated for form's sake, but might as well, for all practical purposes, be omitted?"[16] the scientific inquirer may reply that the difficulty is one which theology has created for itself. it is certainly not science that has relegated the creative activity of god to some nameless moment in the bygone eternity and left him without occupation in the present world. it is not science that is responsible for the mischievous distinction between divine action and natural law. that distinction is historically derived from a loose habit of philosophizing characteristic of ignorant ages, and was bequeathed to modern times by the theology of the latin church. small blame to the atheist who, starting upon such a basis, thinks he can interpret the universe without the idea of god! he is but doing as well as he knows how, with the materials given him. one has only, however, to adopt the higher theism of clement and athanasius, and this alleged antagonism between science and theology, by which so many hearts have been saddened, so many minds darkened, vanishes at once and forever. "once really adopt the conception of an ever-present god, without whom not a sparrow falls to the ground, and it becomes self-evident that the law of gravitation is but an expression of a particular mode of divine action. and what is thus true of one law is true of all laws."[17] the thinker in whose mind divine action is thus identified with orderly action, and to whom a really irregular phenomenon would seem like a manifestation of sheer diabolism, foresees in every possible extension of knowledge a fresh confirmation of his faith in god. from his point of view there can be no antagonism between our duty as inquirers and our duty as worshippers. to him no part of the universe is godless. in the swaying to and fro of molecules and the ceaseless pulsations of ether, in the secular shiftings of planetary orbits, in the busy work of frost and raindrop, in the mysterious sprouting of the seed, in the everlasting tale of death and life renewed, in the dawning of the babe's intelligence, in the varied deeds of men from age to age, he finds that which awakens the soul to reverential awe; and each act of scientific explanation but reveals an opening through which shines the glory of the eternal majesty. viii. _anthropomorphic conceptions of god._ between the two ideas of god which we have exhibited in such striking contrast, there is nevertheless one point of resemblance; and this point is fundamental, since it is the point in virtue of which both are entitled to be called theistic ideas. in both there is presumed to be a likeness of some sort between god and man. in both there is an element of anthropomorphism. even upon this their common ground, however, there is a wide difference between the two conceptions. in the one the anthropomorphic element is gross, in the other it is refined and subtle. the difference is so far-reaching that some years ago i proposed to mark it by contrasting these two conceptions of god as anthropomorphic theism and cosmic theism. for the doctrine which represents god as immanent in the universe and revealing himself in the orderly succession of events, the name cosmic theism is eminently appropriate: but it is not intended by the antithetic nomenclature to convey the impression that in cosmic theism there is nothing anthropomorphic.[18] a theory which should regard the human soul as alien and isolated in the universe, without any links uniting it with the eternal source of existence, would not be theism at all. it would be atheism, which on its metaphysical side is "the denial of anything psychical in the universe outside of human consciousness." it is far enough from any such doctrine to the cosmic theism of clement and origen, of spinoza and lessing and schleiermacher. the difference, however, between this cosmic conception of god and the anthropomorphic conception held by tertullian and augustine, calvin and voltaire and paley, is sufficiently great to be described as a contrast. the explanation of the difference must be sought far back in the historic genesis of the two conceptions. cosmic theism, as we have seen, was reached through nature-worship with its notion of vast elemental spirits indwelling in physical phenomena. anthropomorphic theism is descended from the notion of tutelar deities which was part of the primitive ancestor-worship. in the process by which men attained to cosmic theism, physical generalization was the chief agency at work; but into anthropomorphic theism, as we have seen, there entered conceptions derived from men's political thinking. for such a people as the romans, who could deify imperator augustus in just the same way that the japanese have deified their mikado, it was natural, and easy to conceive of god as a monarch enthroned in the heavens and surrounded by a court of ministering angels. such was the popular conception in the early ages of christianity, and such it has doubtless remained with the mass of uninstructed people even to this day. the very grotesqueness of the idea, as it appears to the mind of a philosopher, is an index of the ease with which it satisfies the mind of an uneducated man. many persons, no doubt, have entertained this idea of god without ever giving it very definite shape, and many have recognized it as in great measure symbolic: yet nothing can be more certain than that untold thousands have conceived it in its full intensity of anthropomorphism. alike in sermons and theological treatises, in stately poetry and in every-day talk, the deity has been depicted as pleased or angry, as repenting of his own acts, as soothed by adulation and quick to wreak vengeance upon silly people for blasphemous remarks. in those curious bills of expenses for the mediæval miracle-plays, along with charges of twopence for keeping up a "fyre at hell mouthe," we find such items as a shilling for a purple coat for god. in one of these plays an angel who has just witnessed the crucifixion comes rushing into heaven, crying, "wake up, almighty father! here are those beggarly jews killing your son, and you asleep here like a drunkard!" "devil take me if i knew anything about it!" is the drowsy reply. not the slightest irreverence was intended in these miracle-plays, which were the only dramatic performances tolerated by the mediæval church, for the sake of their wholesome educational influence upon the common people. in the light of such facts, one sees that the representations of the deity as an old man of august presence, with flowing hair and beard, by the early modern painters, must have meant to all save the highest minds much more than a mere symbol. until one's thoughts have become accustomed to range far and wide over the universe it is doubtless impossible to frame a conception of deity that is not grossly anthropomorphic. i remember distinctly the conception which i had formed when five years of age. i imagined a narrow office just over the zenith, with a tall standing-desk running lengthwise, upon which lay several open ledgers bound in coarse leather. there was no roof over this office, and the walls rose scarcely five feet from the floor, so that a person standing at the desk could look out upon the whole world. there were two persons at the desk, and one of them--a tall, slender man, of aquiline features, wearing spectacles, with a pen in his hand and another behind his ear--was god. the other, whose appearance i do not distinctly recall, was an attendant angel. both were diligently watching the deeds of men and recording them in the ledgers. to my infant mind this picture was not grotesque, but ineffably solemn, and the fact that all my words and acts were thus written down, to confront me at the day of judgment, seemed naturally a matter of grave concern. if we could cross-question all the men and women we know, and still more all the children, we should probably find that, even in this enlightened age, the conceptions of deity current throughout the civilized world contain much that is in the crudest sense anthropomorphic. such, at any rate, seems to be the character of the conceptions with which we start in life. with those whose studies lead them to ponder upon the subject in the light of enlarged experience, these conceptions become greatly modified. they lose their anthropomorphic definiteness, they grow vague by reason of their expansion, they become recognized as largely symbolic, but they never quite lose all traces of their primitive form. indeed, as i said a moment ago, they cannot do so. the utter demolition of anthropomorphism would be the demolition of theism. we have now to see what traces of its primitive form the idea of god can retain, in the light of our modern knowledge of the universe. ix. _the argument from design._ the most highly refined and scientific form of anthropomorphic theism is that which we are accustomed to associate with paley and the authors of the bridgewater treatises. it is not peculiar to christianity, since it has been held by pagans and unbelievers as firmly as by the devoutest members of the church. the argument from design is as old as sokrates, and was relied on by voltaire and the english deists of the eighteenth century no less than by dr. chalmers and sir charles bell. upon this theory the universe is supposed to have been created by a being possessed of intelligence and volition essentially similar to the intelligence and volition of man. this being is actuated by a desire for the good of his creatures, and in pursuance thereof entertains purposes and adapts means to ends with consummate ingenuity. the process by which the world was created was analogous to manufacture, as being the work of an intelligent artist operating upon unintelligent materials objectively existing. it is in accordance with this theory that books on natural theology, as well as those text-books of science which deem it edifying to introduce theological reflections where they have no proper place, are fond of speaking of the "divine architect" or the "great designer." this theory, which is still commonly held, was in high favour during the earlier part of the present century. in view of the great and sudden advances which physical knowledge was making, it seemed well worth while to consecrate science to the service of theology; and at the same time, in emphasizing the argument from design, theology adopted the methods of science. the attempt to discover evidences of beneficent purpose in the structure of the eye and ear, in the distribution of plants and animals over the earth's surface, in the shapes of the planetary orbits and the inclinations of their axes, or in any other of the innumerable arrangements of nature, was an attempt at true induction; and high praise is due to the able men who have devoted their energies to reinforcing the argument. by far the greater part of the evidence was naturally drawn from the organic world, which began to be comprehensively studied in the mutual relations of all its parts in the time of lamarck and cuvier. the organic world is full of unspeakably beautiful and wonderful adaptations between organisms and their environments, as well as between the various parts of the same organism. the unmistakable end of these adaptations is the welfare of the animal or plant; they conduce to length and completeness of life, to the permanence and prosperity of the species. for some time, therefore, the arguments of natural theology seemed to be victorious along the whole line. the same kind of reasoning was pushed farther and farther to explain the classification and morphology of plants and animals; until the climax was reached in agassiz's remarkable "essay on classification," published in 1859, in which every organic form was not only regarded as a concrete thought of the creator interpretable by the human mind, but this kind of explanation was expressly urged as a substitute for inquiries into the physical causes whereby such forms might have been originated. in its best days, however, there was a serious weakness in the argument from design, which was ably pointed out by mr. mill, in an essay wherein he accords much more weight to the general argument than could now by any possibility be granted it. its fault was the familiar logical weakness of proving too much. the very success of the argument in showing the world to have been the work of an intelligent designer made it impossible to suppose that creator to be at once omnipotent and absolutely benevolent. for nothing can be clearer than that nature is full of cruelty and maladaptation. in every part of the animal world we find implements of torture surpassing in devilish ingenuity anything that was ever seen in the dungeons of the inquisition. we are introduced to a scene of incessant and universal strife, of which it is not apparent on the surface that the outcome is the good or the happiness of anything that is sentient. in pre-darwinian times, before we had gone below the surface, no such outcome was discernible. often, indeed, we find the higher life wantonly sacrificed to the lower, as instanced by the myriads of parasites apparently created for no other purpose than to prey upon creatures better than themselves. such considerations bring up, with renewed emphasis, the everlasting problem of the origin of evil. if the creator of such a world is omnipotent he cannot be actuated solely by a desire for the welfare of his creatures, but must have other ends in view to which this is in some measure subordinated. or if he is absolutely benevolent, then he cannot be omnipotent, but there is something in the nature of things which sets limits to his creative power. this dilemma is as old as human thinking, and it still remains a stumbling-block in the way of any theory of the universe that can possibly be devised. but it is an obstacle especially formidable to any kind of anthropomorphic theism. for the only avenue of escape is the assumption of an inscrutable mystery which would contain the solution of the problem if the human intellect could only penetrate so far; and the more closely we invite a comparison between divine and human methods of working, the more do we close up that only outlet. the practical solution oftenest adopted has been that which sacrifices the creator's omnipotence in favour of his benevolence. in the noblest of the purely aryan religions--that of which the sacred literature is contained in the zendavesta--the evil spirit ahriman exists independently of the will of the good ormuzd, and is accountable for all the sin in the world, but in the fullness of time he is to be bound in chains and shorn of his power for mischief.[19] this theory has passed into christendom in the form of manichæism; but its essential features have been adopted by orthodox christianity, which at the same time has tried to grasp the other horn of the dilemma and save the omnipotence of the deity by paying him what mr. mill calls the doubtful compliment of making him the creator of the devil. by this device the essential polytheism of the conception is thinly veiled. the confusion of thought has been persistently blinked by the popular mind; but among the profoundest thinkers of the aryan race there have been two who have explicitly adopted the solution which limits the creator's power. one of these was plato, who held that god's perfect goodness has been partially thwarted by the intractableness of the materials he has had to work with. this theory was carried to extremes by those gnostics who believed that god's work consisted in redeeming a world originally created by the devil, and in orthodox christianity it gave rise to the augustinian doctrine of total depravity, and the "philosophy of the plan of salvation" founded thereon. the other great thinker who adopted a similar solution was leibnitz. in his famous theory of optimism the world is by no means represented as perfect; it is only the best of all possible worlds, the best the creator could make out of the materials at hand. in recent times mr. mill shows a marked preference for this view, and one of the foremost religious teachers now living, dr. martineau, falls into a parallel line of thinking in his suggestion that the primary qualities of matter constitute a "datum objective to god," who, "in shaping the orbits out of immensity, and determining seasons out of eternity, could but follow the laws of curvature, measure, and proportion."[20] but indeed it is not necessary to refer to the problem of evil in order to show that the argument from design cannot prove the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent designer. it is not omnipotence that contrives and plans and adapts means to ends. these are the methods of finite intelligence; they imply the overcoming of obstacles; and to ascribe them to omnipotence is to combine words that severally possess meanings into a phrase that has no meaning. "god said, let there be light: and there was light." in this noble description of creative omnipotence one would search in vain for any hint of contrivance. the most the argument from design could legitimately hope to accomplish was to make it seem probable that the universe was wrought into its present shape by an intelligent and benevolent being immeasurably superior to man, but far from infinite in power and resources. such an argument hardly rises to the level of true theism.[21] x. _simile of the watch replaced by simile of the flower._ it was in its own chosen stronghold that this once famous argument was destined to meet its doom. it was in the adaptations of the organic world, in the manifold harmonies between living creatures and surrounding circumstances, that it had seemed to find its chief support; and now came the darwinian theory of natural selection, and in the twinkling of an eye knocked all this support from under it. it is not that the organism and its environment have been adapted to each other by an exercise of creative intelligence, but it is that the organism is necessarily fitted to the environment because in the perennial slaughter that has gone on from the beginning only the fittest have survived. or, as it has been otherwise expressed, "the earth is suited to its inhabitants because it has produced them, and only such as suit it live." in the struggle for existence no individual peculiarity, however slight, that tends to the preservation of life is neglected. it is unerringly seized upon and propagated by natural selection, and from the cumulative action of such slight causes have come the beautiful adaptations of which the organic world is full. the demonstration of this point, through the labours of a whole generation of naturalists, has been one of the most notable achievements of modern science, and to the theistic arguments of paley and the bridgewater treatises it has dealt destruction. but the darwinian theory of natural selection does not stand alone. it is part of a greater whole. it is the most conspicuous portion of that doctrine of evolution in which all the results hitherto attained by the great modern scientific movement are codified, and which herbert spencer had already begun to set forth in its main outlines before the darwinian theory had been made known to the world. this doctrine of evolution so far extends the range of our vision through past and future time as entirely to alter our conception of the universe. our grandfathers, in common with all preceding generations of men, could and did suppose that at some particular moment in the past eternity the world was created in very much the shape which it has at present. but our modern knowledge does not allow us to suppose anything of the sort. we can carry back our thoughts through a long succession of great epochs, some of them many millions of years in duration, in each of which the innumerable forms of life that covered the earth were very different from what they were in all the others, and in even the nearest of which they were notably different from what they are now. we can go back still farther to the eras when the earth was a whirling ball of vapour, or when it formed an equatorial belt upon a sun two hundred million miles in diameter, or when the sun itself was but a giant nebula from which as yet no planet had been born. and through all the vast sweep of time, from the simple primeval vapour down to the multifarious world we know to-day, we see the various forms of nature coming into existence one after the other in accordance with laws of which we are already beginning to trace the character and scope. paley's simile of the watch is no longer applicable to such a world as this. it must be replaced by the simile of the flower. the universe is not a machine, but an organism, with an indwelling principle of life. it was not made, but it has grown. that such a change in our conception of the universe marks the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in human thinking need scarcely be said. but even in this statement we have not quite revealed the depth of the change. not only has modern science made it clear that the varied forms of nature which make up the universe have arisen through a process of evolution, but it has also made it clear that what we call the laws of nature have been evolved through the self-same process. the axiom of the persistence of force, upon which all modern science has come to rest, involves as a necessary corollary the persistence of the relations between forces; so that, starting with the persistence of force and the primary qualities of matter, it can be shown that all those uniformities of coexistence and succession which we call natural laws have arisen one after the other in connection with the forms which have afforded the occasions for their manifestation. the all-pervading harmony of nature is thus itself a natural product, and the last inch of ground is cut away from under the theologians who suppose the universe to have come into existence through a supernatural process of manufacture at the hands of a creator outside of itself. xi. _the craving for a final cause._ it appears, then, that the idea of god as remote from the world is not likely to survive the revolution in thought which the rapid increase of modern knowledge has inaugurated. the knell of anthropomorphic or augustinian theism has already sounded. this conclusion need not, however, disturb us when we consider how imperfect a form of theism this is which mankind is now outgrowing. to get rid of the appearance of antagonism between science and religion will of itself be one of the greatest benefits ever conferred upon the human race. it will forward science and purify religion, and it will go far toward increasing kindness and mutual helpfulness among men. since such happy results are likely to follow the general adoption of the cosmic or athanasian form of theism, in place of the other form, it becomes us to observe more specifically the manner in which this higher theism stands related to our modern knowledge. to every form of theism, as i have already urged, an anthropomorphic element is indispensable. it is quite true, on the one hand, that to ascribe what we know as human personality to the infinite deity straightway lands us in a contradiction, since personality without limits is inconceivable. but on the other hand, it is no less true that the total elimination of anthropomorphism from the idea of god abolishes the idea itself. this difficulty need not dishearten us, for it is no more than we must expect to encounter on the threshold of such a problem as the one before us. we do not approach the question in the spirit of those natural theologians who were so ready with their explanations of the divine purposes. we are aware that "we see as through a glass darkly," and we do not expect to "think god's thoughts after him" save in the crudest symbolic fashion. in dealing with the infinite we are confessedly treating of that which transcends our powers of conception. our ability to frame ideas is strictly limited by experience, and our experience does not furnish the materials for the idea of a personality which is not narrowly hemmed in by the inexorable barriers of circumstance. we therefore cannot conceive such an idea. but it does not follow that there is no reality answering to what such an idea would be if it could be conceived. the test of inconceivability is only applicable to the world of phenomena from which our experience is gathered. it fails when applied to that which lies behind phenomena. i do not hold for this reason that we are justified in using such an expression as "infinite personality" in a philosophical inquiry where clearness of thought and speech is above all things desirable. but i do hold, most emphatically, that we are not debarred from ascribing a quasi-psychical nature to the deity simply because we can frame no proper conception of such a nature as absolute and infinite. the point is of vital importance to theism. as kant has well said, "the conception of god involves not merely a blindly operating nature as the eternal root of things, but a supreme being that shall be the author of all things by free and understanding action; and it is this conception which alone has any interest for us." it will be observed that kant says nothing here about "contrivance." by the phrase "free and understanding action" he doubtless means much the same that is here meant by ascribing to god a quasi-psychical nature. and thus alone, he says, can we feel any interest in theism. the thought goes deep, yet is plain enough to every one. the teleological instinct in man cannot be suppressed or ignored. the human soul shrinks from the thought that it is without kith or kin in all this wide universe. our reason demands that there shall be a reasonableness in the constitution of things. this demand is a fact in our psychical nature as positive and irrepressible as our acceptance of geometrical axioms and our rejection of whatever controverts such axioms. no ingenuity of argument can bring us to believe that the infinite sustainer of the universe will "put us to permanent intellectual confusion." there is in every earnest thinker a craving after a final cause; and this craving can no more be extinguished than our belief in objective reality. nothing can persuade us that the universe is a farrago of nonsense. our belief in what we call the evidence of our senses is less strong than our faith that in the orderly sequence of events there is a meaning which our minds could fathom were they only vast enough. doubtless in our own age, of which it is a most healthful symptom that it questions everything, there are many who, through inability to assign the grounds for such a faith, have persuaded themselves that it must be a mere superstition which ought not to be cherished; but it is not likely that any one of these has ever really succeeded in ridding himself of it. according to mr. spencer, the only ultimate test of reality is persistence, and the only measure of validity among our primary beliefs is the success with which they resist all efforts to change them. let us see, then, how it is with the belief in the essential reasonableness of the universe. does this belief answer to any outward reality? is there, in the scheme of things, aught that justifies man in claiming kinship of any sort with the god that is immanent in the world? the difficulty in answering such questions has its root in the impossibility of framing a representative conception of deity; but it is a difficulty which may, for all practical purposes, be surmounted by the aid of a symbolic conception. xii. _symbolic conceptions._ observe the meaning of this distinction. of any simple object which can be grasped in a single act of perception, such as a knife or a book, an egg or an orange, a circle or a triangle, you can frame a conception which almost or quite exactly _represents_ the object. the picture or visual image in your mind when the orange is present to the senses is almost exactly reproduced when it is absent. the distinction between the two lies chiefly in the relative vividness of the former as contrasted with the relative faintness of the latter. but as the objects of thought increase in size and in complexity of detail, the case soon comes to be very different. you cannot frame a truly representative conception of the town in which you live, however familiar you may be with its streets and houses, its parks and trees, and the looks and demeanour of the townsmen; it is impossible to embrace so many details in a single mental picture. the mind must range to and fro among the phenomena in order to represent the town in a series of conceptions. but practically what you have in mind when you speak of the town is a fragmentary conception in which some portion of the object is represented, while you are well aware that with sufficient pains a series of mental pictures could be formed which would approximately correspond to the object. that is to say, this fragmentary conception stands in your mind as a _symbol_ of the town. to some extent the conception is representative, but to a great degree it is symbolic. with a further increase in the size and complexity of the objects of thought, our conceptions gradually lose their representative character, and at length become purely symbolic. no one can form a mental picture that answers even approximately to the earth. even a homogeneous ball eight thousand miles in diameter is too vast an object to be conceived otherwise than symbolically, and much more is this true of the ball upon which we live, with all its endless multiformity of detail. we imagine a globe and clothe it with a few terrestrial attributes, and in our minds this fragmentary notion does duty as a symbol of the earth. the case becomes still more striking when we have to deal with conceptions of the universe, of cosmic forces such as light and heat, or of the stupendous secular changes which modern science calls us to contemplate. here our conceptions cannot even pretend to represent the objects; they are as purely symbolic as the algebraic equations whereby the geometer expresses the shapes of curves. yet so long as there are means of verification at our command, we can reason as safely with these symbolic conceptions as if they were truly representative. the geometer can at any moment translate his equation into an actual curve, and thereby test the results of his reasoning; and the case is similar with the undulatory theory of light, the chemist's conception of atomicity, and other vast stretches of thought which in recent times have revolutionized our knowledge of nature. the danger in the use of symbolic conceptions is the danger of framing illegitimate symbols that answer to nothing in heaven or earth, as has happened first and last with so many short-lived theories in science and in metaphysics. forewarned of this danger, and therefore--i hope--forearmed against it, let us see what a scientific philosophy has to say about the power that is manifested in and through the universe. xiii. _the eternal source of phenomena._ we have seen that before men could arrive at the idea of god, before out of the old crude and fragmentary polytheisms there could be developed a pure and coherent theism, it was necessary that physical generalization should have advanced far enough to enable them, however imperfectly, to reason about the universe as a whole. it was a faint glimpse of the unity of nature that first led men to the conception of the unity of god, and as their knowledge of the phenomenal fact becomes clearer, so must their grasp upon the noumenal truth behind it become firmer. now the whole tendency of modern science is to impress upon us ever more forcibly the truth that the entire knowable universe is an immense unit, animated throughout all its parts by a single principle of life. this conclusion, which was long ago borne in upon the minds of prophetic thinkers, like spinoza and goethe, through their keen appreciation of the significance of the physical harmonies known to them, has during the last fifty years received something like a demonstration in detail. it is since goethe's death, for example, that it has been proved that the newtonian law of gravitation extends to the bodies which used to be called fixed stars. that such was the case was already much more than probable, but so lately as 1835 there were to be found writers on science, such as comte, who denied that it could ever be proved. but a still more impressive illustration of the unity of nature is furnished by the luminiferous ether, when considered in connection with the discovery of the correlation of forces. the fathomless abysses of space can no longer be talked of as empty; they are filled with a wonderful substance, unlike any of the forms of matter which we can weigh and measure. a cosmic jelly almost infinitely hard and elastic, it offers at the same time no appreciable resistance to the movements of the heavenly bodies. it is so sensitive that a shock in any part of it causes a "tremour which is felt on the surface of countless worlds." radiating in every direction, from millions of centric points, run shivers of undulation manifested in endless metamorphosis as heat, or light, or actinism, as magnetism or electricity. crossing one another in every imaginable way, as if all space were crowded with a mesh-work of nerve-threads, these motions go on forever in a harmony that nothing disturbs. thus every part of the universe shares in the life of all the other parts, as when in the solar atmosphere, pulsating at its temperature of a million degrees fahrenheit, a slight breeze instantly sways the needles in every compass-box on the face of the earth. still further striking confirmation is found in the marvellous disclosures of spectrum analysis. to whatever part of the heavens we turn the telescope, armed with this new addition to our senses, we find the same chemical elements with which the present century has made us familiar upon the surface of the earth. from the distant worlds of arcturus and the pleiades, whence the swift ray of light takes many years to reach us, it brings the story of the hydrogen and oxygen, the vapour of iron or sodium, which set it in motion. thus in all parts of the universe that have fallen within our ken we find a unity of chemical composition. nebulæ, stars, and planets are all made of the same materials, and on every side we behold them in different stages of development, worlds in the making: here an irregular nebula such as our solar system once was, there a nebula whose rotation has at length wrought it into spheroidal form; here and there stars of varied colours marking different eras in chemical evolution; now planets still partly incandescent like saturn and jupiter, then planets like mars and the earth, with cool atmospheres and solid continents and vast oceans of water; and lastly such bodies as the moon, vapourless, rigid, and cold in death. still nearer do we come toward realizing the unity of nature when we recollect that the law of evolution is not only the same for all these various worlds, but is also the same throughout all other orders of phenomena. not only in the development of cosmical bodies, including the earth, but also in the development of life upon the earth's surface and in the special development of those complex manifestations of life known as human societies, the most general and fundamental features of the process are the same, so that it has been found possible to express them in a single universal formula. and what is most striking of all, this notable formula, under which herbert spencer has succeeded in generalizing the phenomena of universal evolution, was derived from the formula under which von baer in 1829 first generalized the mode of development of organisms from their embryos. that a law of evolution first partially detected among the phenomena of the organic world should thereafter not only be found applicable to all other orders of phenomena, but should find in this application its first complete and coherent statement, is a fact of wondrous and startling significance. it means that the universe as a whole is thrilling in every fibre with life,--not, indeed, life in the usual restricted sense, but life in a general sense. the distinction, once deemed absolute, between the living and the not-living is converted into a relative distinction; and life as manifested in the organism is seen to be only a specialized form of the universal life. the conception of matter as dead or inert belongs, indeed, to an order of thought that modern knowledge has entirely outgrown. if the study of physics has taught us anything, it is that nowhere in nature is inertness or quiescence to be found. all is quivering with energy. from particle to particle without cessation the movement passes on, reappearing from moment to moment under myriad protean forms, while the rearrangements of particles incidental to the movement constitute the qualitative differences among things. now in the language of physics all motions of matter are manifestations of force, to which we can assign neither beginning nor end. matter is indestructible, motion is continuous, and beneath both these universal truths lies the fundamental truth that force is persistent. the farthest reach in science that has ever been made was made when it was proved by herbert spencer that the law of universal evolution is a necessary consequence of the persistence of force. it has shown us that all the myriad phenomena of the universe, all its weird and subtle changes, in all their minuteness from moment to moment, in all their vastness from age to age, are the manifestations of a single animating principle that is both infinite and eternal. by what name, then, shall we call this animating principle of the universe, this eternal source of phenomena? using the ordinary language of physics, we have just been calling it force, but such a term in no wise enlightens us. taken by itself it is meaningless; it acquires its meaning only from the relations in which it is used. it is a mere symbol, like the algebraic expression which stands for a curve. of what, then, is it the symbol? the words which we use are so enwrapped in atmospheres of subtle associations that they are liable to sway the direction of our thoughts in ways of which we are often unconscious. it is highly desirable that physics should have a word as thoroughly abstract, as utterly emptied of all connotations of personality, as possible, so that it may be used like a mathematical symbol. such a word is force. but what we are now dealing with is by no means a scientific abstraction. it is the most concrete and solid of realities, the one reality which underlies all appearances, and from the presence of which we can never escape. suppose, then, that we translate our abstract terminology into something that is more concrete. instead of the force which persists, let us speak of the power which is always and everywhere manifested in phenomena. our question, then, becomes, what is this infinite and eternal power like? what kind of language shall we use in describing it? can we regard it as in any wise "material," or can we speak of its universal and ceaseless activity as in any wise the working of a "blind necessity"? for here, at length, we have penetrated to the innermost kernel of the problem; and upon the answer must depend our mental attitude toward the mystery of existence. the answer is that we cannot regard the infinite and eternal power as in any wise "material," nor can we attribute its workings to "blind necessity." the eternal source of phenomena is the source of what we see and hear and touch; it is the source of what we call matter, but it cannot itself be material. matter is but the generalized name we give to those modifications which we refer immediately to an unknown something outside of ourselves. it was long ago shown that all the qualities of matter are what the mind makes them, and have no existence as such apart from the mind. in the deepest sense all that we really know is mind, and as clifford would say, what we call the material universe is simply an imperfect picture in our minds of a real universe of mind-stuff.[22] our own mind we know directly; our neighbour's mind we know by inference; that which is external to both is a power hidden from sense, which causes states of consciousness that are similar in both. such states of consciousness we call material qualities, and matter is nothing but the sum of such qualities. to speak of the hidden power itself as "material" is therefore not merely to state what is untrue,--it is to talk nonsense. we are bound to conceive of the eternal reality in terms of the only reality that we know, or else refrain from conceiving it under any form whatever. but the latter alternative is clearly impossible.[23] we might as well try to escape from the air in which we breathe as to expel from consciousness the power which is manifested throughout what we call the material universe. but the only conclusion we can consistently hold is that this is the very same power "which in ourselves wells up under the form of consciousness." in the nature-worship of primitive men, beneath all the crudities of thought by which it was overlaid and obscured, there was thus after all an essential germ of truth which modern philosophy is constrained to recognize and reiterate. as the unity of nature has come to be demonstrated, innumerable finite powers, once conceived as psychical and deified, have been generalized into a single infinite power that is still thought of as psychical. from the crudest polytheism we have thus, by a slow evolution, arrived at pure monotheism,--the recognition of the eternal god indwelling in the universe, in whom we live and move and have our being. but in thus conceiving of god as psychical, as a being with whom the human soul in the deepest sense owns kinship, we must beware of too carelessly ascribing to him those specialized psychical attributes characteristic of humanity, which one and all imply limitation and weakness. we must not forget the warning of the prophet isaiah: "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the lord. for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." omniscience, for example, has been ascribed to god in every system of theism; yet the psychical nature to which all events, past, present, and future, can be always simultaneously present is clearly as far removed from the limited and serial psychical nature of man as the heavens are higher than the earth. we are not so presumptuous, therefore, as to attempt, with some theologians of the anthropomorphic school, to inquire minutely into the character of the divine decrees and purposes. but our task would be ill-performed were nothing more to be said about that craving after a final cause which we have seen to be an essential element in man's religious nature. it remains to be shown that there is a reasonableness in the universe, that in the orderly sequence of events there is a meaning which appeals to our human intelligence. without adopting paley's method, which has been proved inadequate, we may nevertheless boldly aim at an object like that at which paley aimed. caution is needed, since we are dealing with a symbolic conception as to which the very point in question is whether there is any reality that answers to it. the problem is a hard one, but here we suddenly get powerful help from the doctrine of evolution, and especially from that part of it known as the darwinian theory. xiv. _the power that makes for righteousness._ although it was the darwinian theory of natural selection which overthrew the argument from design, yet--as i have argued in another place--when thoroughly understood it will be found to replace as much teleology as it destroys.[24] indeed, the doctrine of evolution, in all its chapters, has a certain teleological aspect, although it does not employ those methods which in the hands of the champions of final causes have been found so misleading. the doctrine of evolution does not regard any given arrangement of things as scientifically explained when it is shown to subserve some good purpose, but it seeks its explanation in such antecedent conditions as may have been competent to bring about the arrangement in question. nevertheless, the doctrine of evolution is not only perpetually showing us the purposes which the arrangements of nature subserve, but throughout one large section of the ground which it covers it points to a discernible dramatic tendency, a clearly-marked progress of events toward a mighty goal. now it especially concerns us to note that this large section is just the one, and the only one, which our powers of imagination are able to compass. the astronomic story of the universe is altogether too vast for us to comprehend in such wise as to tell whether it shows any dramatic tendency or not.[25] but in the story of the evolution of life upon the surface of our earth, where alone we are able to compass the phenomena, we see all things working together, through countless ages of toil and trouble, toward one glorious consummation. it is therefore a fair inference, though a bold one, that if our means of exploration were such that we could compass the story of all the systems of worlds that shine in the spacious firmament, we should be able to detect a similar meaning. at all events, the story which we can decipher is sufficiently impressive and consoling. it clothes our theistic belief with moral significance, reveals the intense and solemn reality of religion, and fills the heart with tidings of great joy. the glorious consummation toward which organic evolution is tending is the production of the highest and most perfect psychical life. already the germs of this conclusion existed in the darwinian theory as originally stated, though men were for a time too busy with other aspects of the theory to pay due attention to them. in the natural selection of such individual peculiarities as conduce to the survival of the species, and in the evolution by this process of higher and higher creatures endowed with capacities for a richer and more varied life, there might have been seen a well-marked dramatic tendency, toward the _dénouement_ of which every one of the myriad little acts of life and death during the entire series of geologic æons was assisting. the whole scheme was teleological, and each single act of natural selection had a teleological meaning. herein lies the reason why the theory so quickly destroyed that of paley. it did not merely refute it, but supplanted it with explanations which had the merit of being truly scientific, while at the same time they hit the mark at which natural theology had unsuccessfully aimed. such was the case with the darwinian theory as first announced. but since it has been more fully studied in its application to the genesis of man, a wonderful flood of light has been thrown upon the meaning of evolution, and there appears a reasonableness in the universe such as had not appeared before. it has been shown that the genesis of man was due to a change in the direction of the working of natural selection, whereby psychical variations were selected to the neglect of physical variations. it has been shown that one chief result of this change was the lengthening of infancy, whereby man appeared on the scene as a plastic creature capable of unlimited psychical progress. it has been shown that one chief result of the lengthening of infancy was the origination of the family and of human society endowed with rudimentary moral ideas and moral sentiments. it has been shown that through these coöperating processes the difference between man and all lower creatures has come to be a difference in kind transcending all other differences; that his appearance upon the earth marked the beginning of the final stage in the process of development, the last act in the great drama of creation; and that all the remaining work of evolution must consist in the perfecting of the creature thus marvellously produced. it has been further shown that the perfecting of man consists mainly in the ever-increasing predominance of the life of the soul over the life of the body. and lastly, it has been shown that, whereas the earlier stages of human progress have been characterized by a struggle for existence like that through which all lower forms of life have been developed, nevertheless the action of natural selection upon man is coming to an end, and his future development will be accomplished through the direct adaptation of his wonderfully plastic intelligence to the circumstances in which it is placed. hence it has appeared that war and all forms of strife, having ceased to discharge their normal function, and having thus become unnecessary, will slowly die out;[26] that the feelings and habits adapted to ages of strife will ultimately perish from disuse; and that a stage of civilization will be reached in which human sympathy shall be all in all, and the spirit of christ shall reign supreme throughout the length and breadth of the earth. these conclusions, with the grounds upon which they are based, have been succinctly set forth in my little book entitled "the destiny of man viewed in the light of his origin." startling as they may have seemed to some, they are no more so than many of the other truths which have been brought home to us during this unprecedented age. they are the fruit of a wide induction from the most vitally important facts which the doctrine of evolution has set forth; and they may fairly claim recognition as an integral body of philosophic doctrine fit to stand the test of time. here they are summarized as the final step in my argument concerning the true nature of theism. they add new meanings to the idea of god, as it is affected by modern knowledge, while at the same time they do but give articulate voice to time-honoured truths which it was feared the skepticism of our age might have rendered dumb and powerless. for if we express in its most concentrated form the meaning of these conclusions regarding man's origin and destiny, we find that it affords the full justification of the fundamental ideas and sentiments which have animated religion at all times. we see man still the crown and glory of the universe and the chief object of divine care, yet still the lame and halting creature, loaded with a brute-inheritance of original sin, whose ultimate salvation is slowly to be achieved through ages of moral discipline. we see the chief agency which produced him--natural selection which always works through strife--ceasing to operate upon him, so that, until human strife shall be brought to an end, there goes on a struggle between his lower and his higher impulses, in which the higher must finally conquer. and in all this we find the strongest imaginable incentive to right living, yet one that is still the same in principle with that set forth by the great teacher who first brought men to the knowledge of the true god. as to the conception of deity, in the shape impressed upon it by our modern knowledge, i believe i have now said enough to show that it is no empty formula or metaphysical abstraction which we would seek to substitute for the living god. the infinite and eternal power that is manifested in every pulsation of the universe is none other than the living god. we may exhaust the resources of metaphysics in debating how far his nature may fitly be expressed in terms applicable to the psychical nature of man; such vain attempts will only serve to show how we are dealing with a theme that must ever transcend our finite powers of conception. but of some things we may feel sure. humanity is not a mere local incident in an endless and aimless series of cosmical changes. the events of the universe are not the work of chance, neither are they the outcome of blind necessity. practically there is a purpose in the world whereof it is our highest duty to learn the lesson, however well or ill we may fare in rendering a scientific account of it. when from the dawn of life we see all things working together toward the evolution of the highest spiritual attributes of man, we know, however the words may stumble in which we try to say it, that god is in the deepest sense a moral being. the everlasting source of phenomena is none other than the infinite power that makes for righteousness. thou canst not by searching find him out; yet put thy trust in him, and against thee the gates of hell shall not prevail; for there is neither wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the eternal. notes. a.--meditations of a savage. in the presence of the great mystery of existence, the thoughts of the untutored savage are not always so very unlike those of civilized men, as we may see from the following pathetic words of a kafir, named sekese, in conversation with a french traveller, m. arbrouseille, on the subject of the christian religion:-"your tidings," said this uncultivated barbarian, "are what i want, and i was seeking before i knew you, as you shall hear and judge for yourself. twelve years ago i went to feed my flocks; the weather was hazy. i sat down upon a rock and asked myself sorrowful questions; yes, sorrowful, because i was unable to answer them. who has touched the stars with his hands--on what pillars do they rest, i asked myself. the waters never weary, they know no other law than to flow without ceasing from morning till night and from night till morning; but where do they stop, and who makes them flow thus? the clouds also come and go, and burst in water over the earth. whence come they--who sends them? the diviners certainly do not give us rain; for how could they do it? and why do not i see them with my own eyes when they go up to heaven to fetch it? i cannot see the wind; but what is it? who brings it, makes it blow and roar and terrify us? do i know how the corn sprouts? yesterday there was not a blade in my field, to-day i returned to the field and found some; who can have given to the earth the wisdom and the power to produce it? then i buried my head in both my hands."--cited in picton, _mystery of matter_, p. 222. b.--the name _god_. none of the dictionaries offer a satisfactory explanation of the word _god_. it was once commonly supposed to be related to the adjective _good_, but grimm long ago showed that this connection is, to say the least, very improbable. it has also been sought to identify it with persian _khodâ_, from zend _qvadata_, skr. _svadata_, lat. _a se datus_, in which the idea is that of self-existence; but this fanciful etymology was exploded by aufrecht. the arrant guesswork of donaldson, who would connect _god_ with +kalos+, and +theos+ with +tithêmi+ (new cratylus, p. 710), scarcely deserves mention in these days. among the more scientific philologists of our time, august fick, in treating of the "wortschatz der germanischen spracheinheit," simply refers _god_ to a primitive teutonic _gutha_, and says no more about it. (vergl. woerterbuch der indogermanischen sprachen, iii. 107.) he is followed by skeat (etymological dictionary, p. 238), who adds that there is "no connection with _good_." eduard müller says: "so bedenklich die zusammenstellung mit _good_, so fraglich ist doch auch noch die urverwandtschaft mit pers. _khodâ_ gott, oder skr. _gûdha_ mysterium, oder skr. _guddha_ purus; heyne: 'als sich verhüllender, unsichtbarer, vgl. skr. _guh_ für _gudh_ celare.'" (woerterbuch der englischen sprache, p. 456.) max müller has much more plausibly suggested that _god_ was formerly a heathen name for the deity, which passed into christian usage, like the latin _deus_. (science of language, 6th ed. ii. 317.) following this hint, i suggested, several years ago (north amer. review, oct. 1869, p. 354), that _god_ is probably identical with _wodan_ or _odin_, the name of the great northern deity, the chief object of the worship of our forefathers. this relation of an initial _g_ to an initial _w_ is a very common one; as for example _guillaume_ and _william_, _guerre_ and _war_, _guardian_ and _warden_, _guile_ and _wile_. the same thing is seen in armorican _guasta_ and ital. _guastare_, as compared with lat. _vastare_, eng. _waste_; and in the eng. _quick_, goth. _quivs_, lat. _vivus_. in erchempert's historia langobardorum, 11, pertz, iii. 245, we find _ludoguicus_ for _ludovicus_. not only is this relation a common one, but there are plenty of specific instances of it in the case of _wodan_. in germany we have the town names of _godesberg_, _gudenberg_, and _godensholt_, all derived from _wodan_. in the westphalian dialect, _wednesday_ ("day of wodan") is called _godenstag_ or _gunstag_; in nether-rhenish, _gudenstag_; in flemish, _goenstag_. see thorpe, northern mythol. i. 229; taylor, words and places, 323; and cf. grimm, gesch. der deutschen sprache, 296. the westphalian saxons wrote both _guodan_ and _gudan_. _odin_ was also called _godin_ (laing, heimskringla, i. 74), and paulus diaconus tells us that the lombards pronounced _wodan_ as _guodan_. in view of such a convergence of proofs, i am surprised that attention was not long ago called to this etymology. wodan was originally the storm-spirit or animating genius of the wind, answering in many respects to the greek hermes and the vedic sarameyas. see my myths and myth-makers, 19, 20, 32, 35, 67, 124, 204; and cf. mackay, religious development of the greeks and hebrews, i. 260-273. references. m. m., myths and myth-makers, 1872; c. p., outlines of cosmic philosophy, 1874; u. w., the unseen world, 1876; d., darwinism and other essays, 1879; e. e., excursions of an evolutionist, 1884; d. m., the destiny of man, 1884; a. p. i., american political ideas, 1885. [1] e. e. 56-77. [2] c. p. i. 230. [3] c. p. i. 157, 177-179. [4] m. m. 18-21, _et passim_. [5] m. m. 220. [6] m. m. 232. [7] m. m. 236; e. e. 251. [8] a. p. i. 78, 81. [9] u. w. 10. [10] d. m. 104-107. [11] e. e. 262. [12] m. m. 236. [13] c. p. ii. 383. [14] u. w. 118. [15] d. 5-8; c. p. ii. 283. [16, 17] c. p. ii. 428. [18] c. p. i. 183; ii. 449. [19] m. m. 122. [20] c. p. ii. 405. [21] c. p. ii. 381-410. [22] e. e. 327-336. [23] c. p. ii. 449. [24] d. m. 113; cf. c. p. ii. 406. [25] d. 103. [26] d. m. 77-95; a. p. i. 101-152. important books by john fiske. =outlines of cosmic philosophy=, based on the doctrine of evolution. with criticisms on the positive philosophy. 2 vols. 8vo, pp. 465, 523, $6.00. mr. darwin, after reading this work, wrote as follows to mr. fiske:- "you must allow me to thank you for the very great interest with which i have at last slowly read the whole of your work.... i never in my life read so lucid an expositor (and therefore thinker) as you are; and i think that i understand nearly the whole, though perhaps less clearly about cosmic theism and causation than other parts. it is hopeless to attempt out of so much to specify what has interested me most, and probably you would not care to hear. it pleased me to find that here and there i had arrived, from my own crude thoughts, at some of the same conclusions with you, though i could seldom or never have given my reasons for such conclusions." this work of mr. fiske's may be not unfairly designated the most important contribution yet made by america to philosophical literature.... his theory of the influence of prolonged infancy upon social development (part ii., chap. xxii.) entitles mr. fiske's work to be considered a distinctly important contribution to the theory of the origin of species, and of the origin of man in particular.--_academy_ (london). his most important suggestion, that of the influence of the long period of feeble adolescence upon man's social development, is, we think, a permanent contribution to the development theory.--_nation_ (new york). he recognizes mr. spencer as his teacher and guide; but he has moulded the doctrines of his master into a popular form, surrounded them with fresh and vivid illustrations, pointed out their bearing upon great practical questions of the day, and amply supplied the reader with materials for forming an intelligent judgment with respect to their merits. mr. fiske is himself a thinker of rare acuteness and depth; his affluent store of knowledge is exhibited on every page; and his mastery of expression is equal to his subtlety of speculation.--george ripley, in _tribune_ (new york). mr. fiske's work ... is the first important contribution made by america to the evolution philosophy, ... and is well worth the study of all who wish to see at once the entire scope and purport of the scientific dogmatism of the day.--_saturday review_ (london). the author asserts that a system of philosophy has been constructed, out of purely scientific materials, ... which opposes a direct negative to every one of the theorems of which positivism is made up.--_scotsman_ (edinburgh). mr. fiske is not a mere compiler from mr. spencer's works, nor is he simply a popularizer of an abstruse theory. he works his way to the chief results of mr. spencer's argument with independence and self-reliance. in many places he has presented his master's doctrine in new aspects or carried it forward to new conclusions, while throughout he adds something to the original from which he draws by freshness of illustration and individuality of literary style.... it is curious to note the almost fierce persistence with which the author returns again and again to an attack on the doctrines of comte.... the most striking part of mr. fiske's social speculations is the hypothesis by which he proposes to bridge over the gulf which divides the merely gregarious and sympathetic brutes from morally constituted man (part ii., chap. xxii.).--james sully, in _examiner_ (london). mr. fiske is a disciple who thinks for himself, and who has no hesitation, when necessary, in criticising him whom he acknowledges as master.... he is so thoroughly imbued with the philosophic spirit that his work merits a careful perusal; it has the especial attraction of being written in excellent temper and admirable english.--_daily news_ (london). mr. fiske's work shows a complete and independent mastery of the subject in all its bearings, together with a power of lucid and vigorous exposition unexcelled in any philosophical work with which we are acquainted.--_daily globe_ (boston). it is our best american book on the evolution philosophy, and deserves to rank with the productions of the great english thinkers.--_index_ (boston). =darwinism and other essays.= new edition, enlarged. 12mo, pp. 283, $2.00. contents: darwinism verified; mr. mivart on darwinism; dr. bateman on darwinism; dr. büchner on darwinism; a crumb for the "modern symposium;" chauncey wright; what is inspiration? modern witchcraft; comte's positive philosophy; mr. buckle's fallacies; postscript on mr. buckle; the races of the danube; liberal education; university reform; a librarian's work. if ever there was a spirit thoroughly invigorated by the "joy of right understanding" it is that of the author of these pieces. even the reader catches something of his intellectual buoyancy, and is thus carried almost lightly through discussions which would be hard and dry in the hands of a less animated writer.... no less confident and serene than his acceptance of the utmost logical results of recent scientific discovery is mr. fiske's assurance that the foundations of spiritual truths, so called, cannot possibly be shaken thereby.... warm personal admiration and acute critical discernment could not well be blended in finer proportions than in the article on the lamented mr. wright.... the article on mr. buckle's fallacies has one aspect more remarkable than all the rest. it was written and published when the "history of civilization" was new,--that is to say, when the writer was nineteen years of age; and the years--almost nineteen more--which have elapsed since then have rather confirmed than detracted from its value as a piece of criticism. the judgment of posterity on the most ambitious book of its generation, and one of the most bewildering, was actually anticipated by a stripling, and its final rank assigned with singular fairness and precision. scarcely even in the style is there a trace of immaturity.... the essay on the races of the danube forcibly suggests the idea that mr. fiske has qualities of mind, almost unused hitherto, which would make him an exceptionally valuable writer of history.--_atlantic monthly._ the article on the races of the danube shows that mr. fiske has a special talent for history.--_nation_ (new york). * * * * * =myths and myth-makers=: old tales and superstitions interpreted by comparative mythology. 12mo, pp. 251, $2.00. contents: the origins of folk-lore; the descent of fire; werewolves and swan-maidens; light and darkness; myths of the barbaric world; juventus mundi; the primeval ghost-world. mr. fiske has given us a book which is at once sensible and attractive, on a subject about which much is written that is crotchety or tedious.--w. r. s. ralston, in _athenæum_ (london). this volume is not a text-book of scientific mythology. it contains seven essays crowded with quotations and examples, in the abundant use of which the writer's learning is not more conspicuous than his literary skill. not everybody can shape and control such wealth of material.--_christian union_ (new york). he has, as we must admit, one qualification for attaining his object, in being completely master of his subject, and in knowing also how to treat it in an attractive manner.--felix liebrecht, in _academy_ (london). it is extremely interesting for its happy combination of psychologic analysis with a study of the primitive beliefs of mankind.... a perusal of this thorough work cannot be too strongly recommended to all who are interested in comparative mythology.--_revue critique_ (paris). mr. fiske is a master of perspicuous explanation.--_world_ (new york). its weight of sense and its lucidity will extend mr. fiske's reputation as one of the clearest-minded, most conscientiously laborious and well-trained students in this country.--_nation_ (new york). with the capacity for profound research and the power of critical consideration, he has a singular grace of style, and an art of clear and simple statement, which will not let the most indifferent refuse knowledge of the topics treated. in such a field as the discussion of old fables and superstitions affords, we have not only to admire mr. fiske for the charm of his manner, but for the justice and honesty of his method.--_atlantic monthly._ it is both an amusing and instructive book, evincing large research, and giving its results in a lucid and attractive style.--e. p. whipple. * * * * * =the unseen world, and other essays.= 12mo, pp. 349, $2.00. contents: the unseen world; the to-morrow of death; the jesus of history; the christ of dogma; a word about miracles; draper on science and religion; nathan the wise; historical difficulties; the famine of 1770 in bengal; spain and the netherlands; longfellow's dante; paine's st. peter; a philosophy of art; athenian and american life. we think every one will remark, while examining this volume, the variety of subjects treated; and if anybody has formed an opinion that mr. fiske is a man who cares for nothing but myths and philosophy, he will find occasion to correct it. many of these papers are critical reviews of important books widely different in their subjects; but to each study the writer seems to have brought, besides an excellent quality of discriminating judgment, full and fresh special knowledge, that enables him to supply much information on the subject, whatever it may be, that is not to be found in the volume he is noticing. to the knowledge, analytical power, and faculty of clear statement, that appear in all these papers, mr. fiske adds a just independence of thought that conciliates respectful consideration of his views, even when they are most at variance with the commonly accepted ones.--_boston advertiser._ of all the criticism and discussion called forth both in this country and in england by that remarkable little book, "the unseen universe," mr. john fiske's "unseen world" is at once the most profound, the most comprehensive, and the most lucid.... the mere statement of a thought in his perspicuous and translucent language gives it, in most cases, a new meaning and an added force.--_appletons' journal._ they are all striking compositions, and deserving of a place in the fore rank of this kind of literature. it is not often that more robust and healthy reading can be found between the covers of a single volume.--_san francisco bulletin._ the vigor, the earnestness, the honesty, and the freedom from cant and subtlety in his writing are exceedingly refreshing. he is a scholar, a critic, and a thinker of the first order.--_christian register._ mr. fiske has won for himself a foremost place among american writers on physical science; and the present volume of essays bears testimony not only to his ability as a physicist, but to his versatility of mind and critical powers as well.--_canadian monthly._ he is one of our foremost religious thinkers.--_times_ (new york). the line of argument is so plain that all can follow it, and the style is wondrously charming.--_index_ (boston). mr. john fiske is a devoted student of dante. the review of mr. longfellow's work is an admirable essay upon translating dante,--an essay showing a very fine critical feeling and thorough knowledge of the subject.--_transcript_ (boston). he is a scholar profoundly versed in ancient and modern lore, a thinker familiar with all shades of thought, an observer who studies men as well as books, and withal a writer of the purest and most graphic english.--_inter-ocean_ (chicago). he finely exposes the materialistic character of the book called the "unseen universe," which has been so highly extolled by the "southern cross" and other papers.--_advertiser_ (maryborough, australia). the book has a unity and charm in the clearness of the thought and the beauty of such a style as was perhaps never before brought to the illustration of the topics with which mr. fiske habitually deals. there is something better still in the admirable spirit of his writing; it is of all writing of its sort, probably, the most humane.... he has already achieved a place as wholly his own as it is eminent.--_atlantic monthly._ * * * * * =excursions of an evolutionist.= 12mo, pp. 379, $2.00. contents: europe before the arrival of man; the arrival of man in europe; our aryan forefathers; what we learn from old aryan words; was there a primeval mother-tongue? sociology and hero-worship; heroes of industry; the causes of persecution; the origins of protestantism; the true lesson of protestantism; evolution and religion; the meaning of infancy; a universe of mind-stuff; in memoriam: charles darwin. among our thoughtful essayists there are none more brilliant than mr. john fiske. his pure style suits his clear thought. he does not write unless he has something to say; and when he does write he shows not only that he has thoroughly acquainted himself with the subject, but that he has to a rare degree the art of so massing his matter as to bring out the true value of the leading points in artistic relief. it is this perspective which makes his work such agreeable reading even on abstruse subjects, and has enabled him to play the same part in popularizing spencer in this country that littré performed for comte in france, and dumont for bentham in england. the same qualities appear to good advantage in his new volume, which contains his later essays on his favorite subject of evolution.... they are well worth reperusal.--_the nation_ (new york). these essays are all full of thought and worthy of preservation, while several of them are entitled to rank among the very best essays of american writers. for depth of thought, scholarship, literary taste, critical ability, and the power of clear and vigorous exposition _combined_, mr. fiske has no equal in this country and but few equals among european writers. he does not write on a subject until he has acquainted himself with it; and then he presents his thought, which often has the merit of originality, with a lucidness and attractiveness of style which make it easy to follow him in his treatment of even difficult topics. it is a pleasure to turn from our merely literary writers to the essays of mr. fiske, whose clear thought, discriminating judgment, and philosophic spirit, together with his fine taste and perspicuity of style, make his writings both instructive and entertaining.--_index_ (boston). the vividness and directness of the style is second only to the bracing and stimulating quality of the matter. this book comes nearer than anything we now think of among american publications to successfully popularizing the results of science without debilitating or misinterpreting the same. the first papers of the book particularly emulate the clearness of huxley.... it compels assent to the dreaded "new way of looking at things," but in such a way that when the assent is given the dread is all gone. it is a good book for the busy preacher on account of its wealth of facts, so arranged as to reveal the thought that lies back of each fact. each conclusion suggests a lesson.--_unity_ (chicago). mr. fiske, under the above title, makes his excursions through the realms of science, and evolves "evolution" in a most admirable manner--physical and psychical--by the "testimony of the rocks," and with wonderful wisdom explains the origin of matter and man so truthfully possible that it is accepted as exceedingly probable, if not certain, by the thoughtful reader. it is fascinating to read his proofs and speculations upon a subject grown so interesting, and the reader is disposed to apply the same term of praise upon his work as he bestowed upon clifford: "such scientific exposition as this is as beautiful as poetry."--_hartford post._ mr. fiske is the master of an extremely lucid and attractive literary style, and brings to all questions which he discusses the fruits of a very industrious reading and examination of authorities.... whether one agrees with him or not one cannot fail to receive much instruction and definite intellectual impulse from the reading of this volume.... while heartily dissenting from many of the views advanced in this book, we commend it to all students who care for the honest judgment of an honest man.--_christian union._ =the destiny of man=, viewed in the light of his origin. 16mo, pp. 121, $1.00. contents: man's place in nature as affected by the copernican theory; as affected by darwinism; on the earth there will never be a higher creature than man; the origin of infancy; the dawning of consciousness; lengthening of infancy and concomitant increase of brain surface; change in the direction of the working of natural selection; growing predominance of the psychical life; the origins of society and morality; improvableness of man; universal warfare of primeval men; first checked by the beginnings of industrial civilization; methods of political development and elimination of warfare; end of the working of natural selection upon man; throwing off the brute-inheritance; the message of christianity; the question as to a future life. mr. fiske has long held rank as one of the most profound and exact of american thinkers, and his little monograph will serve to extend that deserved fame among a class of readers who are not ordinarily interested in the literature of science. mr. fiske's book is, in a word, a plea for faith in the immortality of man, based on the doctrine of evolution. with a superb command of all the knowledge bearing upon the philosophy of darwinism, to which he has himself been a noteworthy contributor, mr. fiske sums up in eloquent periods the process of evolutionary creation from the origin of infancy to the beginnings of industrial and political development which have made human society what it is to-day; and then, looking into the future, he foretells how natural selection, working on the lines already marked out, shall attain its perfect work. the whole argument, or rather exposition, is a marvel of condensation.--_boston traveller._ mr. fiske has given us in his "destiny of man" a most attractive condensation of his views as expressed in his various other works. one is charmed by the directness and clearness of his style, his simple and pure english, and his evident knowledge of his subject.... of one thing we may be sure, that none are leading us more surely or rapidly to the full truth than men like the author of this little book, who reverently study the works of god for the lessons which he would teach his children.--_christian union_ (new york). professor fiske is always interesting. his exposition, step by step, of the doctrine of evolution, is admirably adapted for those prejudiced against it to read--simple, pleasant, and clear, and expressly designed to disarm hostility by showing that it is by no means absolutely incompatible with accepted religious beliefs--at least, with their essential qualities.--_overland monthly_ (san francisco). it is a remarkable contribution to the literature of religious thought.... it will prove that evolution is at least not irreverent.... it is packed full of learning and suggestion, in a style at once simple and beautiful, and is worth a dozen volumes of ordinary sermons.--_philadelphia press._ this essay will and should attract wide attention, founded as it is upon modern science and marking the way in an advanced path in religio-scientific inquiry. mr. fiske is acknowledged one of the first of scientific thinkers, and his conclusions have more than the usual weight.--_albany journal._ his little volume will be highly prized by those who enjoy seeing one of the most profound themes which can occupy the attention treated with eloquence and strength, with scientific insight and imaginative vigor.--_buffalo commercial advertiser._ the reverent spirit of the book, the wide range of illustrations, the remarkable lucidity of thought and style, and the noble eloquence that characterizes it, render this book one of striking value and interest.--_salem gazette._ =the idea of god as affected by modern knowledge.= 16mo, $1.00. this essay is a sequel to "the destiny of man." its object is to show that the indications of science and philosophy are theistic, not atheistic; that while the idea of god has been greatly modified by modern knowledge, it has not been lost or belittled, but magnified and illuminated. the essay is prefaced by a long introduction of remarkable interest, and the whole book is full of significance and charm for all thoughtful minds. houghton, mifflin & co., publishers, boston. * * * * * transcriber's notes variations in spelling and punctuation are as in the original, except in cases of obvious typographical error. each chapter of the book begins and most end with a decorative panel. these have not been referenced in this text. italics are represented thus _italic_ bold thus =bold= and greek thus +greek+. what and where is god? * * * * * the macmillan company new york · boston · chicago · dallas atlanta · san francisco macmillan & co., limited london · bombay · calcutta melbourne the macmillan co. of canada, ltd. toronto * * * * * what and where is god? a human answer to the deep religious cry of the modern soul by richard larue swain, ph.d. new york the macmillan company 1920 all rights reserved copyright, 1920, by the macmillan company set up and electrotyped. published, october, 1920 to the loved ones of my father's family and to the dear ones of my own family so truly a part of these pages i gratefully _dedicate this book_ preface the foreground of this book has largely to do with the answering of vital questions that have sprung from the suffering souls of men and women with whom the author has been sympathetically associated. considerable attention has been given to the natural sequence of these questions in order that the answers might form a more or less orderly line of discussion. while the method of answering a particular set of questions does not permit of a strictly logical treatment of the themes, yet in the background there is a definite and concrete picture of god, of the universe, and of man as he is enfolded in god's world. the chapters on immortality contain a further discussion of god, man, and the universe as they move on in endless time. to know "what and where" god is, it is necessary to understand how man and the universe exist in god, and what god purposes to achieve through them. if we are to reach people's minds, their questions are of supreme importance because they show where the mind is focused. the average person can, as a rule, proceed no farther with a subject until his main difficulty is removed. therefore, we have preferred the question to the natural division of the subject, believing that the reader would be able to see the logic that is beneath it all. the chapters on the bible are not closely related to the rest of the book, but as the scriptures contain the "specifications" and "blue-prints" from god, it seemed important to include a description of how we must approach them if we are not to misread their spiritual content. though the material of this volume has been given in extemporaneous addresses, yet no part of it has been reduced to writing until now. its appearance in book form is in response to many requests. especially helpful has been the encouragement of professor douglas clyde macintosh of yale university who has kindly read the manuscript and made valuable suggestions. r. l. s. 306 golden hill, bridgeport, conn. contents chapter i page losing god, or the honest atheist 1 this chapter is a case study showing how false experiences of religion and erroneous conceptions of god may result in agnosticism or atheism. chapter ii how science saves religion, or modern knowledge and religion 39 introduction 39 1. what is god? 43 2. who is god? 48 3. where is god? 53 4. what does god do? 62 5. if the ancients made their gods, how do we know that we are not making our god? 71 6. may we not be communing with a mere idea? 73 chapter iii does man have a soul, and what is his place in the universe? 75 1. what is man? 75 2. who is man? 77 3. would the absence of man cripple god? 84 4. what could an infinite god care for such a little speck? 87 5. is not socialism the best religion there is? 90 chapter iv does god have a body, and could he become a man? 104 1. introductory statement 104 2. the idea of the trinity and how it came about 106 3. was jesus god or a good man only? 113 4. can modern psychology any longer believe in the deity of jesus? 116 5. where does jesus belong in the religious, social and thought worlds? 132 6. can god die? 135 chapter v losing the sense of immortality 142 a general statement 142 1. the contagion of doubt 144 2. the inability to make a religious use of modern knowledge 146 3. the loss of a satisfying conception of the future life 147 4. the growing habit of classifying the future with things unknown and unknowable 148 5. an inadequate conception of the kingdom of god 150 6. we automatically lose the assurance of the future when we lose the reality of the present 153 chapter vi finding the sense of immortality 157 how shall we find the assurance of immortality? 157 1. we automatically find the assurance of the future when we find the reality of the present 157 some reasons why the quest for reality is not more frequently and earnestly undertaken. a. the moral failure of christians 158 b. because the average christian cannot answer technical questions 159 c. antiquated forms irritating to sceptics 162 d. the provincialism of sceptics 164 2. equal striving for spiritual and material things is necessary 166 3. the final step in the effort to know god 173 4. conscious of the existence of god, we become certain of immortality 176 chapter vii what difference does it make whether we believe in immortality if we live as we should in this life? 182 1. how can one live as he should? 182 2. the difference in social service 183 3. the difference in personal preparation 186 chapter viii how shall we conceive of the future life? 193 1. its relation to the present constitution of things 193 2. where is heaven? 196 3. will there be a holy city? 198 4. will there be music? 201 5. shall we meet our loved ones? 201 6. shall we see god? 204 7. will there be burdens to bear in heaven? 205 chapter ix losing the bible to find it 207 if the bible contains errors, how do we know that any of it is true? 207 a general statement 207 the method of finding god's word 1. the story of creation 212 2. the story of the garden 220 3. the bible stories in general 223 4. the laws of israel--moral and ceremonial 224 5. the book of job 226 chapter x losing the bible to find it (continued) 232 the method of finding god's word (continued) 1. the psalms 232 2. the prophets in general 235 3. jonah 241 4. the new testament in general 247 5. the book of revelation 250 what and where is god? chapter i losing god, or the honest atheist _why does god leave his very existence in doubt by forever hiding himself?_ _if there were a god would he not make himself known in such a way that no one could possibly doubt his existence?_ _why should we be expected to love and obey a god whose existence is still a subject of discussion?_ _could a righteous and loving father leave any of his children in doubt of his existence?_ while i was dining one day with a young minister and his wife, the latter disclosed to me her religious state of mind. said she: "i have no god! they have taken him away and i do not know where to find him. my childhood conception of a man-god on a throne in heaven is gone--and i think rightly gone; but i have nothing to take its place. i hear them speak of an immanent god; of a god who fills all nature. and i have no objection to this except that it brings no relief. nature is so inexpressibly vast and complex that, to my mind, a god who fills all nature is so infinitely big and spread out that i can neither know him nor love him. he is altogether too attenuated for me; besides, this makes him so much everywhere that he seems to be nowhere. here i am, without a god, working myself nearly to death in a great church; and my heart is breaking for a father to whom i can go, as i once did, with all _my_ hopes and fears. moreover, all my young women friends feel as i do. we often speak of this among ourselves without knowing where to turn for relief." the distressing experience of this minister's wife is more common than many think. with _her type_ of mind it was inevitable that she should experience doubt while passing from the crude to the mature. being bright, consecrated, and sincere she had simply hastened the crisis. that the church is not always present to take care of its own passengers when they arrive at these way-stations is the greater pity; because representatives of various spiritual inns will be sure to meet every incoming train. and if the church is neglectful of its spiritual pilgrims, it compels them to spend their night of doubt in the depot or on a bench in the park exposed to the tender mercy of religious fakers. were the difficulties of this minister's wife met, it would be a great blessing to her and to thousands of other troubled souls; and at the same time it would immeasurably enrich our common christian life. because of our newly acquired knowledge of the physical universe multitudes, both without and within the church, are asking _what_ god is and _where_ he is that they may find him. the poverty of faith and confusion of ideas concerning god were recently brought _to_ light by professor leuba in his questionnaire. many seem to think there is no place for god in their conception of the universe. having no longer a satisfying idea of god, the thought of him is fading from their minds. and while some rejoice in their scepticism, others deeply regret a waning faith. all this only proves that the world is over-ripe for a finer conception of god and his universe; and that a better and more definite idea must be obtained, or doubt will run into positive unbelief. modern learning is thought by many to be particularly hard on faith. some of us, however, have found the world of modern knowledge more congenial to faith and much superior to the old unscientific world as a place in which to live the simple christian life. this better vision should be given to the people with all possible speed. they should be taught to see that as boulevards and steel bridges are superior to mud roads and dangerous fords, so the new christian highway is better than the old. nevertheless, new knowledge in certain directions does present grave difficulties for those who retain crude conceptions of god and erroneous views of his relation to the forces of nature that envelop us. until we do the work that our times demand of us, even christians may not hope to remain immune from the devastating influences of doubt. there is a deep cry in the modern soul that must be met. while our hope of knowing god rests on his immanence yet the idea of immanence has not been sufficiently clarified to meet our practical demands. if we continue to teach the beautiful doctrine that god is everywhere, in the vague way that is now so prevalent, an ever increasing number will surely come to believe that he is nowhere. lovingly and faithfully our mothers taught us that god was everywhere in all majesty and power. but it was different. they believed that god had a form, or nucleus, in heaven, and that his spirit radiated from this form to the remotest particles of matter in the universe. they also believed that when transported at death to his central abode they should look with rapture upon his ineffable being. they expected to see the glorious presence of the father distinct from the glorified body of jesus. in their thought, the visible jesus was literally on the right hand of a visible father. however, this conception of a visible and localized god in heaven is either gone or going; and for the average mind there remains a deity, if any, as attenuated as stellar ether, and scarcely more personal than the forces of nature. no one ever made a more rational demand than the minister's wife when she asked for a particular god to supplement a universal god. we must get on common ground with our fellows, if we really wish to help, and sow our seed in the soil of living minds. the supreme need of the hour is for someone to help the masses to move out of the old "shack" of an unscientific world into god's beautiful, expanding palace. though some new frames are needed for the old pictures, yet no treasure should be left to perish in the old "shack"; because the ampler world of modern knowledge will never be home until the pictures of our childhood hang on the wall and the fire burns in the furnace. the larger abode of a scientific universe is a veritable prison when we have cast out the god of our fathers. but whether we would or not, we must learn to do business in the new world; and sooner or later we shall learn that we can not do business in one kind of a universe and foster religion in another. religion must thrive in the new world or perish. neither is it enough for a few scholars to see their way in the new order; they must show others how to be religious without stultifying their intellects. in other words, men must see before a religious appeal can reach their conscience. there are as many ways of becoming a sceptic as there are of becoming a christian. we must admit, however, that careless living has multiplied the difficulties of faith for every one of us. and yet, a sincere effort to make religion real in one's own personal experience often hastens unbelief. those who think that no one honestly doubts the existence of god have a poor knowledge of the facts; because, in many minds, this is the only serious doubt. if only they could make this point secure, everything else would fall in line as a matter of course. to a singular degree this has been true in my own case. the one word "god" is a creed large enough to burst all little worlds, if the word stands for a fact which has any worthy meaning. some people, always wondering whether god is good to them, or whether he really thinks of them at all, are greatly shocked if some one else doubts god's existence. whereas, to believe in christ's god and at the same time doubt his goodness is a flat contradiction. for many of us this would be impossible. following the advice of friends--whose judgment i trust--i venture to give a simple history of my own early religious life. this is for the sake of finding a point of contact with those who have little or no faith; and with the hope of stating some of the real problems. some may think this a dangerous thing to do. but unless we know the problems of suffering souls, how are we to solve them? besides, the knowledge of another's difficulty with its solution, should enrich the faith of one having no serious difficulties of his own; and certainly it would make him more useful among people differently constituted from himself. my father became a protestant at twenty years of age to the great distress of his roman catholic mother. at twenty-two he married sarah elizabeth carr of great dalby, england. they were married in the quaint old church of the town by the episcopal rector. later, my father preached in england for the wesleyans. however, on coming to america in 1857 he identified himself with the united brethren and remained with them until his death. as he located in what was then the frontier of this country, i can duplicate out of my own life much that is to be found in "black rock" and "sky pilot." in the midst of much irreligion, my parents put vital religion into the very marrow of my bones. going far and near to preach in little schoolhouses, my father left us much alone in the old log cabin of one room; especially in the winter season when he preached nearly every night. his home-coming about once a month was a great event. in the summertime he would ride thirty miles on sunday, preach three times, and be back home monday by one o'clock to delve into every kind of rough work as a true frontiersman. i pity the little boy who has never had the privilege of rifling a pair of saddlebags on the return of his father. sometimes my father was detained on his way home by overflowing rivers that were too mad for the horse to swim. and once he was detained by watching all night to prevent a rough gang from hanging one of his dearest friends. the long, long sundays that i spent alone with my mother in the old cabin are indelibly stamped on my memory. sometimes i thought i should die with loneliness. at such times my mother would try to comfort me with stories, or with letters from her invalid mother across the sea; and then we both would cry. once when i refused to be comforted, and bitterly complained because my father left us alone, my mother explained to me in a simple, awe-inspiring manner the tragedy of the world's sin and sorrow together with the suffering love of god. how my father was going forth in god's compelling love to help him save his children from the impending doom of sin, she pictured so vividly that i felt glad to live and suffer in such a cause. this was, probably, the most effective sermon to which i ever listened. and then my mother gathered me into her arms and made me conscious of the greatest thing in the world; a love that is infinitely deeper than words; something so like god that we need look no farther for a fitting symbol of him. as a child i was very susceptible to fear. i remember one bitter cold night when the winds howled and the thieves prowled. every nerve in me ached with fear. that night my mother kneeling by her bed, with her little children at her side, prayed in a low tremulous voice, and with a sweet english accent, until god seemed nearer than the raging winds, and more powerful than the evil forces that were abroad to do us harm. how happy i was the next morning to find that the wind had subsided, and that the horses were not stolen, and that no evil had befallen us! when a little child, religion was as real to me as my parents, or the atmosphere i breathed, or the food i ate. i am not certain of ever having been in a church until i was almost grown. but when i was probably five years old, i accompanied my mother to a revival meeting in an old schoolhouse. this schoolhouse, even to the lathing, was made of black walnut that was sawed at a local mill. which of the many denominations was conducting the services i do not know. but one night there were probably ten people kneeling at what they called the "mourner's bench." during the evening such a psychic wave passed over those at the altar that the packed congregation, to see what was happening, rose as one person. at this point, my mother lifted me onto the desk before her which afforded me a plain view of all those who were kneeling at the front. a young woman with head thrown back and hair disheveled, was wringing her hands and crying in piercing tones, "o god, save my poor soul from hell!" just beyond, a man lay in a trance. and then another woman, with perfectly rapturous face, throwing her head back, clapped her hands and shouted "glory." other seekers were groaning and pleading with tremulous voices. the christians who were assisting the seekers alternated their groanings of intercession with "amens" and shouts of praise. as it appeared to me the realms of the blessed and the realms of the damned were mingling their voices in that tumultuous scene. heaven and hell seemed veritable realities before my eyes, and the picture was burned into my soul. the religion of my parents was simple, loving, and thoroughly ethical. these meetings were not criticized by them except that my father sometimes remarked at home that he liked the quiet meetings best. much of the time there were no meetings in the community. yet betimes services were conducted by all kinds of ministers, "descript and non-descript." it was not uncommon to hear these ministers say that no one ever got to heaven except by way of the "mourner's bench." one minister remarked that there was not a converted person in the presbyterian church except a few individuals who were converted outside at such meetings as he was conducting. never having seen any of them, i took his word for it that the presbyterians were an ungodly set. altogether it became a fixed thought in my mind that i should need to get "old people's religion" or be lost. indeed, that belief was very common throughout america when i was a child. even the presbyterians believed it, though they kept their mourner's bench out of sight. accordingly, when i was fifteen years old, and getting to be a big boy, the crisis came; because temptations were coming in thick and fast. going to a revival one night in the schoolhouse and finding the seats all full, i took a board from under the stove and placed it on the coal pail for a seat. as i sat there the thought came to me, "when are you going to get religion?" this was followed by another, "wouldn't it be strange if i went to the mourner's bench to-night?" "not for five years yet," my heart quickly responded. "not until i am twenty years old." being a bashful boy i felt terrified at the mere thought of taking such a step before that crowd of "rowdies" who were openly scoffing. "but," my mind said, "if you make a start in five years it will again be now." it seemed plain to me that one "now" would be about as embarrassing as another. "wouldn't it be strange if i just went forward to-night without any regard to my feelings?" was a question that kept asserting itself. my mind swayed and tipped first one way and then the other until finally it literally fell on the side of a decision. "it is to-night." to me this seemed deeper than any other decision i had ever made,--than which no firmer decision could be made. being thoroughly aware of its ethical significance, my heart involuntarily said, "you see, o god, what i have done." not to have regarded myself a bound person from that time forth would have meant the perjuring of my deepest soul. it was an awe-inspiring decision at a time when god was to get either a great deal more or a great deal less of my life as the days went by. it would have been an irreparable loss to me if this great decision had not been made at that time. even now, i thank god with a growing gratitude for helping me to make that decision. so far, the experience was perfectly normal for a christian boy in the adolescent period,--though at that time i had never known a christian boy. this experience of an unconditional surrender to the will of god should have brought me peace and strength; but it did not, because i utterly discredited my previous religious life as being no more than moral development. real religion, in my thinking, would not begin until i had experienced the miracle of regeneration at the "mourner's bench." the die had been cast. and now the great miracle must be achieved! so i went forward. the knowledge that i was observed by mocking eyes hurt like the thongs of a whip on a bare back. for a few moments i could think of nothing else. then i tried to feel sorry for my sins; and not succeeding in that, i tried to feel sorry because i was not sorry. those kneeling with me asked whether i believed in god. no one could have believed it more fully than i did. then they asked me if i believed that he sent his son into the world to save sinners. this i believed without question. did i believe that he came to save me, and that he wanted to save me now? this, too, i believed. "do you feel that he saves you now?" i did not know. "well," they said, "you will know when he saves you,--so you must make no mistake there." and thus we went the rounds, over and over again. while i believed everything, yet i did not experience the miracle. things seemed to grow worse and more confused as time went by. as they pleaded, first with god to save me, and then with me to surrender all to god and believe, i became utterly bewildered and hardened. there seemed to be no reality in anything. the groans and sighs, the pressure of the hand, the pats on the back, the rhythmic music, the loud and fervent prayers, became a meaningless jargon. i was heartily glad when the hour was over so that i could be alone. once being alone, i did pray earnestly and continuously for god to save me, and felt a great depression of spirits without further results. the next night i repeated the experience of the previous evening with like sad consequences. the next day i was greatly depressed, but made up my mind that i would get religion or break a blood vessel in the attempt;--and i nearly broke the blood vessel. in the afternoon while carrying a heavy load of corn on my back, i stumbled over something which caused me to say "oh!" and as i added the word god, it sounded like profanity. but it was not, for prayer had become automatic. this incident caused me to smile,--the first time, i believe, in two days. as i continued to pray without ceasing, there came to me after awhile a little suggestion of gladness which caused me to exclaim, "oh, i believe i am getting religion!" though the burden seemed to be lifting, yet it was some minutes before another feeling of gladness came. during the supper hour it seemed almost certain that i was getting religion. nothing, however, was said about it as i wanted to be perfectly sure. after supper i started for the schoolhouse across the dark fields. during that journey of over a mile, the psychic lights came on making all things beautiful. at the same time i was made inexpressibly glad. the great change appeared to be in the universe rather than in myself. i laughed and cried for joy. recalling the psalm, "for ... by my god have i leaped over a wall," that, i thought, would be an easy thing to do if a wall were there. what with laughing, making speeches, and thanking god, i soon completed the journey. as the schoolhouse was seated to face the door, on arriving late, i confronted the whole congregation. this arrangement of seats made it unnecessary for the people to turn and strain their necks to see each one who entered. in pioneer days it was customary to take a candle with you to church. on arriving at the schoolhouse you would take your penknife, push the small blade through the candle, stick the protruding blade into the window sash, and there you were, as nice as could be. or else you would stand the candle on the desk in some melted tallow. though the schoolhouse was but dimly lighted, and the people whom i faced that night were an ordinary crowd, yet in my psychic state i saw the people as angel figures under limelight. and as the only vacant seats were in the "amen corner," i sat facing the congregation during the entire service. the sermon was wonderful to me beyond words to express; and yet i seemed able to understand it and to see all around it. after the sermon an invitation was given to "mourners." as none went forward, the minister then came to me to inquire of my condition. when with great joy i told him that i was converted, i was asked to relate my experience. this unexpected request shattered my beautiful world as completely as a hammer stroke would have shattered a piece of crystal. such a stage fright seized me that i could neither move nor speak before they were compelled to go on with the service. this embarrassing experience sent me from the highest state of bliss to the deepest state of gloom. peter's denial seemed trivial in comparison with mine; he had denied the lord under trying circumstances, but i had denied him while sitting in glory. a little later, when the minister rose and stated that they would "open the doors of the church" for any who desired to join, there ensued a terrible struggle within me. during the few minutes of exhortation that followed i seriously questioned my heart. i knew that candidates were expected to answer the question, "have you found god in the pardon of your sins, and do you now have peace with god?" but being in a state of torment, how could i claim peace with god? though my conversion still seemed like a miracle, yet never before had i been in such a humiliated or distressed state of mind. before ever i tried to "get religion," i had plighted my soul and honor that i would follow god from that time forward. even now i knew that i should follow him, but how could i say that i had peace with god when my burden remained in spite of my earnest prayer to be forgiven? had i in that act of denial become a "backslider," and was it necessary for me to be converted again? as a large percentage of the christians present had been converted two or more times to my knowledge, a second conversion was not strange to me. never doubting that i had been converted, and knowing why i was in despair, and believing that my suffering was wholly deserved, i dismissed the thought of a second conversion. "how can a person know beforehand," i reasoned, "that he will feel at peace with god at the moment the question is asked?" by "now" do they not mean something more general; to-night, for example? deciding that there must be some latitude to the word "now" and that god would understand my honesty of purpose, i went forward and united with the church. as i look back upon it, it still seems a most wise decision. though fully expecting to be happy again after joining the church, yet my misery only increased. _this was inevitable._ i had identified religion with an _abnormal psychic state_. and such a state would not return without another terrific effort. the next night, with an embarrassment that caused my cheeks to burn like fire, i rose before the scoffers and told them that god had converted me. again i expected to feel happy. but, naturally, my sorrow only deepened as the abnormal state did not return. for the next two weeks i tried with all my original earnestness to get back my happiness; but without success. one day while in a valley far from any human being, where the woods covered the hill before me, i was looking up into the sky and still pleading with god to restore my happy state of mind. then the thought occurred to me, "where is god?" at that time i was so ignorant of the universe that i thought the earth had a ceiling, and that the ceiling of the earth was the floor of heaven. it seemed to be about three rifle shots away. i thought that if one could get through the ceiling of the earth he would be in heaven, and there would be god. as i stood there gazing into the sky my mind said, "why does god not show himself?" that he could part the clouds and show his face seemed the most natural and reasonable thing in the world. why, then, did he not do so? since he neither blesses me in answer to my prayers, nor shows himself, possibly he does not exist. my wonderful experience may have been nothing but a highly wrought state of feelings. i then recalled that ministers based their belief in the existence of god on certain arguments. but suddenly this seemed the strangest procedure imaginable. why had god left us to argue and reason about his existence? should he not settle so great a question beyond all argument? how strange it would be if my earthly father should stay away from us until we did not know whether he was dead or alive! we had the satisfaction of loving and obeying our father without ever a chance to doubt his existence. if our heavenly father would make me equally certain of his existence i should follow him through flood and fire. "then why does god not show himself?" "isn't it strange that he has hidden forever and forever!" here i remembered the scripture which says, "no man can see god and live." but my heart quickly responded, "it is one thing to come near enough to kill us, and quite another to come near enough to convince us. oh, isn't it strange that he hides forever?" then i thought of jesus. but my heart replied, "maybe jesus was mistaken." if he had a rapturous feeling like mine, and was able to sustain it, he would continue to believe in god even if he did not exist. nothing short of god's personal appearance, it seemed to me, could settle the question. "then why does god not show himself? there is no sense in hiding; and if no sense in it, then it is wrong; and if wrong, then there is no god. because god, if he exists, must be good and sensible." therefore, when my reasoning led me to say, "there _can't_ be a god," i found that unbelief had entered the marrow of my being. i felt that god could not possibly do such a foolish and wicked thing as to hide from his children. having reached this conclusion, i felt alarmed at my wicked thoughts. they were not, however, to be driven away. from that day forward the sky became more gray, and cold, and godless. an awful crisis had come into my life. it seemed an irreparable loss if there were no god. my life, also, would go out in eternal night. if there was a god, and i gave up faith, then i should go to an endless hell of inexpressible torment. there was no comfort in either alternative. the problem was no longer the problem of the church; it was my personal problem. and the battle had to be fought to a decisive issue. being impaled on the two horns of the dilemma, i found it increasingly difficult to reproduce the exalted state of feeling on which i still relied for assurance. never having met a college graduate, of course i had not heard one preach. it was in the college chapel, four years later, that i first listened to a sermon by a college man. my impression was that he made neither noise nor light. that he made but little noise i knew. but i am now willing to admit that he may have shed more light than i saw. preaching often fails to make any connection with the fundamental ideas and difficulties of doubting minds. in my new state of doubt, the first impulse was to confide in my father and christian friends. but then i realized that i knew all the stock phrases, and that none of them met my case. if confronted with the old phrases would i not argue, and might i not confirm myself in a possible error? was it not safer to fight it out with god, if he existed, than to argue with those who could not feel what i had felt? the insistence of these questions caused me to keep my secret wholly to myself, and to go on with the struggle. twenty-two years later during the last visit with my father, as we rode together over the hills, i told him this story. with a look of tenderness i shall never forget, he replied, "i believe the story because you tell me, but i am glad you did not tell me at the time. i could not have helped you." said he, "i do not recall ever in my life doubting the inspiration of the scriptures, or the existence of god. i have often doubted my worthiness and acceptance, but nothing more." still believing that i did the wise thing under the circumstances, i was glad to have his approval. if an honest doubter asks for bread, he is not infrequently given a stone by well-meaning christians,--and neither can understand the other. as this is a _case study_, it should be said that my first mistake was in _discrediting_ my early religious experience. my second mistake was in identifying religion with an _extreme psychic state_. and when my psychic state failed me, then my _utterly false images_ of god and the universe completed the destruction of my faith. if i could have reproduced the psychic state readily, my false images of god and the universe would not have troubled me for many years. the ministers who created these false impressions in my mind were not deserving of censure, because they did not understand the forces with which they were dealing--and the community was in great need of something. even for me, it was best that i did what we thought was right regardless of what followed. having entered upon the vigorous adolescent period, i greatly needed to take my stand as an adult christian. i needed to realize such a new influence as a thorough commitment of myself would bring. this, however, no one in the community understood. we now know that one may be genuinely converted and hypnotized at the same time. that is, he may enter god's service with the noblest spirit of loyalty, and at the same time submit himself to a process that will induce the hypnotic state. likewise, it is possible for one to be hypnotized under religious influences without being converted. this is the case with those who wish religion only if it will give them more pleasure than their sins. though they may not deeply analyze it, yet their conversion is an experiment to see which they like the better; and when their hypnotic happiness leaves them, they return to their greater pleasure in sin. or, when the idea and method are rational, one may be converted without being hypnotized. in this case a complete dedication of self to the will of god is trusted to bring its own rich reward in noble enthusiasm and fine appreciation. since i had always been a christian, it was not conversion that i needed, but a deeper commitment of myself to the will and work of god. and as i have already explained, this i did before trying to "get religion." the moral will is the spiritual spine. if it stands erect in its duties toward god and men, the whole spiritual life will come into normal feeling and action. my unconditional submission to the will of god was normal, beautiful, and necessary. but the experience which came two days later should be characterized as _a super-normal psychic state_, _self-induced_. while the psychic state lasted my true religious feelings coöperated vigorously; but when it subsided, as it was bound to do, my true religious emotions likewise disappeared. for years, all references to spirituality were understood by me to mean an exciting, nervous thrill; such a thrill as i had once felt. this led me to study the feelings, a few years later, to see if i could determine their value. i found that i was able to hypnotize a man so that he thought he saw god; and then i could cause him to fall down in adoration before his imaginary deity. or, by taking ether, i could reproduce the glory world of my own so-called conversion. feelings alone are not to be trusted, for the objects which they often create do not exist. on the other hand, real objects, valid and knowable, produce appropriate feelings when we are rightly related to them. never have i been in such a state of pain or dejection but that i knew that i loved my children if my attention was called to it. i still demand, therefore, an objective, knowable god before i can love him. while greatly deploring such religious exercises as are calculated to produce extreme psychic states, yet i bring an indictment against the average church of this generation because its religious feelings are sub-normal. the latter condition is probably as dangerous as the former. even our physical temperature must be allowed to run neither too high nor too low. if in everything but religion we feel warmth and enthusiasm, we reveal a deplorable religious condition. for if one intelligently and fully commits himself to the will and service of god, appropriate feelings will come to him as surely as color comes to ripening fruit. when prayer availed me nothing in bringing back the spirit of god--as i conceived of it--i first questioned my own heart. and when it no longer condemned me, i then questioned god. as i understood it, to produce a rapturous feeling was god's part. my part was to believe and obey. if only the hand of faith could succeed in laying hold of god the spiritual current would come on with a thrill. a great deal of this sensational religion still exists. it is to be found in all our great cities as well as in rural communities. let two errors like false experiences and false images of god unite and they will bring forth a whole brood of errors. so far as i am able to analyze, i always had a perfect sense of god's character. if he existed at all, he was infinitely great and wise and good. but these characteristics simply meant the _quality_ of god and not god himself. _character without being was like a smile without a face._ it was this god behind the character that i utterly misapprehended. my _false picture_ of god's being, of the universe, and the relation between the two was the cause of my religious vexation. if we add to these the fickleness of a sensational experience--labeled, true spiritual religion--we may begin to understand my religious undoing. i dare say that the subject of extreme religious experience will not trouble many of my readers, but half the population is vexed by false images of god and the universe. these false images are so prevalent that one trembles for the future of religion in a scientific age. as to certain aspects of god's existence, the confusion is becoming greater every day,--and there are good reasons for it. since the masses are coming to have a fairly accurate conception of the main outlines of the universe, their false images of god's being are faring badly in this new world. many are casting out their unsatisfactory image of god without anything to take its place. some claim that we are much better off to think of god's character without trying to form any conception of his being. generally, however, when his image goes god goes with it. those who have been steeped in religion from their youth, may continue to worship god after he has almost disappeared; but succeeding generations will have little interest in such an evasive god. they will wish to know that god is before they attribute character to him. the various psychic cults are trying to find a more satisfying idea of god; but they are simply making a bad matter worse. over against this, however, is the popular phrase of the day, "no one can possibly conceive of what god is like! so do not advertise your ignorance by trying." this, probably, is the saddest of all. the religious dynamo is in the heart, or moral feelings, while the circuit is in the head, or formal ideas. if the circuit is broken the light goes out. as long as one's ideas are not discredited by himself, he may get some light with a very poor circuit. but once let him thoroughly discredit his own mental images, and the light will cease to shine. the dynamo may be run long after the circuit is broken, and the light has gone out. i ran mine for many years. the minister's wife previously referred to was doing the same thing. many students reported to professor leuba that they continued to pray, through habit or sentiment, but that god had so faded from their minds that prayer no longer meant anything to them. many learned scientists revealed the "broken circuit" of their thoughts by giving their crude conceptions or no conceptions of god. these men have long since ceased to run their religious dynamo. if the lights refuse to come on, after a while one grows tired of stoking the furnace merely to keep the dynamo running. therefore, in the succeeding chapters my aim will be to show how i mended my circuit. after continuing my fruitless struggle for two years i became desperate. for one thing, i had no religious young people with whom to associate. when not alone, i worked with vile men who never allowed much time to elapse without indulging in obscene conversation. living in a community where we had never seen a railroad, or a piano, or an organ, i found little to entertain or comfort me. and my religion added greatly to my burden. there was just work and privations and fruitless prayers. so it is not strange that at the end of two years i wished that i might die. this feeling came to me with such force one day, when i was working in a distant, lonely place, that i gave audible expression to the wish. not that i wanted to die on that particular day! i have never seen the time when i wanted to die to-day. but hoping that i might die in ten years, i resolved anew that i would just stiffen my neck, and grit my teeth, and pray on until the end came--which i hoped would not be too distant. during these two years i was very faithful to every known christian duty. once i even tried to pray in prayer meeting, but broke down with fright in the middle of the first sentence. i regularly bore testimony, however, to my determination to go forward in the christian life. soon after the time of my deep depression it was announced that a series of revival meetings was to be held in the community. an uneducated old minister, rather feeble in body, was to conduct the meetings. as there were but few christians to help him, it looked like a great undertaking. this question rose in my mind, "would it be wrong for me to take an active part in persuading others to become christians while i myself am in doubt of god's existence?" i had not then heard of people doing church work to gain social standing. and if i had, it could not have been a motive because socially i already belonged to the "four hundred." some men were reported to have joined the church to beat a neighbor in a horse trade or an ox trade--and this i knew to be very wicked. but as i had neither horses nor oxen to trade there were but two motives that compelled me to go forward. the first motive was the hope that in this way i might find god. the second was that i might help someone else to be religious,--since other people appeared to have more faith. i decided that the proposed course was justifiable because if god did not exist it could make but little difference, and if he did it was very important that people should be brought to him. consequently, i selected a young man of my own age. he was on his way to the schoolhouse with a band of hilarious young people when i called him aside. we were very late in reaching the services because out in the dark i labored long and hard with my friend and used every art of persuasion that i could command before i brought him to a decision. finally, however, he promised to go to the "mourner's bench" if i would go with him. then we entered the schoolhouse, and each one kept his promise. my friend became so desperately wrought up at the altar that his parents, who were not christians, did not know what to do with him when the services were over. they therefore asked me to take him home with me for the night. my friend continued to weep all the way home, and frequently requested that we stop to pray. that journey of a mile and a quarter across the fields i shall never forget. but before we went to sleep, suddenly clasping my hand, he exclaimed, "oh, i am converted." knowing how he felt i was very glad for him, but at the same time my heart cried within me, "i do wonder if there is anything in it! it is wonderful to him now, i know, but how will he feel to-morrow, or next week, or in six months?" however, i next persuaded his parents to go forward, and the minister asked me to pray for them at the altar--which i did. they, too, were converted, but no blessing came to me. during the two weeks, i led eleven people to the altar, and was asked by the minister each night to offer prayer for the seekers. on the last night of the series, near the close, the minister said: "now there is a little business to be attended to, and will brother richard swain please withdraw from the room?" i was so surprised and excited that i arose and went out into a temperature below zero without either overcoat or hat. leaving the reader to judge of my ethics and manners, i will confess that i put my ear up to the wall and listened with all my might. the minister said: "some of us have been considering the matter, and we are convinced that brother richard swain has a decided call to the ministry. we want you, therefore, if you think it is wise, to recommend him to the conference for license to preach." this was such a shock to me that a little cry went up from my heart,--"and i don't even know that there is a god!" as there was no dissenting vote the minister said, "you may now call him in." if only my coat and hat had been with me i should not have been present when the door opened. however, with the temperature below zero, and neither overcoat nor hat, even a young candidate for the ministry could not refuse to enter. but it would have been more to his comfort if the congregation had not been seated to face the door. through this vote of the church i was compelled to grapple with a new question of ethics. would it be right for me under the circumstances to appear for examination? i had not asked for license to preach. the matter had been thrust upon me without my knowledge and consent. how could i know but this was the road over which i was being led to the light? besides, eleven people had responded to my appeal. would i care to be a minister? it seemed to me that there was nothing in the world i should so much like to be as a minister if only i could know there was a god. this feeling decided me to accept the invitation and appear for examination. while my education had not gone beyond that of the common country schools, and while i was but seventeen years of age, yet the average minister of the community had even less education. not until three years after i was licensed to preach did i learn that there was such an institution in the world as a theological seminary. however, in those pioneer days all the ministers, missionaries, irish pack-peddlers, and horse thieves who passed through put up at my father's house for the night without ever being charged a cent. they more than paid their way, though, i can assure you, by having to talk religion and theology until midnight with my father who was a born theologian. though my father was not an educated man, yet he had picked up an immense amount of knowledge along certain lines, and always enjoyed a friendly debate more than a good dinner. at such times, from early childhood, i had been allowed to sit in the chimney corner and listen until the last word was said. it was my motion-picture show. and no child ever had more pleasure than came to me when i saw that my father had "wound up" his man in the argument. then, with the greatest cordiality, my father would show the guest to bed. as there was but one great room, and beds none too many, i usually slept with the guest. and according to the guest's report in the morning, i had given him the completest kicking he ever had in his life. with such training, and in such a community, it is not strange that my biblical and doctrinal examination was pronounced entirely satisfactory. after i had gone to school for ten years it, probably, would not have been so satisfactory. indeed, i was strongly advised not to go to college, as it was likely to rob me of my spirituality; and besides, many souls would be lost while i was getting an education. though i continued for a time on the farm or in the coal mines, yet i was told to go out and preach somewhere on sundays. accordingly, i would ride ten or twenty miles on sunday to preach in different schoolhouses. putting the rein over the horn of the saddle, i would plead before the cold gray sky for an unknown god to renew my happy feelings as a token of his existence. but no happiness, or assurance, came to me. when the time came to preach, i felt the importance of not throwing our lives away in sinful living, and so was able to give them some very earnest advice. then on the return trip i would continue to pray to an unsympathetic sky. nothing, however, ever came of it except a deeper depression of spirits. though the dynamo was running at a terrific rate, yet the circuit of my thoughts was broken beyond my ability to repair. so i decided to go to college at any sacrifice. boarding a train for the first time, i went two hundred miles for my preparatory course in connection with the college where i expected to graduate. but no religious experience came to me until the middle of my sophomore year. then while studying mark hopkins' little book, "the law of love, and love as a law," i got a new insight into the human soul. i could see that if one would bring all his powers into harmony, and then relate them to the beautiful enfolding universe, all things must work together for his good,--if by his good one meant the perfect unfolding of his life. instantly there came a great joy in living. it took shape in the thought, "all things work together for good to them that love god." i felt that no proposition in geometry was more capable of proof. a life with its powers united in the will of god must unfold to match the harmony without, even as the rose unfolds to the light and warmth of the sun. besides, i now had entertainment and beautiful friends. almost any good thing seemed possible. "this," i said, "must be what intelligent people mean by christian experience." the only remaining question was the old one, "is there a god?" is god "the allness of things about us?" this, however, seemed too pantheistic. and the personal god still evaded me. so i decided that the question of god was too much for me, and that i would just wait until i should meet the "wise men" who knew. in the meantime i would assume that there was a god; for the college president believed that there was, and prayed to him every day at chapel. as the happy unfolding of my life continued i tried to commit all to god whose will, if he existed, i very well knew. at any rate there was something in the universe that matched my need. i would just call it god until i met the "wise men" in further courses of study which by this time i had fully resolved upon. so the last two and a half years of my college course were very beautiful; they constantly increased my joy in living. no small part of this better experience was due to the influence of the christian gentleman and fascinating preacher who became our new college pastor. here it becomes necessary to relate something more delicate than anything that has gone before. while i was in college my younger and only brother passed through a great moral crisis. as i dearly loved him he was much in my mind. during my senior year i dreamed night after night that he was killed. in these dreams i was always with my two older sisters hunting our brother in the woods. feeling certain that we should find him dead, we usually came upon him by an old log cabin where he lay dead and mangled. i have no theories about the dreams, but the impression made upon my mind was so deep that when i went home, after graduating from college, i felt that i must do something to help him. accordingly it was planned that i should spend three or four days with him in the harvest field where he was running a heading machine. there i hoped we should have a pleasant time, and find an opportunity to shed some light on the deeper meanings of life. then some evening we would have a quiet little talk when i might persuade him to be a christian. as i was going a long distance to a theological school, and did not expect to see him again for three years, i hoped to accomplish my purpose during the week at my disposal. for two and a half days we worked together with many pleasant little chats. it then being saturday noon, my father wanted me to drive fourteen miles with him and preach for him the next day. i could return monday and be with my brother one or two days before the long journey. but saturday afternoon a great storm arose, and at midnight my host awakened me saying, "your brother is killed by lightning." though we started home immediately, the mud was so deep and sticky that it required till daylight to make the journey. there had been a cloudburst, and such an electric storm as is seldom seen. from midnight till dawn we dragged through the mud under an indescribable electrical display. forked lightning splitting the sky in every direction made the whole heavens lurid with light, while the low thunder like distant artillery scarcely ceased to roll. no pen can describe that journey. nature seemed omnipotent and awe-inspiring. at first my heart was dazed and dumb. then it cried, "why did god kill my brother at this little nick of time when i was hoping to bring him to christ? was there ever anything like this? why _did_ he take him?" then while i was fixedly watching the omnipotent display before me my mind asked: "did god kill him or did the great and terrible machine, called the world, kill him? what is the world, and what is god? when does god act, and when does the universe act? would they not be squarely in each other's way much of the time? the world i know, and its activities i behold, but where is god? does he have an abode, or is he a sort of spiritual ether that pervades the universe?" and my heart responded, "oh, you have never yet settled the question of whether there is a god!" so once more god faded into a dream, or a guess, while the elements continued to display their terrifying power. at daylight i stood with a broken heart beside my dead brother, believing either that there was no god, or else that my brother had gone to endless torment. a few moments later i saw my father kneel by his side, and heard him say, "oh, my son, my son, would to god i had died for thee!" in a short time we were invited to breakfast, and my father being unable to speak motioned to me to say grace. however i managed i do not know, but out of a choking throat i said grace to as empty and godless a world as any human being ever faced. two weeks after my brother's death i entered the theological seminary. the deep, vast, and unshakable verities from which i could not escape were sorrow and love. all else was chaos. as a hungry man seeks for food, so i sought for light. much of the theology in the books which i read irritated me so that i could scarcely eat my food at mealtimes. yet it was important that i should learn the history of human thought. all of my professors i truly loved and respected, but the attitude of theological schools more than thirty years ago was not wholly suited to the needs of one on the border of a "new world-awakening" whose faith had suffered so much and so long. the theological world was not quite ready to give the help that it now gives to many suffering minds. during my first year in the seminary i frequently dreamed of seeing my brother in torment. sometimes i would wake trembling, and even when i could throw off the thought and go to sleep, i was liable to repeat the dream in some new form. once when i was walking with one of the professors, as true a christian man as ever i knew, i told him of the circumstances of my brother's death. he asked me if my parents were christians. i told him that they were very good christians. then he counseled me not to go off into any heresies, but to feel comforted concerning my brother; for "the promises were to the parents and to their children unto the third and fourth generation." while i listened to this in silence, yet the following thoughts went through my mind: "then god would save my brother who had not improved his privileges, while he would consign to endless torment our poor play-fellows who were not blessed with the good influence of christian parents." my mind instinctively felt what i had discretion not to say: "i should despise a god who had no more ethical sense than that. god should be harder on my brother than on them." much of my philosophy and theology was worked out during my seminary course; but there were gaps that i could not fill. so i next went to yale to study philosophy. in postgraduate work, through the guidance of professors, i expected to find the "wise men" for whom i had waited so long. however, these "wise men" are not readily understood in a few weeks. they have a poor faculty for making connection with all the ideas that still linger in the mind of callow youth. at any rate it soon dawned upon me that there was no such god as i was looking for or else these men were unable to give him to me. when this conviction came to me i went out from a recitation one night into the dark and once more fought the old battle. standing on the new haven green and looking up into the pelting sleet i said: "now i have met the 'wise men,' and still i do not know whether there is an inspired bible, or a heaven, or a god." but i exclaimed, "o god, if you are, and if i should ever meet you anywhere in eternity, i would run to you as a little child runs to a father. i would tell you how weak and sinful and ignorant i am, and i know you would love me." that night on the old green, while in the dark and pelted with sleet, i went out onto the last crag where any human soul can go, and cried into the infinite depths, "o god, if you are there, some day i shall know you and love you." in that act i passed beyond all men and all institutions, and took my stand with the final reality, whatever it might be, and at least i was free and not afraid. though thoroughly agnostic still, yet i could quietly work and wait. returning to my studies and resolving to appropriate whatever i could understand, i was surprised to find how much of the teaching ministered to my needs. before long i came to see that god did not have a central nucleus, or ghost form in heaven; neither did he resemble a refined substance like ether. spirit was something quite different from what i had supposed. my mind was hitting the trail. then i understood that god had not revealed himself to the world according to my demand, because no such god existed in heaven or earth. so one day in class i asked a professor, who is now dead, if he thought we should see god in heaven as we see men and trees here. at the same time i assured him that i did not. his answer was, "i think your position would be a very dangerous doctrine to teach." but my own conviction was that it was becoming a very dangerous doctrine not to teach. time has proved that i was right. millions of people are suffering to-day from false images of god or from no image of god. not long ago when i related this class incident to a yale man, he remarked, "well, professor ---made great growth before he died." my categorical answers to the four questions at the head of this chapter are: when we have rational ideas of god and the universe we shall see that he is leaving nothing undone to reveal himself. to an enlightened understanding it does not seem possible that god could reveal himself so that no one could doubt his existence. though the existence of god is a question of doubt and discussion with many, yet we may achieve deep and satisfying assurance if we go about it in the right way. i think it would be morally wrong for god to leave his children in doubt of his existence if he were able to reveal himself. this chapter is largely excavation. we have dug the hole deep so that we may commence in the next chapter to lay the foundation on solid bottom. and this was necessary if our proposed structure is to stand. allow me this closing word. when i began to get on my religious feet at yale, i unexpectedly received a call to a college pastorate. and though the usual number of sceptics were found among the students, yet in many respects they were the most savable men in college. usually, if you could hit the keys of their souls they would ring back and ring true. chapter ii how science saves religion, or modern knowledge and religion _what_ is god? _who_ is god? _where_ is god? what does god _do_? _if the ancients made their gods, how do we know that we are not making our god?_ _may we not be communing with a mere idea?_ modern knowledge and religion christian character, the christian college, and christian civilization have been very important factors in the discovery and development of modern learning. expecting to derive much benefit from the sciences, christian people with fine enthusiasm strove to promote them. nevertheless, there came a time when the allied sciences threatened to turn upon and destroy the religion that had so carefully nurtured them. when the scientific imagery of the bible began to clash with the clearly ascertained facts of science, many people concluded that science and religion were contradictory; however, the crude conceptions of the material universe found in the bible are no integral part of religion. that religion may discard its wornout clothes for new and better ones has not been an easy lesson for believers, or unbelievers, to learn. thinking that religion must stand or fall with the scientific accuracy of the bible, some drew back from modern science preferring religion; others clung to the new learning forsaking religion. for a time, therefore, it was inevitable that religion and her foster daughter, modern science, should not be on the best of terms; because the daughter could not approve of the mother's dress, and the mother thought the daughter utterly lacking in becoming reverence. however, with their great need of each other, let us believe that they are now settling down to a lasting friendship of mutual helpfulness. unfortunately, the opinion is gaining considerable credence that modern christians are believing less and less, and that finally they will cease to believe in religion altogether. but this is the very opposite of the truth, for they are still believing the old religion, though in a vastly bigger and better way. for, at the present time, where its help is welcome, modern learning is rendering a beautiful service to christian faith. and this is the grateful testimony of thousands of intelligent, consecrated people. no well-informed person, however, would deny that science has injured, and will increasingly weaken, the faith of those who do not know how to make a religious use of modern learning. while religion and science have distinctive fields to cultivate, yet neither may disregard the claims of the other with impunity. nevertheless, we do rejoice to see science tearing down the "old cabin" of an unscientific world in which the church has lived too long. but when it proposes to shut god out of the _new mansion_ of a scientific universe, those who know and love him will seriously object,--especially since the new knowledge makes god better understood, and more needed than ever. it is likewise pleasant to see religion standing for spiritual verities and duties, but when it demands that the christian shall live in a world that is crude and half false, the modern man resents it. he simply cannot do it. yet, to-day and always, religion should be a simple story that anyone may understand; but it should not be clothed in such crude and antiquated forms as to antagonize the man of modern knowledge. during these introductory statements, we may as well admit that the average scientist appears to have as poor a knowledge of religion as the average christian has of science. too often he is still resisting religious conceptions that all intelligent christians have long since outgrown, or else he is adopting philosophical theories that are only half thought through. this is amazingly true of some men who are superb in their own chosen lines of research. no one is hit by this statement unless he is standing in the line of the shot. whether or not the reader is hit, i beg of him to keep friendly with me until he has heard my simple story of god in his world. could we but free the religion of jesus from the crude psychology and the antiquated science of other days, and see it at home in the fairer world of to-day, it would shine with new luster; and at the same time give a rich, new meaning to the world itself,--such as it can never have apart from religion. science, and not religion, was responsible for crude science.--religion will be responsible if it retains a science that has become antiquated. taking our stand then in the midst of modern knowledge, i shall endeavor to _picture_ religion both at home and happy in the new world. i shall not have much to say directly about scientific subjects, but shall constantly try to keep in mind the man with modern information. the nearer i can make this book resemble a primer, the better satisfied i shall be. if one could so write that the learned would approve, and the ignorant understand, his joy should be full. to give a simple _description_ of god in his world congenial to the scholar, while comprehensible and acceptable to common busy people, would be the highest possible service one could wish to render. in these days there is great need of a clear presentation of god; a presentation that is free from the entanglements of technical learning, and at the same time consonant with the known facts of life. practical men would like to see "the mended circuit of our religious thoughts," since their circuits, in many cases at least, seem broken beyond repair. they are asking for a simple and satisfying gospel that is cognizant of the facts and forces among which they live and toil. we shall begin, therefore, at the very beginning. 1. what is god? the discussion which immediately follows does not concern itself with why we believe in god, but aims to give a definite idea of how we conceive of him. for those who have a natural sense of god, or a religious nature, a satisfying conception of him will be ample for their spiritual needs. and, furthermore, those who doubt god's existence need first of all a definite idea of what we mean by the term deity. it is a pleasure, therefore, to answer in the words of jesus, "god is a spirit." this might very well be regarded as a final answer but for the fact that spirit means all sorts of things to different minds. when i once asked a company of intelligent people if i were a spirit, they promptly answered "no," but supposed i should be when i died. they seemed to think of spirit as a ghost, as something that might appear or disappear through locked doors. the same idea apparently obtained universally in times past, and that doubtless accounts for the fact that the greek word, meaning spirit, was translated "ghost" in the scriptures and apostles' creed. but the idea of a _visible_ spirit should perish. spirits are neither evil ghosts nor holy ghosts. even if there were a ghost, that which appeared could be no more than the instrument of the spirit, and not the spirit itself. however refined and ghostly the form, the spirit would remain as invisible as when it had a gross human body. as further evidence of confusion on this subject, a young man from one of our good colleges seeking membership in my church, informed me that he had peculiar views. spirit, whether applied to god or man, had no meaning for him. he wanted to join the church because in that way he believed he could render a better social service. in his thought, god was neither a person nor a spirit, but a force. having no satisfactory idea of spirits he had banished the thought of them entirely from his mind. all through my own period of doubt i conceived of god's spirit on earth as something emanating from a glorious spiritual _form_ in heaven. thinking that this form in heaven was a spirit made it only the easier to believe that god himself could appear to men if he cared to do so. that he did not care to appear to his children and thereby settle the question of his existence beyond all doubt seemed preposterous. and it would still seem so to my moral sense, if i retained my former conception of spirit. of course he should not come near enough to "consume us," but he might come near enough to convince us. the "new thought" people, struggling with the meaning of spirit, have arrived at the conclusion that there is just "_one universal substance called spirit_." so, god is not to them _a_ spirit, but simply spirit, "a universal substance." two or three other cults believe that man's spirit is simply his physical breath. to say that god is a spirit, then, with any of these gross conceptions in mind, is sadly to misconceive him. _whether we say god is a spirit, a soul, or a person, our meaning is the same._ of these three expressions, however, the word _person_ is the best because, being the scholar's term, it is clearly defined. so when we have learned the signification of the word _person_, we shall attribute the same meaning to all three words, using them interchangeably. in speaking of god as a person the scholar never has in mind either form or substance, however rarefied. he does not know even that there is material substance, much less spiritual substance. he knows very well what personality is as experience, but beyond that he knows nothing about it. personality, to him, means _a will that knows itself_, and then knows _other wills_. when we say that god is a spirit, or person, we should mean that he is a _loving intelligent will_. in speaking of god as the soul of the universe we should have in mind the same idea. there is no harm in thinking of god as a force if the force is intelligent, and knows itself; but a force that does not know that it is a force, is not god. a progressive jewish rabbi expressed the wish that we could get rid of the word god altogether, and substitute some such word as "cosmos." when asked if the "cosmos" knew that it was a cosmos, or that we were talking about it, he replied that he did not think so. "then i would rather worship you," i said, "than your cosmos, for you would at least know that i reverenced you." an intelligent lawyer friend of mine once said to me, "of course i do not believe in a personal god." i asked him if he meant that he did not believe in a god who has a _form_ in heaven. but he answered: "oh, no, no, i have been beyond that for twenty-five years! god, if he means anything, means the infinite, while a person means the limited. now, who ever heard of such a childish thing as a limited infinite? no, pig-iron, as much as anything, is god." i replied, "with all your intelligence, you haven't the remotest idea of what constitutes personality. you are not aware that by personality we mean a certain type of experience, and not a substance. personality is realized only as the experience of self-knowledge is achieved. you are not as yet much of a personality, you are hardly more than a candidate for the office, but by making a good campaign you may get elected. you are not very personal because you are not very self-knowing, and if you should drop the plummet into the depths of your experience to sound yourself, by that very act you would acquire new depth, and would need to try again to fathom yourself. so at best, you are only becoming personal. none but the infinite experience can know itself perfectly, and therefore, god alone is completely personal." my friend had no idea either of god's personality or his own, and his philosophical conception of nature was only a little less crude. it was a long step in the right direction when i came to realize that i had never seen my mother, with whom i lived for so many happy years. yet there was one thing that i felt sure i knew--absolutely, as i knew nothing else--and that was my mother. not her face, not her voice, not her attitudes nor her actions, though all these i knew too and loved. but back of all these there was a real mother, of whom these were only manifestations. and this real mother, that i knew as i knew nothing else, was silent, and invisible. and then i found that i knew myself too--hardly as well as i knew my mother, but in the same way, and i knew myself also to be invisible and silent. my spirit, or personality, is as invisible and silent as god. i have no more seen myself than i have seen him. neither has my naked soul ever made a sound. all the words that my soul desires expressed are produced by a sort of animated phonograph which we call the mouth. at the wish of my invisible self the physical organs of speech set the air vibrating, but my self-conscious will is eternally silent. there is much to be said about the relation of personalities to their instruments, but this must be left until a little later. it will avoid confusion if we try to take but one step at a time. great scholars may think that such ideas as i have endeavored to illustrate are too simple to require statement, nevertheless the recognition of these simple facts concerning my mother and myself unlocked my prison door. it revolutionized everything within me, and without me. during the thirty years of my active ministry, it has been the moulding thought of my life. once realizing that god was a "loving intelligent will," i no longer thought of him as sitting on a throne, or showing his face through parted clouds. this conception of spirit gave to everything new shape and color. it was the idea around which a new heaven and a new earth took form. the rest of this book must further explain what it then meant, and still means, to me. as the result of a better conception of spirit, my world was relieved of intolerable intellectual burdens. simply to get the idea, however, is not enough; one must follow it out logically to see where it will lead him. to the question, "what is god?" i once more answer that he is a loving intelligent will. and, apart from his instruments, he is silent and invisible, here and everywhere, now and always. 2. who is god? first, allow me to say that he is _not_ the father of our bodies, though he is the creator of them. god created trees, but he is not the father of trees. fatherhood, in addition to creation, implies likeness so close that father and child classify as members of the same family. our bodies were not made in the image of god. while passing through my sunday school where a college woman was giving some supplementary work, i heard her teaching the young people that we were made in the image of god because we had two legs instead of four, and stood on end. "why in the name of conscience," i thought, "do we permit anyone in our churches to retain such detrimental and absurd ideas?" this woman was what the young men and women called a "crackerjack" in her college line. so i was amazed at her crude conceptions, until i realized that she had never heard an exposition of the primitive story in genesis. i also remembered that i had heard it preached from a pulpit, that man was in the image of god because he had a face, and walked upright instead of going on all fours. those churches that believe man has no spirit except his breath are necessarily confined to this monstrous idea; while many in our regular churches are in a maze of tangled thoughts. according to scriptures, _god is the father of spirits_. the "loving intelligent will" is the father of other loving intelligent wills. this makes every created spirit a god-child, or a child of god. these terms must be interchangeable, unless we are playing at "make-believe," when we say that a spirit is a child of god. were not all spirits members of the god family, it would be useless to teach them about god; for, being of a different order, they would not understand. it is impossible to teach a horse the things of a man, because he has not the spirit of a man. i believe in an anthropomorphic god, simply because i believe in a theomorphic man. god must be in man's image, because man is in god's image. but it is not the animal man in whose image god is. i should never believe in a religion that i was incapable of experiencing. neither could i experience a religion that was contrary to my reason. nevertheless, mine is not a private religion, because i am an infinite debtor to the world's best thought, and to the world's best experience. without the help of the ages i never could have thought or felt that which i cannot avoid thinking and feeling at the present time. this is not an effort to prove anything, but simply an attempt to picture what i see and feel, with the hope that someone else may see and feel in the same way. the great pity of it all is that so many people have never _known_ the world's best religious thought and experience. there are those, a thousand years behind their age, who are launching new religions or fostering old ones, who are utterly oblivious to the strata upon strata of human achievement above them. yes, god is the father of _all spirits_, whether they reside on earth, or in heaven, or in hell. when once the meaning of spirit, or personality, is realized there is no dodging the issue. if a horse goes down the street keeping company with himself after this manner, "now i am an old horse, and i ought to be a good old horse, and i wonder what the end will be," then he too is a son of god and our brother, though he has four, instead of two legs. i do not think a horse so keeps company with himself, but if he does, then we must own him and hope for the time when our brother will have something better than a quadruped for an instrument. i am often asked what angels are like. that is an easy question. an angel is very much like my wife. for they both are spirits, and children of god. my wife is a sister of all the angels, and if milton's great, classical devil exists, he also is our brother, and a child of god. all spirits are children of god, whether good or bad, just because they are spirits. in speaking of sons, the bible usually means the good children of god; yet it clearly teaches that prodigals are likewise sons. earthly parents are our older brothers and sisters, honored and much beloved; but only god is the father of our spirits. no one need fear that natural sonship to god makes it less imperative that we should become good sons. to be a bad son of god is a most wretched and deplorable thing in itself, and leads inevitably to all deserved punishment. a good father will not be slack in discipline. and furthermore, the rebellious sons of god are not slow to make hell in this life, and that they will make no more hell after death we may not dare to believe. if the truth about the fatherhood of god and the brotherhood of all spirits could enter the minds of the people with all that it involves, it would break the heart of the church, and, we may believe, the heart of the world as well. as yet, however, this truth is but dimly realized. i once had a dear old friend, a saint, whom i greatly appreciated. with her white hair and charming accent she was beautiful. her mind was richly stored with beautiful poetry, and her apt quotations often touched me deeply. loving all the saints, she was equally loved by them. but one day i learned that my dear old saint was a saint only in spots--yet she was a saint. the discovery came about in this way; i asked her if she knew of the family with four children across the way, who had lately come to her neighborhood, suggesting that she might be useful to them. now, what do you think my dear old saint said? with a spasmodic jerk of the elbow, and a toss of the head, she replied, "no! i don't want to know such folks!" this was a case in which caution was unnecessary, and where real service might have been rendered. for the time being my friend had completely forgotten that her neighbors were god's little ones and her own brothers and sisters. she had forgotten that her father was over there struggling and suffering to save his children from sin and harm, and that he sorely needed his older daughter over the way to help him. my dear old saint would not go across the street to help her father whom she thought she loved so dearly. she did not realize that god was the father of all spirits, and that all they were members of one family. my dear old friend has long since gone to her home beyond, and has learned how sadly she failed to comprehend the fatherhood of god and the brotherhood of man. this knowledge doubtless gives her many a heartache, and drives her forward with new zeal to learn the lesson that god is the father of _all spirits_. we may be proud of our family name and social standing; we may think that we are different and apart, but we should remember that no one ever had more disreputable children than god. all the bad people are his sons and daughters. true, they have dishonored his name, and grieved his heart, yet he does not disown them; rather he follows them into all the dens and haunts of vice asking them to return home. and as fast as we become good sons, we join the father in his love quest for his prodigal sons, who are our brothers. possibly i am a direct descendant of king swain of denmark who conquered england in the tenth century. there is no evidence to that effect, but he is the first swain of whom i know in history. however this may be, with every other self-conscious being i can lift my head and say with justifiable pride and gladness of heart, "god, who makes the world, is my father." how wonderful you are, o god-child! and what a pity it would be if anything should drag you down from your divine possibilities! 3. where is god? when i once asked a company of young people where my spirit was they promptly answered, "in your body." i inquired, "in a part of my body, or in all of it? am i to understand that my spirit is just the shape and size of my body, and that when i am thin of flesh my spirit is not as large as when i am fleshy?" "no," said they, "we do not like that." "oh! your spirit is in your brain," remarked one young fellow. "now, then, i have it," said i, "my spirit is just the shape and size of the cavity in my skull." "no," he replied, "we don't know how it is." and they did not know, because no one had explained it to them. this is what i told them: "the spirit is not in the body as a hand is in a glove, for that is one _thing_ inside another _thing_. spirit has no dimensions. if any boy has a rule in his pocket let him measure my 'conscious will,' and tell me how long it is." they promptly replied that it could not be done. so i continued: "if my self-conscious will occupies no space, then i, the spirit, am neither in my body nor out of my body. i am nowhere. 'where' applies to things and not to spirit. the book is in the room because it occupies a definite space. when we say that our spirits are in our bodies we simply mean that our wills are capable of commanding our bodies and making them act. _while our spirits are nowhere, yet they do get expressed somewhere._ for all practical purposes, spirits are where their instruments express them in time and space." at this point in my remarks, i turned aside, and poked sharply with my forefinger a friend who stood near. in reply to his inquiring look i said: "i did not poke you. it was this finger." (then to the boys) "did i poke him? my finger touched him because i wished it. my will got expressed right at the end of the finger, and therefore that is where my spirit seemed to be." again i punched my friend, but this time with a long stick, and when he turned sharply about, i said: "i did not jab you, it was the stick. but the stick," i explained, "had become the instrument of my will; therefore my will got expressed at a greater distance from my body. the stick was really the lengthening of my finger." i then told them of the man in virginia who was talking by wireless telephone. it is reported that when he spoke, one man in paris, and another in honolulu, replied at the same time, as if he were in both places: "hello, jake, is that you?" had there been a million receivers in the encircling space with people listening, it would have seemed to every one of them that he was present. though expressed in a million remote places at one time, he would not have been divided into a million persons; neither would he have been spread out to reach all the places occupied by his listeners. his instruments would have been spread out, but not his soul. his soul would still have remained sharply self-conscious. that concentrated, self-conscious will is what we mean by the soul. the soul is always a definite, personal will, to itself and to the one or the many with whom it is communicating, however short or extended its instruments. that the young people grasped this conception of spirit, was made evident in a subsequent review. so to the question, "where is god?" we must answer that, as naked spirit, he is not anywhere, but that his instruments may express him everywhere. where his instruments end, or whether nature ends at all, no scientist knows. the divine spirit is no larger than the human spirit, for neither of them has any largeness at all. god is simply more conscious, more loving, and more intelligent than we; and his instruments are infinitely more vast than ours. developing a soul is not making it larger, but making it more loving, intelligent, and purposeful. however, the development of the soul does require the enlargement of its instruments. an undeveloped person may be very conscious of his body and its wants and scarcely at all aware of his soul and its needs. to be infinitely self-knowing, like god, is the most concentrated and intensified reality conceivable. so the minister's wife of whom we have spoken, was mistaken in thinking god a rarified substance like ether, spread out to fill all nature. with her materialistic conception of god, she thought him so spacially big that she could neither know him nor love him, whereas he is no more spread out than the mathematical point that has no dimensions. to give complete satisfaction to our friend, it will be necessary to show her the various ways of approaching this loving will, the father of her own invisible self; but for this we are not yet ready. dr. lyman abbott tells of sitting at the table one day with his little grandson when the latter said, "'grandfather, how can god be in cornwall and in newburgh at the same time?' i touched him on the forehead and said, 'are you there?' 'yes.' i touched him on the shoulder, 'are you there?' 'yes.' i touched him on the knee, 'are you there?' 'yes.' 'that is the way,' i replied, 'god can be in cornwall and in newburgh at the same time.' he considered a moment, and shyly smiled his assent." i am well aware that we have not said enough about god to make him satisfyingly near and personal to our love; but it is a start, and we still have the pleasure of traveling together over a beautiful road until we shall stand face to face with him whom our souls seek. we should reach this desired goal in the fourth chapter. but if we become impatient, we shall spoil the journey, for we are traveling as fast as we can go without having a wreck. here, a little incident from actual experience may be helpful. my eldest son, when a little child, would not say a prayer. this, beyond doubt, was abnormal, because most little children are willing to pray. as my own religious life had given me so much trouble, i concluded that he had inherited my frailties, and not his mother's virtues. being perplexed by his attitude i would sometimes take him out to see the stars, when i would speak of the greatness and goodness of god. then, once in awhile, though not often, i could get him to pray. we did not wish him to be unduly serious, certainly not solemn, but it did puzzle us to know why he would not say a prayer. so one day when he came into my study i thought, "now is my chance." taking him up, i set him on the desk before me, which permitted him to look out of the window upon the apple trees that were a bower of beauty in their spring blossoms. "isn't this a beautiful world?" i said. "yes," was his reply. "who made it?" "god." "well, wouldn't it be nice to pray a little?" i asked. "oh," with a tone of aversion, "i don't want to pray!" "you don't like to talk to god?" "huh!" scornfully. "i can't _talk_ to god, he's up in heaven." "no, god is in your heart." at that he rose to his knees and said, with an incredulous look on his face: "well, i guess i can't jump into my mouth!" this made me feel that he was born a little pagan, but at the same time it gave me one clue to the difficulty. he made a difference between talking and praying. that he liked to talk, i knew, but now it appeared that, to his mind, offering prayers to some one so far away was quite a different thing. then i asked him if he thought i loved him. "yes, i know you love me," he said, putting his arms about my neck, and giving me a squeeze. "well," i asked, "can you see my love?" "yes." "are you sure you can see it?" "why, of course." "well, then, put your hand on it." "i can't _see_ your love, but,--i know you love me, though!" "yes, you do know that i love you, but you can't see my love, neither can you see _me_." "yes, i can!"--and his hand literally flew to my cheek. "oh, no, that is not papa; that is flesh. you didn't think i was flesh, did you? no, you can't see me because i am love, or spirit." here i carefully felt of his head, saying, "now, that is a bone box, but i don't talk to a bone box when i talk to you." next, feeling of his ear, i remarked, "isn't that a funny little thing, a piece of gristle!--but i don't talk to gristle when i speak to you." bringing my hand down over his face, i continued, "here is some flesh with bones under it, but i don't talk to flesh and bones when i talk to you. no, i can't _see_ you. yet, my love _knows_ your love, and your love knows my love. when my love feels your love, then we say you are in my heart; and when our love feels god's love, then he is in our hearts. isn't it beautiful, that my love knows and likes to talk to your love, and your love knows and likes to talk to my love, and that we like to talk to god's love?" he didn't wait for me to ask him to pray, but at once began in a loud whisper, saying: "o god, help me to be a good boy, and to love papa and mamma, and everybody, and to do everything that is good." then looking up with a smile, he asked, "do you know what i was doing?" i said: "i think you were talking to the lord." with evident satisfaction he admitted that he was. two days after this he came into my study while i was reading a book and put his hand on my knee. giving my knee a hard shove, he said: "this isn't papa, is it? this is papa's _body_." my book went out of the way in a hurry, i can assure you, and there was a dear little upturned face smiling, which said, "we are spirits, aren't we, papa?" never after that did he refuse to pray. some years ago a successful minister, about forty-five years of age, consecrated, eloquent, and revered by his people, asked me how i conceived of god when i prayed. the conversation revealed the fact that he was struggling with all the questions that troubled the little boy. this unhappy condition was due to the fact that theology begins too far down the stream, leaving unanswered and unconsidered the best questions of all, the questions of children and fools. once, when a little child, i was told by my mother that god saw all my naughty thoughts. immediately, i asked, "where is god?" she answered, "everywhere." "in the sky?" "yes." "in this house?" "yes." "in the logs of the walls?" "yes." "in the table leg?" "yes." "if i were to saw the table leg off, would i hurt god?" "sh-h, be careful what you say about god." that last question was as legitimate as the previous ones, and was asked with equal sincerity. it clearly revealed my materialistic conceptions of god. my present opinion is that it would not give him pain to saw off the leg of a table, but that it would give him pain to amputate a human leg. god knows the thrill of a nerve better than we do, or else he has much to learn. a relative, visiting in my home, remarked that she was utterly confused about god; and that she had been reading some of the new cults of the day with the hope of finding something satisfying. consequently, a little conversation followed on how god was immanent in all nature. so, when she put her little boy to bed that night, she told him that god was not away off in heaven but near, and in everything that was good. to this the little fellow replied, "oh, gee! then he is in strawberry shortcake, isn't he?" the poor mother was at the end of her wits, and felt that the devotion which followed was not very successful. we teach that god is in everything, without comprehending how he is in anything, and herein lies the difficulty. the question of how god is in nature was again before us. some one suggested, "if he is in strawberry shortcake, is he likewise in the garbage can?" "horrors!" exclaimed another. a third voice, "_now_ where are we!--do we believe, or do we not believe that god is in all nature?" a garbage can may be most repulsive if allowed to breed life; yet chemically and biologically viewed, its contents are more beautiful than any fairyland ever described. the odor and sight are repugnant to us, because the refuse is not wholesome food for human beings; but to some other animals it is more delicate than a perfume bottle. the other animals would probably think the perfume horrid stuff. the "loving intelligent will" is not in nature in the same way that strawberries are in shortcake. after that manner god is neither in nor out of anything. this, however, will be made more plain in the consideration of the next question. whether or not the reader likes these illustrations, at least they are out of the raw experience of life, and reveal the crude conceptions that linger concerning god and his relations to the universe. a child can ask many of the vital questions concerning religion and life before he can count ten; and if his questions are answered, he will ask almost all the religious questions before he has learned the multiplication table. this is because nothing else is so near to him as life and religion. the mathematical faculty is a later development. i should never crowd a child in his acquisition of religious knowledge; but when he wants to know, if we ourselves know the way, it is much better to start him on the right track. 4. what does god do? "what does god do all day?" asked a little boy of his mother. we used to think that he made the universe in a week, and that ever since he had been keeping sunday. during this long sabbath we believed him to be engaged in religious work; though he may have regulated the universe a bit now and then. now, however, we see that nothing is finished. even new worlds are being formed, and the old ones are constantly being changed. it is deeper truth to recognize god as making the universe all the time, to think of nature as god at work. for, should god cease working there would be no world. we used to say, and rightly, too, that the world is crammed so full of meaning and purpose that it must have had a wise creator; that there never could have been such a world without a god. with equal propriety, we may now say that there could no more be a god without a world than a world without a god; because a god who was so indolent and purposeless as to think nothing, and feel nothing, and project nothing, would not be worthy of a second thought. at last we have come to the point where we can see how science, in a peculiar way, has saved religion. men have always been pondering over god's relation to the wonderful forces of nature that envelop us. they could get along pretty well with either a god or a world, but found it difficult to harmonize both thoughts. there appeared to be a spirit world over against the great lump of a dirt world. the _bulk_ of things often seemed such a hindrance that men dreamed of deliverance by ultimately getting rid of the material universe altogether. even god, it was thought by some philosophers, did the best he could with the stubborn clay at his disposal. when my brother was killed, i could not decide whether god or the great machine world killed him. just when the world acted, or just when god acted, was to me a profound mystery. for, in my thought, the world was a great automatic machine, that ran entirely by itself, except when god occasionally interfered. whether he was a sort of spiritual ether penetrating all things, or what, i could not at all decide. but like the yale professor, i still believed that if he existed, he must have a _visible_ nucleus all his own in heaven. god, at the center, was a ghost, whom his ghost children would find only after death. according to the common teaching, jesus had left his father and happy home in heaven, having come to this sinful earth to be clothed with a physical body. of course, the father's spirit was represented as being with jesus, but the father himself had remained in his far-away home. so my confusion was worse confounded by thinking. during many centuries, scholars were grappling with the thought of spirit; and they did some good thinking in spite of their mistakes. spirit was being more and more clearly defined. it increasingly appeared to be a self-conscious will, but how this infinite will was related to the great lump of nature, was the supreme difficulty. finally the scientists took the lump into the laboratories, when behold! it melted as quickly as a lump of sugar melts in the mouth of a boy. they discovered that nature was no lump at all, but a bundle of beautiful, complex energies. nature as _substance_ scientists have driven to the vanishing point; so much so that no great physicist would dare to say that there is any substance. yet nature was never so potent in the lives of men as since it has been reduced to invisible energies. the knowledge of these invisible forces and the power to manipulate them make men almost like gods in their achievements. the present situation, then, is a little like that of putting the tunnel under the hudson. one gang beginning on the jersey side, and another on the new york side, they bored down and onward, sometimes going far below the water; but when the workers came together under the hudson, they had varied from each other only by the least fraction of an inch. just so the philosophers and theologians began on the spirit side, reducing spirit to purposeful energy; while the scientists began on the nature side reducing it to purposeful energy; and when the two sets of workers broke through, they were apparently at the same point. the christian scholar looked up with joy and amazement, saying, "why, this invisible, purposeful energy of nature is simply what god is thinking, and feeling, and willing. whether there is any _substance_ we do not know, but whether there is, or is not, _nature is will in action_. god continually purposes all these energies and they go forth. light-energy, and all other beautiful forces constituting nature, are the modes of god's continuous will." "what does god do all day?" why, everything that is being done in the universe, except that which other wills are doing. and the child will is only combining his father's energies and thinking his father's thoughts. the child never works apart from his father's enfolding powers. if we could comprehend all the dynamics of the universe, we should know what god is doing on _that plane_ of his activities. or, if we could know all his loving thoughts and higher purposes concerning his children, who are striving and building in the midst of these simple, enfolding energies, we should know what god is doing in the _moral realm_. the wall of partition is broken down, the veil is rent in twain; we live in the holy presence, since there is no other place to live. with browning, we feel that the atmosphere "is the clear, dear breath of god who loveth us." the pavement on which we walk is the power of the great will bearing us up. likewise, the buildings along the street are more of his beneficent energies, providing shelter and rest for his loved ones. our bodies are also his energies, highly sensitized, through which we become beautifully aware of our surroundings. all the vitality in the quivering beams of ships, and all the propelling force in their engines, is but the power of a will, and that will is the father of our spirits. leaving out of mind for the present the thought of the vast universe, measure, if you can, the ocean in its breadth and depth, which in its ceaseless rising and falling raises and lowers ship-cities as if they were snowflakes; and then remember that, if rightly applied, there is power enough in each cup full of water to destroy a ship, and that all the energy of the boundless worlds is but the will of him in whom we "live and move and have our being." having done this, if you are not something less than a man, you will fall down and adore in wonder, love and praise. to be brought face to face with god in the beauty and awfulness of nature is the only cure for the irreverence of this generation. but some one says, "this makes god too great. have you looked, and staggered before the limitless heavens?" yes, but is it not claimed that god is infinite?--and we have not yet found the equal of infinity. with all our insistence upon the infinitude of god, perhaps it offends some to think of him as being equal to his universe,--or even to the little part of it that we can imagine. however, god must be greater than all his works. this is pantheism, says another. no, pantheism though containing many beautiful truths is, nevertheless, a golden mist. its advocates have eliminated personality, they have broken the mast of their ship, and all the riggings have fallen down with it. being the perpetual cause of all things, self-conscious will is the greatest fact in the universe. there is a clear distinction between god and his deeds, even as there is a distinction between myself and what i am now thinking and doing. this creative will is what the intelligent christian means by the term god. he conceives of this will of the universe as being the father of all other wills. we are not to think of god as making a dirt planet which he has tossed off into space as something separate from his will. he never put his children on such an isolated earth as that would be, to roam about and care for themselves as best they might. the world is the complex energy of his will never-ceasing, with which he enfolds his children. he carries them in his loving powers and will not let them go. this is his cosmic relation to us; but it is by no means the only relation which he sustains to his children. his more personal relationship is equally beautiful and necessary. something like this twofold relationship exists between man and man. we know that it is best for us to build railroads, though many are sure to be killed by them however careful we may be. yet we should be something more than railroad operators; we should be personal friends and, if occasion should arise, minister to the wants of those who are injured by our railroads. so god must either will a cosmos, or not will it. he cannot obliterate a part of the world, every time one of his wilful or ignorant children gets in the way. it is not even best for his children that he should do so. it is far better to have a definite and orderly world, though it may hurt many. yet god never forsakes his injured children, but leads them out of their injuries into something better, if they are willing. comforting as these thoughts are, we must yet travel a long way before we come to a completely satisfying idea of god. however, this is not discouraging, because we like to travel when the prospect grows more pleasing at each stage of the journey. some think there must be a dirt world because they see it. in a way i seem to see my wife when i look at her picture; yet i only see a bit of paper irregularly faded. likewise a shining light appears to be a complete thing in itself, whereas the sun, doubtless, is as dark as blackness. the light which the scientist studies is waves of energy, traveling at the rate of one hundred and eighty-six thousand miles per second, but that is not the sweet something that we experience as light. the light coming from the sun is not shiny until our sensations are added. and even then, it is our feelings that are brilliant because our nerves were struck by these rapid waves of energy. when we think we see a real face, it is only a shadow on the retina of the eye; which eye is only another bundle of energies, and not the substance that it appears to be. we live in a picture world, produced by god's energies beating upon other energies which he has intimately associated with our wills. we thank god for these pictures because they are the visible language of "loving intelligent wills," wills that in themselves are silent and invisible. yet these wills are known in consciousness as a bit of final reality. they are like unto god who causes the vital energies that result in the pictures of a living, rational experience. experience, therefore, with its inner consciousness and its outer symbol, or picture, is all we know. so when they would take us out of personal experience into a universal "substance" called spirit, they are offering to take us out of the known into the unknown; for they do not know whether there is any substance. "why, then," some may ask, "does god combine his energies to form a poisonous rattlesnake?" god has expressed everything imaginable; the beautiful and ugly, the safe and harmful, the pleasant and painful, the gentle and terrible, and all these are but the alphabet of a soul. if he had given us nothing but abstract definitions, we never should have learned the meaning of anything; and scarcely more, if he had given us only the beautiful and pleasant without their opposites. but he has made us _feel_ the meaning, so that it may be real to us. from this marvelous alphabet which he has provided, we learn to spell, then to read, and finally to live. when we have learned the meaning of poison and its opposite, we may kill the rattlesnake, or cause its energies to dissolve and pass into something more beautiful and safe. thus we become more and more immune from all that is ugly and harmful, and more appreciatively attached to all that is beautiful and good. the ugly and harmful were desirable things to know in contrast with the beautiful and good, that we might reject the one, and cleave to the other. the deeper meaning of things thus learned will give significance to our beautiful world long after we have passed beyond the evil which we have come to loathe. i am entirely convinced that this so-called evil world with its epidemics, earthquakes, and cyclones is the best conceivable place in which to _begin_ a soul; not the best possible world as yet, for it is our business to help make it better. neither should we forget that the terrible is often the overture to us of some mighty, beneficent energy which we have not yet learned to use. again we affirm that god is doing everything that occurs in the universe, except those things which are being done by his children. nothing ever occurs that is not directly or indirectly the act of some will. 5. if the ancients made their gods, how do we know that we are not making our god? doubtless, the great fallacy in this question is the supposition that the ancients made their gods. no one ever made his god or his gods; for all men have the same identical god, living and moving and having their being in him. they have him regardless of whether they know either his name or his character. since there is no other god or thing to have, all must have him. neither can they avoid being conscious of him, nor escape having opinions concerning him. all religious opinions, however sane or grotesque, are about the same god. the ancients, being conscious of our god and their god, were sometimes comforted by his presence, while at other times they were greatly frightened. as they could not escape him they tried to explain him; and in the act of explaining, they made a theology and not a god. whoever expresses a religious opinion is guilty of starting a theology. even the ancients were moved by an objective reality, and not by a mere idea. though their idea often failed to describe the reality with accuracy, yet if the reality had disappeared, the idea would have perished from among them. it seemed to them that there was a god of thunder and, according to our interpretation of the universe, there was; for if our god had not been there thundering, they never would have thought of a god of thunder. neither were they mistaken when they thought there was a god of harvest; because our god was there making their harvests grow as he does ours, and was feeding them as he feeds us. we all make worse mistakes than that. these crude men may be excused for thinking that a crashing thunderstorm was a big enough task for one god; or that the fructifying of all vegetation was ample employment for another. those early men worshiped our god in divided form simply because they could not think of a god great enough to carry on all the diverse activities which they beheld. another reason why these crude children conceived of him as many gods was that they could not understand how one person could be so gentle and terrible at the same time. nevertheless, they would not have had gentle and terrible gods if our god had not been both gentle and terrible. they, therefore, no more made their gods than they made their stars. their gods were our god, and their stars were our stars. we call their theology mythology, and their astronomy astrology. yet mythology is crude theology, and astrology is unscientific astronomy. astrology arose because men were influenced by real stars, and were impelled to offer such explanations as they were able. without astrology we never would have had astronomy. in like manner men were disquieted by the same infinite power that disturbs us to-day, and were moved by that power to offer their best interpretation. but without their mythology we never would have had our theology. the development of astronomy will never cease while there are intelligent men for stars to shine upon. nor will the idea of god cease to expand while men are enfolded in the vast purposeful energy called the universe. our early brothers were trying to comprehend and interpret our god who was as present to them as he is to us. and here we are in the year nineteen hundred and twenty, a. d., still trying to expound him; because the need is not less now than then. those who know most about god best realize the need of knowing more. when we no longer try to increase our knowledge of god, we shall cease to love him. 6. may we not be communing with a mere idea? no, that is impossible. because, whatever it is, it is at least an objective reality. its grip is that of the universe. we can not let it go because it will not let us go. we are worshiping more than an idea; we are worshiping what we live in; we call it god; we think it is "loving intelligent will." we believe that the power that enfolds us knows itself and us. and that we are not mistaken in this, our assurance deepens as our knowledge increases. we find that if we do not neglect or stultify any portion of our nature, our insight grows. if we invest our all on the conception of a spiritual universe we get astonishing results to the individual and to society. then follows more insight and the incentive to invest again our talents that have doubled in the using of them. of this, however, we shall have more to say later. for the present suffice it to say, the object of my worship is the great reality; all the reality there is, except my will and the other wills whom i call brothers. to state clearly what we mean, before trying to tell why we believe it, is of the utmost importance. with an experimental knowledge of god, and with ideas of the universe that harmonize therewith, our heads and hearts are thoroughly anchored in him. if our every line of vision converges to this end, our insight gives us god as the great enfolding reality. our further task is to make the idea of god clear and to show how the lines of vision converge. in this task, modern knowledge is the christian's best ally. chapter iii does man have a soul, and what is his place in the universe? _what is man?_ _who is man?_ _would the absence of man cripple god?_ _what could an infinite god care for such a little speck?_ _is not socialism the best religion there is?_ 1. what is man? we do not fully know "what" and "where" god is until we know what man is, and how god and man are working through each other. our knowledge of god grows with our knowledge of man. we can understand neither without knowing both. at every stage of the discussion our subject is made complex by the intertwining of the human and the divine. hence, this chapter--while introducing man--takes us deeper into the life of god. man does not have a soul. neither does the sun set. though we know better, yet for convenience, we continue to speak of the sun as setting. for the same reason we still say that man has a soul when we mean that he is a soul. soul is person, body is instrument. the instrument does not have the person, the person has the instrument. the soul is the child of god. how strangely, therefore, it would sound to ask: does a man have a child of god? the reverse question, however, is perfectly fitting: does a child of god have a body? man is a spirit, a soul, or a person. all men are alike in that which constitutes them personalities, or self-conscious wills. it is in their individuality that men differ. in the first place, some are more developed than others; and then they have different tastes, different knowledge, different temperaments, and different occupations. this diversity of individuality clearly distinguishes one man from another, and at the same time greatly enriches society. like his father, man is _a loving intelligent will_. like him, too, he is always silent and invisible, save as his instruments express his thought and wish in time and space. so far, father and child should be defined in the same terms; for however they may differ in other respects, they are alike in being self-conscious. if either is below self-conscious will, he is something less than a person. though man, as we find him, is not always so very loving, nor so very intelligent, yet that is what he is in his best estate. so far as we can understand, the sinless man soul lifted to the infinite power would be the same as god. this spiritual definition does not imply that either god or man exists, or could exist, without form and outward expression. 2. who is man? we think of man, the soul, as a child of god, or a god-child. therefore, he is worthy of his brother's highest esteem, and his father's tenderest affection. he is a very son of the infinite god; and all created spirits, being his brothers, are members of one family. again we say, "o god-child, how wonderful you are, and what a pity it would be if you failed to recognize your divinity, or allowed anything to drag you down from your divine possibilities!" man must know himself if he would attain unto the goal of life. though man _is_ a soul, yet without the body he cannot so much as come to self-consciousness. just how or when a soul begins, we do not know; but it does not appear until some time after the body is born. a new-born babe can neither see, feel, nor hear, with any intelligent meaning of the words. it will stare into the most glaring light without intelligence enough to shut its eyes. it does not recognize objects for some time, and when it does, misses the object for which it reaches. the infant is likewise slow in distinguishing sounds or names. if the soul exists when the body is born, it is only a latent personality which has not yet come to self-realization. personality is self-conscious will, and this the child has not yet achieved. let us here consider the relation of a new-born _body_ to god and the universe. god begins his creative activities in what the scientists call stellar ether, where his energies combine and recombine in a more and more complex world, until the solar system appears with planets in the condition of our earth. after more combinations and recombinations, out on the surface of all things his activities blossom in the finest bit of organism, the sensitized thing which we call the human body. this body, the flower of all god's activities in nature, requires all nature for its support. furthermore, the chemical energies constituting the body itself are what god is thinking, and feeling, and doing. strictly speaking, it is his body, the first instrument in the whole order of development, the only body on earth capable of articulate speech and loving deed. if god did not continually will the body and all the supporting energies of the universe, the body would cease to be. before the man soul appears at all, we have god's world culminating in what we call the human body. when a man soul awakes, it is in god's own bosom, in his own body. man awakens in god's enfolding energies, and not outside them; for outside of god he could not exist. it is amusing to hear a little boy speak of his father's automobile as "my car"; but it isn't his, even though the father is pleased to see the little fellow spread himself in it and claim ownership. yet it is his too, in the sense that the father gladly shares it with him. and some day when the child is too big to be a little boy, and too little to be a big boy, he may take his father's car and run it into the ditch. but even the wreck is his father's wreck. in the same way, if we live at all it is in our father's enfolding instrument. his body is ours because he gladly shares it with us. however, if we do not use it in harmony with his will, we wreck it in the ditch. god wakes his child to consciousness in his own body, by making all kinds of impressions upon the sense organs. there are many rappings on the door, and flashes of light through the windows until the soul wakes. and when the soul becomes conscious, god may not cease beating upon the instrument with myriad forces, lest his child fall asleep. some morning when a loved form bends over the infant body, the baby smiles, and the soul begins to appear. that is a wonderful day when the baby gives its first smile. little by little the child becomes aware of itself and of its mother. should the baby be fortunate enough to have two or three brothers and sisters, he will learn some day, when he is a little older, that they all want the same thing at the same time. then he will be very conscious of _other wills_. we know that other wills exist because they live in our enveloping world, and constantly use it in a way that we approve or resent. if they did not know and disturb our world, we should not be aware of them even if they existed. we know that other wills exist because they sell us coats that they have made, and cut down trees in our forests, and shape them into things that have meaning for us and them. they modulate the atmosphere in which we live, producing sounds that stand for objects with which we are familiar. they learn our words and facial expressions, and use them to make us feel happy or uncomfortable. nature is the common instrument of all wills. as we cannot come to the consciousness of ourselves, nor of other wills, except through the body and its environments, _neither can we develop the soul without cultivating the physical instrument and that which surrounds it_. there is always a corresponding development between soul and body. as browning says, "we know not whether soul helps body more than body helps soul." we simply know that soul and body develop together, and that if either is injured the other is harmed. a physical change in our bodies takes place with every thought. we cannot silently love without disturbing the gray matter. we make paths through our nervous system with every thought and deed. if we had a means of photographing all the muscular and nervous conditions wrought in our bodies by our thoughts and actions, they would correspond to every growth of spirit. the face becomes beautiful with a beautiful soul, and the body becomes refined by every improvement of the spirit. i once shook hands with the great french organist, guilmant. when i clasped his hand i forgot everything else; the hand was so soft, and yet so firm! all the inspiration and purpose of his soul had been registered in his body. and what a hand it was! i shall never forget that touch. it gave new meaning to tennyson's beautiful line, "oh for the touch of a vanished hand!" our looks, smiles, accents, and very gait become the expression of the soul. we once had a maid who came home in the dejected state following intoxication. when i appeared she said: "i has me faults the same as others, but me heart is all right." now, could her heart be right and her body wrong? can we have a pure soul and an unclean body? can we have an honest heart and a pilfering hand? certainly not. for as the pure soul cleanses the body, so the degraded body pollutes the soul. soul and body must grow together,--and alike. sometimes we speak of a purely spiritual experience apart from all physical excitability; but such a thing is impossible, because every spiritual thought has its beautiful, physical accompaniment. the physical may run riot, as with some musicians who are principally noise and bluster; but the fact still remains that the most bilious and cold philosopher enjoys his gentle nervous thrill. all worthy education means the spiritualizing of the body. both before death, and after, the good man has a spiritual body. not a spirit body, but a spiritual, a refined and sensitive instrument of the spirit. throughout eternity man will be spiritualizing his body, or else degrading it. we soon outgrow our immediate bodies, and find it necessary to augment them with all the forces of nature. these enlarged bodies must likewise be spiritualized or they will pervert the soul,--as is proved by every degraded form of institutional life. the early man dimly realized that if he could get a larger hand, he would be a greater man. so, augmenting his hand with a club, he achieved a new growth in mind and character. finding himself a greater man, he tried once more to increase his hand. next, finding a sharp stone with which he could hack down small trees, he created a new mental and moral demand for a still finer instrument of his spirit. then, in turn, he augmented his hand with bronze and iron until all great thundering mills and all cunning tools appeared as the mighty hand of the human will. this required an enormous soul growth in knowledge and character, and a corresponding growth in social consciousness and self-consciousness. to further our soul growth there is still a pressing demand for enlarged instruments. so it must ever be an even race between soul growth and hand growth. in the same way, man developed soul and legs. it became necessary to make swifter legs or suffer a dwarfing of his soul. consequently, he increased his speed with camels and horses; but even these became inadequate for his soul's growth. then ensued a race of soul and legs, until to-day automobiles, steam cars, and every means of swift locomotion are but the augmented legs of man. the growing man soul is still in quest of swifter means of locomotion, and as these appear society is changed to its very foundations. new trades, new mental powers, new moral conditions confront him everywhere; and still he is speeding up. when man made for himself far-seeing eyes in the telescope, the heavens opened; and what he saw in the heavens made for him a new earth. then making for himself a short-seeing eye in the microscope, he discovered within and beneath things a new world, which in turn was a vast commentary on the heavens above. likewise it may be truthfully said that soul and eyes have made an even race in their development. the same is true of soul and ears. said a great building contractor of chicago thirty-five years ago, "no man in the past ever dreamed of such a business as we are conducting, for it would have been impossible without the telephone." the telephone is but the enlargement of man's ears and mouth. this contractor moved men and materials, at will, over a radius of a hundred miles. even the musical soul found a new incentive when the mouth was enlarged by piano, pipe organ, and orchestra. every enlargement of the mouth calls for new musical skill in complex technique, and in finer inspiration and fuller elaboration. in short, every man soul is in quest of omnipresence. living as he does in his father's enfolding energies, he can know himself, and grow himself, only so far as he makes the instruments of his father's will the instruments of his own will. the man soul is in the process of taking on the whole universe as his enlarged body. two hundred pounds is quite large enough for the little body which he ever carries, and cares for, but to be a growing son of god he must progressively make the universe his augmented body. at night he may lay off his big body and rest; but in the morning he must put on his larger body, the universe, as he puts on his clothes and his boots, and go forth to live and work with god, his father. 3. would the absence of man cripple god? yes, the absence of man would thoroughly cripple god. without the possibility of a family, god would just as well never have been. this is not an unbecoming or irreverent remark, but a statement that is very pleasing to god; it vindicates everything that is highest in his holy nature. his wisdom, character, and love are all involved in his purpose to have a family. if we eliminate the thought of his family, what wisdom is there in anything god has made? the production of coal is a wonderful display of wisdom, love, and power; but apart from the thought of children who would discover the coal and put it to all its marvelous uses, what motive could there have been in such an act? god, as a solitary will in the universe, never intended to mine coal, warm houses, cook food, or fire engines. all the marvelous by-products of coal could have no value or meaning apart from a complex society; but with a family in mind the production of coal becomes a sacrament worthy of a god, and lays the foundation of a kingdom, all glorious in wisdom, love, and power. iron, likewise, has a rational, moral, and social significance beyond all power to express. its uses, all the way from steel bridges and engines to the hair springs of watches, suggest the imagination of a mind infinite and loving. the human family never could have climbed to glory except on an iron stair; but take away the family, and iron means nothing. the large part that wood has supplied in the development and happiness of the race is beyond the imagination of any but an infinite mind. to what infinite uses it has been and may yet be put, from the homeliest utilities to organs and violins! soft woods, hard woods, and precious woods have entered into the very warp and woof of human life. wood is a miracle, robbed of its wonder because the gift is so lavish. yet what sense would there be in creating wood in all its varieties, with no one to put it to any of its sacred uses? these same thoughts would equally apply to all the precious metals. why should god create a chemical world unless he had chemists in mind? what would it amount to if there were not those who could take nature apart and recombine it to infinity for his glory and their happiness? but there is no end to questions of this kind that might be asked concerning god and his works. in short, a depopulated universe is robbed of all its meaning and glory. without a family, god would be reduced to a child god playing with a toy world. and being alone, he could not so much as complete his toy. at best the universe is but raw material until his children have turned it into a finished product. when god and his children begin turning nature into finished products the highest creation is just begun. by transforming nature into a social institution that reflects god's wisdom and love, common nature is glorified. without a family there is no sense in anything, and god himself would be without moral worth or meaning. to be sure, he could get along without a few of us if we should utterly refuse to coöperate with him; but without a loving family, god would be completely defeated. he "so loved the world," and with equal propriety it might be said he so needed the world, "that he gave his only begotten son." before god's family arrived he was simply getting ready to do the supreme thing. but with his children about him, loving and alert, the meaning of all things from the beginning commences to appear, and the glorious end is dimly discerned. no greater travesty on the nature of god could be conceived than that which makes him independent of his children. and to think that god's desire for mere adoration is his chief need of man is but slightly less a travesty. god yearns for the love and adoration of his children, and with no less desire, he calls upon them to help him carry forward his work of creation. love without work and achievement is first insipid, and then stale. god can no more fulfill himself without children than men can fulfill themselves without him. if god's highest works fail him, then god himself has failed. the permanent absence of children would stultify god's reason and character by rendering useless all that he is and all that he has made. 4. what could an infinite god care for such a little speck? it would be interesting to know who originated this question, for he should wear the badge of his own ignorance. in his mind, the little "speck" probably signified the human body. but as we have already seen, that is not man; it is only his instrument. and besides, man may progressively augment his little body, causing it to articulate with the whole body of nature. moreover, the human body is primarily god's, the flower of all his works in the vast unfolding universe. does god care for these myriad blossoms of his universe? one might as well ask, "what could a horticulturist care for the little blossoms on his apple trees?" let the insects sting them, or the frosts bite them, he has big _trees_ to absorb his attention! unless god's world could blossom into myriad, delicate forms, as homes for man souls, the universe would be as useless as a barren apple tree. the little flower is not something apart, its production taxes the entire strength and purpose of the tree. neither is the human body something apart, its production taxes the entire strength and purpose of the universe. as the flower is the tree's glory and promise of fruit, so the human body is nature's glory and promise of souls. if, however, the "speck" refers to the real man, the spirit, then the question is equally foolish. an intelligent will is neither a "speck," nor something spread out like ether. furthermore, that which can be so deeply impressed by the vastness of the universe is not insignificant in itself. a mastodon would not be overwhelmed by the vastness of the universe. neither is the great universe overwhelmed by a sense of its own magnitude. in his sense of awe, the foolish man who asked the question transcends the great universe itself. to be overwhelmed with our inability to know the universe is partly knowing it, or else we should not be so completely overwhelmed. that is not insignificant which can measure the distance to the stars, and weigh the planets, and mark out the shape and size of their orbits. that is not insignificant which can discover the very elements of which the sun is composed. man's primary body may be relatively small, but it is so highly organized that he can augment it until his instrument reaches the stars. though the sun is approximately ninety-three million miles from our earth, yet the intelligent mind of man discovered helium in the sun before he discovered it upon the earth. this feat of his child must have given the father keen delight. man's body is potentially as great as the universe because, being so delicately organized, it can articulate with the world elements to the farthest sun that twinkles in the blue. the luther burbanks are revealing our supremacy over the vegetable kingdom. the animal kingdom is known to be equally plastic under our shaping hand; for juggling with animal life is one of man's pastimes. by using pressure, he has taken a single cell life and divided it into twins. he has taken two separate cells and formed them into a giant. taking off the head and tail of some lower forms of life, he has made the head grow where the tail was, and vice versa. no one mind can find time to learn of all the wonders achieved by the human family in the realms of nature and of social well-being. a simple statement of man's achievements in the twenty or thirty allied sciences is more thrilling than all the romances ever written. man's power for good or evil is stupendous and overwhelming. it is in the realm of human life that god himself will be victorious, or else defeated. all creation will fail if man fails. i here speak of man in the sense of god's children, wherever they may be in the universe. the people on this earth might fail without bringing universal disaster; but if god's children throughout the universe should fail him, then all is lost. if god did not "care for" his children, it would be the same as not caring for himself, since all his aims and purposes culminate in his family. god has crowned man with glory and honor, by putting all things under his feet. the world is as ignorant of man as it is of god; and the prevailing idea of either is a caricature. it is doubtful whether a self-conscious moral will could be awakened outside of a body, or inside of one if it were less highly organized than the human body. the higher animals share our sensations of pain and pleasure, but it is extremely doubtful whether any of them share in our self-conscious, moral purposes. possibly a soul _must_ appear in any such highly organized form of god's energies as a human body, and _cannot_ appear where the organization of his energies falls short of this high standard. if we believe the body to be the integration of god's own energies it would not be strange if the body proved to be the incipient soul. we have not yet sounded the depths of god's creative wisdom either in the soul or the body; we only know that soul and body are bound together, and that god's highest achievement and deepest interest center in them. how infinitely precious in the sight of god are his children, the crown and glory of all his wisdom, love, and power! 5. is not socialism the best religion there is? when socialism means the kingdom of god, it is the best religion conceivable. and it is a pity that either religion or socialism should ever mean anything less than the kingdom of god; for when they drop below that standard, the one is spurious religion while the other is counterfeit socialism; the former discarding society, and the latter eliminating god, both alike become a menace. last summer in madison square, new york, i listened to a socialist who was ridiculing the very idea of god. exhorting his listeners to have a little sense, he advised them to get rid of god, priests, ministers, churches, and king capital. he said: "you have but one life to live, and it is short; if ever you get anything, you must get it now." this type of socialism is a scourge, a pest, a bubonic plague. nevertheless we would not minimize the crime of withholding from men their rights in this life. another socialist speaking at a park in my own city said: "in the past, the capitalist has taken it all, leaving the working man only enough for the food necessary to do his work,--and not always that. but we do not blame him, he had a right to take it because he could;--we should have done the same if we had been in his place. that is what life means; 'the race is to the swift, and the battle to the strong.' only the fittest have a right to live. but our turn is soon coming when we shall be able to take it all,--and we will." now, whoever teaches a theory like that, or acts upon it, is a cancer in the social body. it makes no difference whether or not he is a church member, whether business man, or laborer; such a man is a malignant growth in the body of humanity. it is just because socialism means anything from the religion of jesus to this putrid stuff, that the average well-meaning person is cautious about identifying himself with any movement bearing the name of socialism. yet any religion that stands aloof from social well-being is doomed,--as it ought to be. no man can love god while hating his brother; and whether he loves his brother is proved more by his actions than by his words. to love our brother, as we shall see, is enlightened selfishness as well as altruism. "god in the soul" has been rather a popular definition of religion. to many minds this definition conveys a rich and ample meaning. to others it conveys gross error, for religious hysteria is often thought to be god in the soul. a mere psychic state, a religious opiate, a mental disease, may be so interpreted. it is a question whether any definition of religion is safe. a description of religion is far preferable to a definition, and has the advantage of being an easier task. when we identify religion with the kingdom of god, we have a perfectly clear idea. _the kingdom of god is a loving, intelligent family organised around the father's good-will, living in the universe as his home, using the forces of nature as the instruments of his will, and making all things vocal with his wisdom, love, and power._ this is true religion; this is a desirable socialism; this is right life. for such an end god, man, and the enveloping powers of nature exist. any loss of this vision, any lack of warmth or enthusiasm for its realization, spells degeneration. such a state of mind means the perversion of nature, the engendering of rebellion in the kingdom of god, and the making of prodigals. religious experience does not mean just any kind of comfortable, private feeling, but a conscious love for the family of god, and conscious interest in the work that god and his children are trying to accomplish _in the midst of nature's forces_. religious experience means an active desire to brighten the great world home, and to gladden the great world family. the idea is so simple that a child can understand it; and a child's heart may glow with happiness while helping to brighten the world. to take one's place in the family of god as a member, loving, and beloved, is something infinitely better than cold ethics. character that does not root itself in friendship is poor character; it bears not the fruit of righteousness, love, and joy. our debt of friendship to all men is no less binding than our financial obligations. friendship is the great power for good in the world. "i have called you friends, and such you are." and because they were friends, jesus revealed to his disciples all the secrets of his soul, and threw over them the spell of his life. by interweaving their lives in some great purpose, or by promoting a common enterprise, friends lift each other into the finest vision. simple, hearty, and unfeigned friendship for god and men, is religion pure and undefiled. a wise man does not defer friendship until he is perfect, but seeks friendship first to learn what perfection is, that through friendship he may receive strength to be perfect. the new truths clearly manifest concerning god, man, and nature cause a new heaven to dawn, and a new hell to yawn. heaven is brighter, and hell is hotter, than we had been thinking. the relation that exists between god, man, and the universe makes it perfectly plain that god does not go ahead of his children to make either heaven or hell. there _is_ no heaven on either side the grave, except that which is made by the coöperation of god and his children. though there are plenty of heavenly sites in the universe, yet the building of a holy city is never begun until some of god's children have arrived on the scene. they who organize around the good will of god build a heaven in time and place; out of god's energies in which they live, they make a beautiful home. heaven is doubtless a place as well as a state, for souls that are in a right state will make a right place in which to live. more than likely there are many heavens in the universe. in my city heaven may be on one floor and hell on another, while the character of the third floor is uncertain. souls cannot live outside of god's enfolding energies, and therefore they cannot avoid making either heaven or hell out of his infinite powers. citizens of the kingdom, under the guiding wisdom of god, make heaven. those who refuse citizenship, preferring their own way, make hell; but they make it out of the same mighty forces of which heaven is made. the idea that god, independent of his children, made a pretty place called heaven, and an ugly place called hell, in order that he might put good little people in the one, and push naughty little people off into the other, is the idea of a fool's heaven and a fool's hell;--the facts are much more glorious and awful. there will be just as good a heaven as the kingdom of god builds, and no better. likewise there will be just as bad a hell as god's disloyal sons make, and no worse. no dream can picture the paradise that god may make in this universe with the help of his good children. and the hell that his rebellious sons may create is something appalling. since heaven or hell is simply the shape we give to god's enfolding energies, all of us are unavoidably engaged in constructing the one or the other, and we have been so engaged every moment since our conscious life began. no one dare think that all his work is heaven-building. altogether, through vice or greed, we have managed to produce of late the hottest gehenna ever witnessed on earth. it has taken longer to make this sad condition than most of us realize; and many who little suspect their responsibility and guilt have been active agents in creating the fires of war and other fires in which there has been of late so much writhing and gnashing of teeth. and at the moment of the world's greatest anguish, there were those who were trying to get rich out of the state of sorrow into which they had helped to plunge humanity. i refer to all profiteers and crooked dealers, whether they were laborers or capitalists; to those who were willing that additional hundreds of thousands of our boys should go down into the lake of fire, if only they could fill their coffers. these were the devils who stood round the boiling caldron with their flesh hooks, to tear the flesh of innocent boys if they rose to the surface of the boiling liquid. some of these flesh-hook devils, having refined manners, posed as gentlemen. others were lewd fellows of various sorts. but the flames which they fed were not hot enough for them. they were getting ready for a fire that will burn much deeper, and they will be sure to find it. during the war, many found their faith in god staggering before a perdition created by human beings. but their faith should not have been unsettled, because this war was as sure to follow the way the world was living as the wheels of the cart are certain to follow the tread of the ox. some had the blindness and audacity to blame god for what we have done. god gave us the raw material with which to build a heaven, and we constructed a hell. through his many prophets and seers god told us what we were doing, but we would not believe him. thinking ourselves wise we became fools, and turned his good gifts into instruments of torture. the majority of the people, believing that they could get along without giving much heed to god, took his limitless gifts and made a grand holiday instead of a holy day, and then rode in automobiles and yachts to their doom. when a world is bad enough to make war, it needs war. though i had three sons between my heart and germany's steel, yet i realized that america had to be hurt for her own salvation, for the salvation of germany, for the safety of the world, and for the utter destruction of the german intriguers. if the people of the allied nations, however, had been shaping the instruments of their spirits into clean bodies, happy homes, honest business, and good governments, and all of these into the kingdom of god on earth, prussia could not have dreamed her dream of world dominance, nor would she have dared to throw down the gauntlet before the world. but seeing our weakness, she scorned our threats. being under tutorship to the god of power, in spite of her vices, which were equal to those of other nations, prussia became shrewder and stronger than the nations that were too largely feasting under a bacchanalian god, or softly enjoying themselves under a santa claus deity, or were piling up unrighteous gains under no god, or under one that was capable of wicked favoritism. it was clear to the prophets of the most high that something was due,--and it came. bad as war is, that state of society which makes war possible is even worse. when society grows its body into a monster, the corrective influence of hell, in some form, is the last hope. this does not, however, exonerate germany from the crime of launching a ruthless war to gratify her lust for world domination. god surely could not help it, since the human family shaped its body as it did against light and conscience; but if there were no retribution for sin and ignorance he would lose his family utterly. hell inevitably came when the tools were forged and the devils were trained; but god neither forged the tools nor trained the devils. i am advocating no moral prudery, nor religious bigotry. neither do i wish to imply that heaven has not been built up side by side with hell during the last fifty years,--for it has. those who have profited intellectually and spiritually by the revelations of modern learning, and by the new influx of power, and by the new social opportunities, have made the last fifty years the grandest in human history. of these noble sons and daughters it should be said: their growth in the knowledge of god, their success in the discovery of man, their achievements in wresting from nature its deepest secrets, their grasp on the meaning of god's kingdom, their accomplishments in the practical launching of everything pertaining to a new era and a finer world order have made this the golden age for all who have seen the vision and shared in the work. yet over against this kingdom of light and love, there has grown up a kingdom of darkness and hate. these two kingdoms have grown up side by side in every civilized country. and finally the kingdom of darkness embroiled all the nations in a deadly conflict. seeing all, and feeling all, god was the greatest sufferer in the awful carnage of the contending armies. "in him we live, and move, and have our being;" and therefore armies live, and fight their battles in god. they fight their battles with god's own powers, and make gaping wounds in his own body. and yet, some will ask, "where was god?" not only was he in the thick of the fight, but the thick of the fight was in his beautiful, enfolding energies. we shall make heaven out of the selfsame energies when we are done making hell out of them. and then, as now, god will be in our midst; but he will be in our midst as a joyous, and not a suffering god. it would have been a pity if this war had ended before the nations opened their eyes to the higher purposes of god for future civilization, or before their consciences had been cleansed for the work of advancing the kingdom. god will come to our help with mighty power when we come to his help with mighty obedience. general sherman said, "war is hell." this has generally been taken to mean that war is as terrible as hell; but it is more than that, it is hell literally, _because hell is never anything but war_. if there were no war of any kind there would be no hell. this is equally true either side the grave. if there were no individuals in the universe to oppose god's will and so misuse his enfolding energies as to harm one another, hell would cease to be. the beginning of hell is very pleasurable, and that is why men begin it. but it always grows more and more terrible until it becomes a lake of fire. it is worse than brimstone, because men have found hotter materials to use. it is curtains of fire, poisonous gases, shrapnel, bombs, machine guns, and mud mixed with blood. war begins in selfish desire, and continues in the misuse of god's good gifts. intensified desire diverts to its own use that which does not belong to it; and becoming powerful, arrogant, and oppressive, it brews hell without knowing it. thinking that it knows all, it refuses instruction. to the perverted mind, imprisoned in a distorted body, jesus looks weak, while god seems a myth, or mere brute force. finally hell breaks loose in all its fury. the most pathetic thing in this whole affair is that the good have to go to hell with the bad,--at least in this life. but it was ever so. jesus truly "descended into hell," only it was before he died. the same is true of god and all his good sons. there is no other way to save the situation. gehenna, as well as heaven, begins _here_ and _now_. it may be that the rebellious sons of god have created a worse hell on the other side of the grave, but if they have, it is exactly the same in kind as that which they have made here. every immoral and painful condition in the universe is wrought in god. god was as closely related to the recent war as a man is related to the abscess on his finger; and he is so related to all hells, in all worlds. for hell is never anything but a painful disturbance wrought in god's body by the sons whom he has enfolded in his bosom. and since there are so many discordant and vicious elements throughout all the world, it is to be hoped that the nations are being purged by the awful fires through which they are passing. has the earth had its last war? that is not at all likely. there is plenty of discord in society even now that the main war is over. many wrongs must be righted and many problems solved or terror will break out somewhere. human society and human institutions have grown about as large and complex as is possible, unless they can be dominated by a larger ideal and a more christlike spirit. while i sympathize with all the hopes and aspirations of the noble men and women of our day for a more peaceful earth, yet i do so only on the condition that men will learn to know and obey the truth. nothing should be left undone that will hasten the day of righteousness and peace. god has two hands with which he is trying to save the world. the one is a crucified hand, and the other is a great steel hand. the crucified hand, which is the pledge of forgiveness and good will, is both logically and chronologically first. for nearly two thousand years god has been extending this hand. millions have accepted it and lived; but many more have refused it, preferring the strife of the world. it is perfectly plain that society will not be saved by this means alone. without minimizing the worth of the crucified hand, or withdrawing it, god is at last employing a hand of steel, as vast as the machinery of the world, and identical with it. god is placing his great steel fingers around men and drawing them together. no longer may men live apart, for under this new pressure nothing has value in isolation. capital has no value without labor, neither has labor any value without capital; and these may no longer work successfully together without uplifting the weak nations of the earth. the masses and classes can no longer escape each other. bound together by bands of steel, they may do one of two things--kill each other or love one another. there is no third alternative. i have faith that when men see themselves in the grip of the steel hand, they will choose the better alternative and, by clasping god's crucified hand, become brothers. as things have been going, scores of peoples on our little earth have lived in darkness and under the hand of awful oppression; they could have suffered and rotted for millenniums without the prosperous nations knowing or caring. at last, however, we know, and our own salvation now clearly rests on our caring. the articulate body of humanity has become as great as the nations of the earth, and that body is made up of the infinite energies of god. we now have the privilege of making this mighty body express more fully than ever before the thought and love of god, or else we shall be compelled to shape it into the most gigantic monster that ever stalked forth to do the foul deeds of hell. were there a legion of leering and jeering devils, plotting evil against our earth, the comprehending mind could hear them say, "we wish for no more awful instruments of torture than these energies of the infinite with which his children clothe themselves. only let us lead them to fall out by the way, and they will damn each other by smiting with the infinite powers of their god." men,--individuals and nations!--do we see it, do we know the simple rudiments of life, is it not clearly manifest that we must strive for the christ life or socially commit suicide and murder? men have made such great mental and material growth that unlimited power is placed at their disposal. that fact makes this the greatest day in human history. i have already said that the man soul is in quest of omnipresence by progressively making the universe the instrument of his will. the hour has struck for his supreme effort in that direction; though simply creeping in the past, he may now run if only he will obey the divine law. however, if he will not obey, the hour for disintegration has arrived; and once more nations and empires must burn to the ground, and upon the ashes of the conflagration, the noble "remnant" must again begin to rebuild slowly and painfully the temple of god on earth. if our old men are dreaming dreams, and our young men are seeing visions, let them come forth in this crisis. but thank god, they are coming! millions are coming! we believe there will be enough to save the day. and what a day it will be if, after all this dreadful upheaval, we can reconstruct the world on such broad principles of righteousness and love that the race shall start upon a new era of peace and good will! we must not on account of ignorance or selfishness throw away this golden opportunity. get ye up upon the mountains, o israel, o church of god, and look for the day! chapter iv does god have a body, and could he become a man? _was jesus god or a good man only?_ _can modern psychology any longer believe in the deity of jesus?_ _where does jesus belong in the religious, social, and thought world?_ 1. introductory statement thus far our discussion of god has been largely in relation to physics. at last, however, we are ready to consider him on a higher plane. our knowledge of both god and man is incomplete until we see their oneness in jesus and in the kingdom which jesus proclaimed. in the life of jesus, god and man are viewed from a higher spiritual level. the world lies broken into fragments until these fragments become united in the christ type of life. then the body, the human mind, god, and the whole material universe coordinate to make one beautiful whole. starting with the scriptural idea that all things proceed from wisdom, or god, then strictly speaking, god is the only person in the universe who has a body of his own. all other spirits live in his bodies. this is necessarily so if all the way from its simplest elements to its most highly organized forms, nature is but the expression of the divine will. as we have already shown, the human body is but a part of universal nature,--the finest part, the blossom. therefore, what we call the human organism is primarily god's. not only is it the very finest bit of his _workmanship_, but it is his to _use_, unless his child, the man soul, robs him of his own. in these highly specialized parts of nature god has not merely one, but billions of bodies,--all the bodies there are. the infinite mind would find one such body utterly inadequate. with but one bodily form he would be incomparably worse off than an organist with but one finger. if god could come to articulate speech and deed through but one physical instrument, he and all his family might well despair. if as the scriptures teach, however, each and every physical body is his very own, in which and through which he may live, then every condition is provided for a god humanly personal and infinitely satisfying. he may be as local and personal as our parents or neighbors. though greater than all, he is yet in all and through all, "center and soul of every sphere, yet to each loving heart how near!" not only is god lovingly present to every christian heart, but at the same time he is personally revealed by every human form through which he is permitted to live and love and serve. the pity of it all is that we so often prevent god from using his own body, in which we too live, by causing it to express in word and deed that which is contrary to his thought and love. before we take up the subject of the incarnation, it may be well to consider what is meant by the trinity. 2. the idea of the trinity and how it came about when we say that god is a trinity we do not mean that there are three gods. there is just one god who, as we have repeatedly said, is a loving intelligent will. the idea of the trinity came about in this way: the early christians were so deeply impressed by jesus, and so warmly attached to their master, that they instinctively adored and worshiped him; for, somehow, he brought god to them even as he brought them to god. yet the christians, like the jews, strenuously opposed the worship of more than one divinity. their stout opposition to polytheism provoked the retort from their heathen neighbors that christians should not be so particular about the number of gods, because they worshiped at least two, a father god and a son god,--and three, if they added a holy spirit god. so it is not strange that the christians, to justify their own conduct, were driven to a profound study of deity. and though they made some grave mistakes, nevertheless they discovered some vital truths concerning the nature of personality which greatly enlarged and enriched their conception of god. it must be remembered that in the early christian centuries many thought of god as something very remote and placid, like a sea of bliss; being infinitely happy and self-contained, he was at perfect rest. such a one would not contaminate himself by being identified with nature or man. to the christian gnostics and jews, the idea that god became incarnate and suffered death on the cross was repugnant. some believed that it was beneath god even to create a world like ours. they, therefore, attributed creation to lesser divinities. however, in the third century origen stoutly maintained that god must have created the world. yet so eminent a man as origen believed that he created it for "tainted souls." after much study, the church fathers arrived at the conclusion that god was somehow three in one, a sort of society within himself,--and they were right. for without something like a social experience in one's self, it is impossible to be a person at all. this is equally true of god or man. to be a person one must know himself, and this he could not do if he were not able to keep company with himself. the pen with which i am writing is not a person because it has no capacity for self-communion. but because i hold _fellowship_ with myself i am a person. since every human being keeps company with himself more than he does with all other persons put together, may god have mercy on him if he is bad company, if he is not safe to be left alone with himself. a tree may stand alone in infinite solitude, companionless; but for better, for worse, a man must forever remain in his own company, hearing praise or condemnation from his own heart. how is this possible, unless there is something in a man's individual experience that resembles society? in self-knowledge, as in all knowledge, there are the _knower_ and the _known_. when we commune with ourselves we are, at the same moment, the subject and the object of our own experience. the self that sees may fittingly be called the father of our personality, and with equal propriety the self that we see may be called the begotten of our personality. thus something resembling father and son is experienced in our first step toward self-knowledge. whether the capacity to be our own subject and object amounts to much or little, it was this that the fathers saw and rightly attributed to god. furthermore, there is yet another step to be taken in the act of coming to true self-knowledge. by what power does one determine that the person with whom he communes is himself? there is something in our experience resembling a third person, one who recognizes both subject and object and bears witness that they are one. the reader may say, "i can see the first and the second, but i cannot see the third." the self that sees the first and the second is the third. this power by which we complete the unity of our being is by no means trivial, as some may think. there are abnormal personalities who successfully achieve the subjective and objective in their experience and keep up an abnormal communion with themselves from morning till night, who cannot witness true. so they insist that they are "general jacksons" or "jesus christs" or great "railroad magnates." their personalities have broken down, not because they lack self-consciousness, but because they lack the power of coming to unity. a perfectly sane person, therefore, is subject, object, and witnesser all in one. if god were not this kind of trinity he would not be a person at all. to grasp so clearly the significance of personality was a great spiritual achievement. the church fathers did more than they realized; they described the elements inherent in all personalities. they saved god to the intellect and to the affections by bringing him out of remote obscurity into the blazing light of moral and spiritual personality. god is personal because he is triune; that is, because he is complex enough to keep company with himself and to know himself. if the reader asks "what does all this amount to for us?" my answer is, "it amounts to the difference between a personal god and the deity who is an 'immobile placid sea of bliss.' in the second place it shows the difference between the god who is a loving intelligent will and the materialist's god who is no more than a blind samson. it also discloses the essential likeness between all personalities, however much they may differ in development." if i were asked to put my finger on the greatest weakness in present-day thought i should unhesitatingly point out the subject of personality. men are falling down like ten-pins before the intellectual difficulties of believing in a personal god; and many of them are even doubting the spiritual personality of man. and this is largely due to the fact that they are unable to form any mental picture of personality. one of the beautiful surprises for this generation is that the fathers in working out the personality of god found the only conception of personality that is true to universal experience. they did not realize that they were analyzing the human spirit as well as god, because their thought was wholly on him. but they saw god through their own personalities, and if they had not borne god's image they never could have analyzed the personality of god. in this generation we turn their analysis of god upon ourselves and find that it tallies perfectly with our experience. we at last see that the triune, or personal, man soul is the child of the triune, or personal, god soul; and thus a deeper bond is established between the father and his child. the use to which the church fathers put this analysis of god's personality was both fortunate and unfortunate. it was fortunate because it enabled them to continue their belief in the deity of jesus and, at the same time, their belief in the oneness of god. they were still able to oppose polytheism, and yet come to jesus as the fountain of divine blessing. they worshiped god in the face of jesus. in other words, they believed in a genuine incarnation. this was fortunate beyond all calculation. just how fortunate it was we shall have to illustrate to the best of our ability when we come to the subject of incarnation. thus far i have not discussed the incarnation, neither have i had jesus in mind while considering the trinity. for in whatever sense god is a trinity, he was such before jesus was born. before discussing the divinity of jesus we must briefly call attention to the unfortunate use which the fathers made of their analysis of the personality of god. they thought they had solved the question of christ's divinity when they took this objective element in the experience of god and clothed it with flesh. though they denied that these distinctions in god were properly named by the word person, yet they admitted their inability to think of a better term. then they so wrenched god's personality apart as to send his objective self, which was simply an element in his experience of self-consciousness, into the world to be the messiah. and though they stoutly maintained that these three elements in god were indivisible, yet god's subjective self could stay far away in heaven while his objective self could go to earth as a man. at the same time each of the three elements in god's experience of self-hood could perform all the functions of a full personality. this was doing the worst possible violence to the personality of god; and it has wrought confusion from that day to this. as we have already seen, it takes these three elements in god's experience to make him any person at all. the common use made of the subjective, objective, and witnessing elements in the personality of god is pure tri-theism, regardless of how they are united. god does not have three personalities that can be scattered about in the universe. the idea that god's objective experience can go off on a journey, or that it can return to heaven while his witnessing experience in turn goes to earth, leaving the subjective and objective in heaven, is religious illiteracy. neither god nor any part of god ever goes or comes. the triune, or personal god, is never far enough off to come anywhere. there is no place in the universe where for a moment he is not. he is always the father, and creator, and intelligent will in whom all creation lives, and moves, and has its being. the _second element_ in god's own act of consciousness did not become incarnate in jesus; the conscious god himself entered the life of man. the baptismal formula, "in the name of god the father, the son, and the holy spirit," has no reference to the triple element in god's self-consciousness. it beautifully represents the three ways that we are to look at god, if we are to see him in the fulness of his glory. first, we think of god as he is in himself, and as he must be to his own infinite thought. second, we think of him as he has expressed himself in nature, in humanity and, best of all, as he has revealed himself in his obedient son jesus. third, we think of god as the still small voice within, the soul of our souls, the one to whom we speak when we have shut the door; the one to whom we whisper our deepest secrets, and ask him if he loves and forgives us. beyond the fact that the trinity constitutes god a person, it has nothing to do with the deity of jesus. how god became incarnate is another question; a question to which we now gladly address ourselves. 3. was jesus god or a good man only? at a meeting of city ministers, addressed by one of their own number, the speaker took from jesus the last shred of divinity. according to this minister, jesus was a prophet sent from god, and the best of men, but nothing more. a progressive jewish rabbi asked if this were not the present attitude of all intelligent ministers, and whether they did not, for the sake of expediency, leave the pew in ignorance of their real belief. in the opinion of the rabbi, jesus was one of the greatest of jewish reformers, but not the founder of christian religion. his contention was that paul founded the christian church on a peculiar, psychic experience which came to him on his way to damascus. "the divinity of jesus" was then assigned to me as a topic for the next meeting. naturally, i turned to the scriptures to see what they had to say concerning the relation of god to man. though expecting to find on this subject a marked degree of difference between the old and new testaments, yet i was wholly unprepared for the facts as they appeared. before presenting my findings, i asked the rabbi to consider whether jesus was a "jewish reformer," or a jewish fulfiller,--it being my conviction that he was the latter. i then stated that, having examined the old testament on the relation existing between god and man, i failed to find a single passage recognizing god within the human life; and that no greater surprise than this had come to me in my recent study of the scriptures. in the old testament, the nearest approach to the immanence of god in the soul was the following: "i will pour out my spirit upon all flesh," and "is not my dwelling with the humble in heart?" but even here the divine spirit was only _upon_ them or _with_ them. never, so far as i could discover, did he dwell _in_ them. in some twenty-four hundred verses, god was represented as sustaining many beautiful and terrible relations to men. this relationship was symbolized by birds, beasts, and natural elements, to the very limit of the imagination. after the most solemn warnings and attractive promises, god would depart from his people for a season and then return with rewards and punishments according to their faithfulness. he scrutinized their inmost thoughts; in fact, he did everything except enter their lives. on turning to the new testament, however, i found a startling contrast. god dwelt not only in the hearts but in the bodies of men. "for know ye not that ye are the temple of god, and that the spirit of god dwelleth in you? yea, ye are the temple of the living god." "know ye not that your bodies are temples of the holy spirit?" "walk in the spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh." jesus said, "he that hath seen me hath seen the father; how sayest thou, show us the father? believest thou not that i am in the father, and the father in me?" "the father abiding in me doeth his works." "in that day ye shall know that i am in the father and ye in me, and i in you." "if a man love me he will keep my word: and my father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." as a prospector seeks for gold, i sought in the old testament for god in the life of man and did not find him; but no sooner had i reached the new testament than all was changed. here was a new country. the prospector was in the midst of that for which he sought. no mountain was ever as rich in gold as the human heart, according to the new testament, was rich with the indwelling god. the religion of jesus in contrast with that of the prophets is like a tree, which luther burbank has transformed into a new variety bearing strange and luscious fruit. i wondered that i had overlooked for so long a time the complete cleavage between the two parts of our bible on this subject. jesus was truly a jewish reformer, but to a much greater degree he was a jewish fulfiller. in revealing god's true oneness with man he completed the prophet's imperfect religious vision, and best of all, made the vision a fact in his own experience. at the same time he began making it a reality in the experience of his disciples. i told the friend who in a previous meeting had stripped jesus of all his divinity, that he had very successfully demolished some antiquated psychology, but strange to say had completely overlooked the new psychology which, in my opinion, fully restored christ's divinity. as to his statement that "jesus was a good man only," i reminded him that there is no such being. for, each one of us, in so far as he is "only," is a bad man. it requires the oneness of god and man to make a _good_ man. when a human soul is separated from god, he ceases to be a complete person. god and the true self always come or go together; in order to be a human soul, in any worthy sense, one must be both god and man in one. a man severed from god is but the fragment of a man, a limb broken from the tree, a lifeless branch. to touch the living branch of a tree is to touch the tree. the fruit of the branch is likewise the fruit of the tree. that any person can be a "good man only," is an idea contrary to the new testament and modern psychology. 4. can modern psychology any longer believe in the deity of jesus? the scriptures certainly do not teach that jesus was god only; neither do they teach that he was man only. it is my own deepest conviction that jesus was very god and very man. furthermore, i believe this to be the teaching of the scriptures, and the idea that best conforms to modern psychology. to come to jesus is to come to god; likewise to come to god is to come to jesus. he is at once god in man, and man in god. i believe in the god of jesus, and i believe in the jesus of god. how modern psychology can avoid believing in both the deity and humanity of jesus, i do not see. some who believe in christ's divinity do not believe in his deity. they say, "yes, he is divine, he is incomparable, he is altogether lovely; but he is not deity, because deity is god himself." but my thesis is that jesus was "very god and very man." to picture this truth to our minds will be our next task. an old-time friend, while reporting to me the installation of a minister whom i knew, said: "would you believe it! mr. g. told the council that he not only believed in the divinity, but that he believed in the deity of jesus." here my friend threw his head back and laughed heartily, expecting me to laugh with him. when he had finished laughing, i told him that i also believed in the deity as well as in the humanity of jesus; and that if i did not believe in his deity i did not think i should believe in any religion at all. this proved to be quite a surprise to my friend. so to his puzzled look of inquiry i replied: "and i could make you believe it." as his curiosity deepened at this remark, i asked him, "do you know where i first met god--not an emanation from him, but god; the will that formed the worlds,--all the god there is?" "no," was his reply. "fortunately," i answered, "i do. it was in my mother. when i was a little boy the great god at times enfolded me in human arms, and looked into my face through benignant, human eyes, and spoke tender words with a sweet accent. my silent and invisible mother was often so closely identified with god that they would be thinking and feeling the same thing concerning me. at such times the human form expressed their common thought and love; my heavenly father, no less than my invisible mother, enfolded me with his arms. if in these supreme moments god was not in my mother, then it is useless to look for him anywhere in the universe. my mother was different from the non-christian mothers in our rough frontier. many times she so loved me _in_ god, and _with_ god, that she became a channel through which god himself had personal access to me through all the human modes of approach." i then told my friend of an experience with my mother at church in the little frontier schoolhouse. i was lying on the seat with my head in her lap, tickling my nose with her boa. when the time came for prayers, my mother bowed her head to the desk in front of her. while her lips moved in prayer, i observed that her dear face was troubled. as she was unconscious of my gaze, i continued to look into her sorrowful face. though but a little child, i fully understood what she was doing, and was able to mark the stages of her progress. my invisible mother was talking with our invisible father, and the face gradually changed until finally i could tell that her will had merged completely with his will; and then her face, which was primarily his face, became radiant with spiritual beauty. i had seen the dear human face of god, and at the same time it was the face of my mother. i called my friend's attention to the fact that once upon a time the invisible god said to the invisible clara barton: "clara, let us go out onto the battle-field where the poor soldier boys languish and die;" and clara responded to his thought and love. then the invisible god and the invisible clara barton went to the battle-field in god's body, because clara had no body exclusively her own. so, when that form bending over the soldier boy wiped away the dust and blood and pain, while whispering of home, of mother, and of god, it was the father, as much as it was clara barton, who was performing the deed; and he, not less than she, was visibly and humanly present. the ministering hand was as truly his instrument as it was hers; while the stronger will and deeper love were the father's. before clara barton thought of it, the father, knowing all and feeling all, suggested to her the kindly deed; nor did he stop loving the soldier boy when she began. again addressing my friend, i said: "it is impossible for me to understand you. you have always believed god to be immanent in all nature; you have seen him in sticks and stones and stars; but you now fail to recognize him in his highest, his only instrument through which he is capable of coming to articulate speech and deed. how i pity your poor helpless god who is buried fathoms and fathoms out of sight. he can neither see, nor hear, nor breathe; nor can he walk or talk. but you see, _my_ god can get clear to the surface in audible word, and visible deed. when my god finds a good, clean frenchman, he begins talking and writing french. if you doubt this, either you are not familiar with french literature, or else you do not know god. under similar conditions god speaks all the languages. how beautifully and abundantly he has spoken through the german and english tongues! while in greek and hebrew, god has uttered mighty words of wisdom, and has filled the earth with his glorious pæans. human wisdom alone could never have spoken thus. if we but have eyes to see and hearts to feel we shall realize that all about us god is getting to the surface through devoted christians. when the true preacher lifts the souls before him into the will of god, he sees a divine expression upon their faces; and if he is spiritually wise, he will realize that for the time being these are the dear human instruments of god, as truly as they are the faces of human spirits; and when he has poured out his soul in behalf of some great cause of god for which he would be willing to die, he will find someone with outstretched hand ready to meet him and willing to coöperate, if need be, even unto death, and then it is his privilege to know that, while shaking hands with a brother spirit, he was at the same time shaking hands with the infinite god. in these rare experiences of ours, the invisible god no less than the invisible man has come to outward expression, and this he would always do, if our wills were not contrary to his will. our feeble and infrequent inspiration is but intermittent incarnation, while full incarnation is permanent inspiration. "why," i asked, "should you hesitate to think of jesus as god and man? if the father-spirit and the child-spirit were thinking and willing the same thing, which one came to expression through the words and acts of the body? if a and b were lifting an object, would it be truthful to say that a was lifting it? the visible form that lived and taught by the shores of galilee was as truly god as it was man, unless the child-spirit did not know and do the father-spirit's will. sometimes a whole congregation of wills express themselves joyfully and forcefully through one written resolution. god never speaks an audible word, except through one of his bodies in which he has enfolded a child-spirit. when, however, the child-spirit rebels against the father, and causes the instrument to speak or act vile things, the father is dumb. his child has robbed him of his body. we have grown so accustomed to this form of robbery that we naturally think of human spirits as having bodies all their own, while we conceive of god as a vague, disembodied influence. we speak of god as sending men, forgetting that he never sends a man anywhere without sending him in his own body and accompanying him with his own spiritual presence. and that which the messenger says is not worth hearing if it fails to express the father's thought and will. the god who, through beautiful chemical energies, makes the ear, hears; and the god who makes the eye, sees; and he who makes the lips, speaks. either god knows the thrill of nerves, or else he has an infinite amount to learn. why then should we say that jesus was only a good man, when the body was god's very own, and the guiding will was that of the father? a man is all god except the invisible human spirit; and in the case of jesus, even the human spirit rendered such filial obedience that the father, for once in human history, got to the surface through his own instrument in a steady flow of luminous words and loving deeds. if the composite life of jesus were named after its major elements, then jesus should be called god. however, as that would be both confusing and false, we state the truth as it is, and say that jesus was both god and man, that is, a god-filled man, or a god-man." "oh well," said my friend, "if you mean it that way!" "did i not tell you," i replied, "that you would believe it? the trouble with you is that you forget it. you should be proclaiming it from the housetop that god has got clear to the surface in human form, and that men have clasped his hand, and heard his voice, and seen his face." in the life of jesus, religion reached a new and distinct stage of development. it was in him that the essential _oneness_ of deity and humanity first became clearly manifest. to the friends of jesus, god was no longer a disembodied spirit. the christian's god is clearly the god of israel, but he is the god of israel become human and visible. the world has been slow to grasp the meaning of christ's life and teachings. to maintain the uniqueness of jesus, it has denied the universality of the truth which he proclaimed: namely, the organic and moral oneness of god and man. if the union of god and man as realized in jesus was so beautiful, a similar union between god and all men would be equally beautiful. that god desires such a union with all his children there can be no doubt; and that he is inspiring his disciples with the glorious hope of its accomplishment is equally certain. yet for the present, even the most devoted followers have not nearly attained unto the fulness of the stature of jesus; but some glad day they shall be wholly like him whose image they already unmistakably bear. this is the christian's noblest hope. if god has ever united his personality with that of even one man, then there is a way of doing it. and if there is a way, what finer goal is possible, than that such a union between god and every man be consummated? really, that is what the christian religion is about. not only may god and every man be similarly united, but the sin of man alone can prevent such a union from taking place. if there were no sin or rebellion in a man's heart, he would instantly become a god-man on the plane of his present human development; and as he "advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with god and men," he would be a god-man on a higher level. if the human side of the christ has continued thus to grow for more than nineteen hundred years, on what altitudes of knowledge he is a god-man by this time, we can but faintly surmise. and with the possibility of a complete purging from sin, and the possibility of an infinite growth in wisdom, we, too, may yet be god-men on what would now seem to us dizzying heights; we shall ever be attaining "unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of christ." no matter what one's conception of the trinity in god's personality may be, god is capable of uniting with every man in the same way that he united with the man jesus. if we prefer to believe that god had an eternal son who came to clothe himself in a man, the problem of union would in nowise be changed. a son-god, if he existed either in the father or out of the father, could not be less than a person, and the manner of uniting himself with a man would be the same. my interest in the metaphysics of the trinity is that it gives us a firm grasp on the personality of god and the personality of man. i rest on the fact that the personal god became incarnate and still seeks the souls of men for his dwelling-place. i further believe that when we do not read a later metaphysics into the bible, the scriptures wholly support the more modern conception. in the beginning was the logos, word, or wisdom. wisdom was with god from the beginning; that is, god was always wisdom, and not a material thing. all things were made by wisdom, or god. life was in god, and god's life was the light of men; and though it was shining into the darkness the darkness apprehended it not. the god who is wisdom, and not matter, was in the world, and the world was made by him, but it knew him not. finally wisdom, or god, became flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we discerned his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father, full of grace and truth. the author seems to me to believe that the personal god became incarnate, and that the one in whom he dwelt, in contrast with other men, looked like an only son of a father. notwithstanding this glorious possibility, there is always a tendency for religion to revert to a lower type; and this tendency is particularly noticeable just now. not being able to believe in the divinity of jesus according to the old metaphysics, multitudes are ceasing to believe in him as emmanuel,--or "god with us." at a time like this, when a forward movement is the only hope of saving our great material structure from becoming another tower of babel, a retrograde movement is lamentable. what we especially need is a new interpretation of jesus, followed by a finer devotion to him, and a whole-hearted commitment of ourselves to his ever-widening program. god is becoming altogether too hazy and inarticulate, at a time when the consciousness of his holy presence is especially needed, if we are to shape and sustain a civilization that is quadrupling itself in weight and extent by reason of the growth and application of material knowledge. any quickening of god that is to be highly beneficial must result in his further advent into human lives and human institutions after the pattern of jesus. that a mere god of nature is insufficient was forcibly brought home to me while i was watching a circus performer throw daggers and toss balls. the performer, placing a man against a wide board, some ten feet distant, hurled a bunch of daggers into the board on either side of the man, each time missing him by only one or two inches. then he began tossing balls until the air seemed full of them, and not one ball fell to the ground. having witnessed with amazement his great dexterity, these thoughts occurred to me: "i wonder what he is like when he talks? if he is married what does his wife think of him? if he has children how do they feel toward him? or if he is a single man, what would i think if he should wish to marry my daughter?" i then realized that i knew absolutely nothing about him except that he was a dexterous machine. then falling into a homiletical mood i thought of the great skill of god. "how wonderfully _he_ can toss balls, and strew the milky way, and hurl pleiades and orion! before such infinite skill the performance which i have just witnessed is ridiculous." then the thought forced itself upon me, "what would god be like if he were to talk? what kind of a person should we find him to be if he walked our streets, and engaged in business, and sat at the table as one of the family circle?" i then realized that if god could only toss balls and direct atoms we should really know nothing whatever of his character. if he were no more than the uniform power of nature's laws he would too closely resemble gravity, or electricity, to be satisfying to his children. the human heart demands that, in addition to all this, god be individual, and spontaneous, like other persons whom we know, and with whom we hold fellowship. we enjoy seeing our friends run machines, but what an awful life it would be if every person in the world gave no heed to anyone or anything except the machine which he uniformly and incessantly operated! what a monstrous and oppressive idea it is to think of god, silent as a sphinx, spending an eternity with his mind so riveted upon the operation of his machine-world that he has neither time nor capacity for anything else. if such a god had time to think of it, he surely would envy the little child who can prattle, and laugh, and sing. fortunately this higher demand upon god is fully met in the religion of jesus. for while our father is a wonder-worker and a world builder, at the same time he has myriads of human bodies through which he can live a thoroughly social life. he is the most social being in the universe; his desire and capacity for social relations are unlimited. he does not willingly leave one individual outside the circle of his friends. all his work in nature is for the purpose of providing instruments and conditions for a family of free children, among whom he may live as the free and adorable father. it is no wonder that men cease to pray, when in their thought god is divorced from everything individual and social. when men conceive of god as the mere operator of the cosmos, their highest concern is to keep out of the way of the machine. it never occurs to such men that god is able to treat them as sons, after the most personal and human manner. it is only in the laws of nature that his actions are mechanically uniform. in social relations his moods and actions change to suit the feelings and conduct of his sons and daughters. in _nature_ god sends the rain and sunshine on the just and the unjust alike, but in _human-nature_ he smiles or frowns according to each individual's deserts. in jesus, god might say, "come unto me," or he might make a whip of cords and drive the people out of the temple. prayer does not cause god to change his wise and loving purpose, but it does determine _how_ he shall execute his holy will. if the conduct of a child does not change the father's actions toward him, then the father is both foolish and immoral. men should learn that god is even greater in humanity than he is in nature. for in the one, he is uniform power, while in the other, he is father, redeemer, and friend. in the world of wills, god is individual and human. and his inner communion with us is greatly intensified and clarified when there is added to it his audible voice from without. the voice of god speaking to us through human lips awakens the voice of god within us. how wonderfully clear was the divine voice in men's hearts when god spoke to them through jesus! likewise when the apostle paul went to a new community, it seemed to receptive minds that god had come to town; and they were wholly justified in thinking so, for though god had been there all the time, powerfully through nature's laws and feebly in their darkened hearts, yet for the first time god was within their city in clear articulate speech, wooing them to himself. this not only made god seem real to them, but it made it easy for them to believe and be baptized. though able to rejoice for a time, yet heaviness soon came upon them after paul's departure, because god too seemed to have departed from their midst. neither were they mistaken in this, for god had no instrument remaining through which he could make himself so humanly real to them, after his devoted and tried servant had gone away. as a result of paul's early departure there would follow unbelief and conduct unworthy of christians. to meet this sad state of affairs in the mission churches, god would write them a letter, or better still, make them another visit in paul. once there was brought home to me in a very beautiful and unexpected manner the christian truth about god's essential oneness with humanity. weary from my afternoon calls, i had just returned home. entering the side hall that was already dark, i saw through the door slightly ajar my little son and daughter at play. philip, eight years old, was building up blocks on the floor, while esther, two years younger, was standing under the electric light with both arms raised as high as she could stretch them over her head. seeing her dramatic position, and the unusual look on her face, i remained silent in the hall knowing that something was coming. with intense feeling she said: "oh, philip! of course we would kiss god!" to which philip replied: "oh, you couldn't kiss god. he is a spirit. why, god is in you,--and in me." still standing in her dramatic position with the light shining full on her face, she began lowering her arms slowly, and as her expression of comprehension deepened she said: "oh well then, philip, if god is in you and in me, if we were to kiss each other we would kiss god." "yes, that is right, you would," was his response. then said she: "let us kiss god." he arose promptly, and the children, throwing their arms tightly around each other, kissed god. if ever there was a glad father i was one. standing there in the dark hall i thought: "god bless the dear children, they have the evangel. that is the very essence of the christian religion, 'inasmuch as ye did it unto the least of these ye did it unto me.'" of course we all realize that there are certain proprieties which adults must observe, but what could be more beautiful than for a little brother and sister so to recognize god in each other as to be able to kiss him? the idea here involved, if carried out in every relation of life, would be the kingdom of god realized. furthermore, there is no other way of making the kingdom of god a reality, either on earth or in the life beyond. doubtless god never will be seen outside the bodies which he provides for himself and his children to use in common. however, we shall have more to say about that later. a christian woman has beautifully related an incident which brought to her christ's idea and experience of religion. said she: "it was my custom to retire each day to my own room for devotion. on one occasion when my heart was deeply oppressed my prayers seemed all in vain. nevertheless, i continued to plead, 'o lord jesus, reveal thyself to me.' after awhile there came a rap at my door. it was the maid seeking comfort. she had broken a choice piece of china. but i drove her away rather harshly, saying, 'you know you are not to bother me at this hour.' then i continued, 'o lord jesus, reveal thyself.' after more fruitless prayer, my little girl came sobbing for comfort as she had broken her first doll. i even drove _her_ away saying, 'my child, you must not disturb your mother now.' after resuming what seemed to be a useless petition, there came to me a suggestion as distinct and forceful as if spoken. 'inasmuch as ye did it not unto the least of these ye did it not unto me.' i arose from my knees, unlocked the door, and went out. in the kitchen i found the maid sullen and angry, to whom i spoke comforting words. seeing the light come to her face, i went on to find my little daughter. from under the grapevine where she had already cried herself to sleep, i picked her up; and after kissing her and wiping the tear stains from her cheeks, i told her that i would get her another dollie,--one ever so much nicer than the first. having comforted others for his sake, and for their own sake, my soul was filled with inexpressible peace! and once more something spoke to my innermost being, 'inasmuch as ye did it unto the least of these ye did it unto me.'" let no one draw the conclusion that her habit of devotion was worthless, for it is not very likely that all this peace and revelation would have come to her if she had been less inclined to pray. the intense desire of her prayer, coupled with the unpleasant incidents of the day, brought to her the fuller truth. though a minister may not neglect his sermons, yet there have been times when i have grown so desperate in my effort to prepare a vital message that i have thrown down my insipid and stupid manuscript to go out and find some needy, suffering person whom i could bless in his name. whenever i have done this i have found god and my soul and a sermon. 5. where does jesus belong in the religious, social and thought worlds? when the god soul and the man soul unite, they so lift nature's forces up into personal life that the universe no longer lies in broken and confused fragments. jesus is at the center of all things because all things center in pure personal life. in him, the father-spirit, the child-spirit, and nature's forces were so correlated as to be newly manifest; the child was completing himself in the father, and the father was fulfilling himself in the child, while nature was serving as the common instrument of both. separate the god soul, the man soul, and nature's forces, and no one of them is revealed. unite them as they were in jesus and the meaning of all three appears. christ's type of life brings all reality into accord because it combines everything into a composite, personal life. if you wish to know god in the most perfect way, go to jesus; if you care to know man as he should be, go to jesus; if you would look upon god, man, and nature's forces in one radiant, wooing personality, go to jesus. if it is the purpose of religionists, sociologists, and philosophers to trace reality to its highest form of expression, let them go to jesus. yes, let all men go to jesus with their wealth of technical knowledge which they have gained in the wide fields of research; and in his presence, their treasures, like precious gems, will scintillate with a divine light. this conjunction in jesus of all streams of reality makes him the light of the world. in the same way, and for the same reason, every person would be the light of the world if the child-spirit rendered an obedience to the father equally loving and intelligent. but this is the tragedy,--who has rendered such obedience! it is the belief of many of us that jesus was never disobedient, even as a little child. though it were admitted that this could not be proved, still it would remain a fact that as jesus "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with god and man," his filial obedience identified him with the father. the oneness of deity and humanity was so certainly achieved in jesus that no one can rob him of his glory nor of his place as the messiah. he was the first to open wide the door to god; yea more, he was the door. in jesus, we come face to face with the personal god and with our elder brother who lived in god. in him, the perfect god was living in man, and the perfect man was living in god, while unitedly they were living among men as a visible member of society. taking the world as it is, the presence of god in humanity could but bring both peace and trouble; it brought joy to the pure in heart, and bitter hatred and strife to those who loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. the weary and the noble were attracted to jesus, while the vicious and the self-willed hurled themselves against him with mad fury; but it was ever so, from the beginning of human history until the present hour. whenever god has made his approach in human life, the evil-in-heart have opposed him; they have killed the prophets, and stoned god when he came unto them. in our own day, many who speak beautifully of god in nature, are fiercely angry with him when he appears among them in a good man; they are willing to believe that god is in that part of nature which soothes their senses, but they are not willing to believe that he is in the man who irritates them by opposing their wicked ways, or by hindering them in their pursuit of ill-gotten gains and illicit pleasures. therefore, when god in jesus so fully and perfectly entered society, it is not strange that they put him to death. however, in killing jesus they unwittingly exalted him; in this act they brought to light the heinousness of sin, the inexpressible love of god, and the compassion of the child jesus for his sinful brothers. it is before the cross, if anywhere, that men are led to repentance; it is there, if anywhere, that the heart is both broken and healed. before such wondrous love the world may well pause and sing: "in the cross of christ i glory, towering o'er the wrecks of time, all the light of sacred story gathers round its head sublime." 6. can god die? _yes, god can die._ three years ago after the sunday morning service i received a telegram saying, "mother died this morning at six-thirty. come!" now, what did my sisters mean by this information; did they intend to convey the idea that our mother had become extinct? not at all, they only meant that she had lost the dear old instrument that we had known for so many years in this earthly home. death never signifies more than this to the christian. though we said she was dead, we believed our mother to be more alive than ever. if death is simply the loss of our instrument, the body, then god too can die, for he may lose his body. god died on the cross with his child, because the father-spirit, no less than the child-spirit, lost his beautiful instrument in which he had walked by the shores of galilee, teaching and comforting the people. if jesus would not forsake the father in the agony of the garden, we may be sure that the father did not forsake his child on the cross. as they were united in life they were undivided in death. to think that jesus any more than the father was conscious of the pain, is to make jesus greater than god. the god who creates the body, moment by moment, must know the thrill of every nerve, since they are his own nerves which he shares with his child. yet it is not the pain nor the indignity heaped upon the father and his holy child that we are here emphasizing, but the fact that he lost the instrument by means of which he had been a living person among men. the disciples scattered in sorrow and bewilderment, when god and his child jesus died on the cross. the father had no form left on earth through which he could continue to speak _unerring_ words of wisdom and love. one year before my mother died she enfolded me once more in her arms and blessed me, saying, "my son, i shall never see you again on earth." hastening home at the summons of my sisters i looked again on the dear old instrument, but the hand of welcome was not extended, and the lips did not speak. in like manner when the limp body of jesus was taken from the cross, the lips no longer said, "i and the father are one, he that hath seen me hath seen the father." those lifeless hands were no longer outstretched, and pleading, "come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and i will give you rest." yes, god can die; he can lose his human instruments on earth. he can likewise die to society by being _robbed_ of his highest instruments. if no man, woman, or child in my city would let god come to articulate speech or deed through his body, god would be stone dead in bridgeport; he would be as dead as the spirits whose bodies lie in our cemeteries. as already indicated, i do not mean, even in that sad event, that god would not still be in bridgeport as the power of the all-pervading atmosphere, or as the mighty force of the waves that lash our shores. his energy would still be scintillating in the lamps of the white way, and shedding a soft light in the smaller lamps that brighten our homes; his would still be the energy propelling all the thundering mills of industry, and the power sustaining the nerves and muscles that operate the machinery; he would still be present in the blazing sun by day and in the twinkling stars by night; he would still wrap us round, and enfolding us in his great universe he would watch over us by day and brood over us by night; and yet for all this, if we entirely robbed him of all his human bodies he, as a member of society, would be completely dead in bridgeport. if in his own life every one killed god, men would then devour one another. as it is, god is partly dead and partly alive in my city, as in all cities; and hence we are sometimes a blessing and sometimes a curse to one another. god may be manifestly alive in one person, and nearly dead in the same man's nearest neighbor; and he is more or less dead and alive in the best of us. when god can no longer get to the surface through men's souls, and bodies, and institutions, he is dead in that locality. and when god is dead through the loss of men, society is spiritually dead through the loss of god. the _living_ god is not one who is driven out of his kingdom and reduced to a mere operator of the cosmos. the living god is not one who is persecuted by his children and driven from home while his business is going to rack and ruin. a living god must be active in his universe from center to circumference. until our bodies are god's obedient instruments there is no kingdom of god. there is not the slightest reason for thinking there is a kingdom of god anywhere in the universe unless god has children somewhere who are permitting him to live through the instruments with which he enfolds them. until god is permitted to live in his own bodies, he is dead and his children are languishing. if the christian religion were understood and believed and practiced, what a transformation it would work! for instance, if every man, woman, and child in my city rendered perfect obedience to god, then every human body in bridgeport would become his very own to use, and god himself would throng our streets. we should meet him face to face in individuals and crowds. it would be emmanuel, or "god-with-us" everywhere. all faces would be bright with the wisdom and goodness of god. every individual would be our infinite father and our brother in one. what a rapid human growth would ensue! every living person would be a window through which the light of god would shine. there would be young minds like the child jesus in the temple, just waking to the mind of god, and ripe saints and sages flooding the community with god's vaster wisdom and profounder love. not only would our immediate bodies be cleansed and transformed, but our augmented bodies would be brought into harmony with the divine will. our city would become a heavenly abode, and our industries would become the instruments of love and righteousness. we should tap a thousand sources of power that now remain idle, and finding unlimited resources within ourselves and our environments, we would work wonders. while making god's energies our enlarged and purified bodies, we should at the same time turn them into instruments of god's love. if god were permitted to come to the surface perfectly in all our lives, and in all with which we have to do, three years would not pass until people would be making pilgrimages from the ends of the earth to see the city "where _god_ lives." in a previous chapter i said that god, as a solitary person in the universe, would not mine coal, and run steam engines; but now allow me to say that if there is anything god wants to do it is to get into the railroad business; and if he does not, it will be because men vote him out. but in shutting god out of railroad corporations, what are we doing? though not fully aware of it, yet we are really saying, "o god, you may be the energy in the steel rails, you may be the power in the wheels, you may be the expansive force of the steam, you may manage the chemical combinations of the wheat or other cargo, you may furnish us with our bodies, you may do everything but dictate terms of business. if, however, you want to sit at the desk as the senior partner then our answer is, 'get down and out, o god.' we are glad to have you as our slave and lackey, we are delighted to use you and exploit you, but woe to the man or men who plead your cause in connection with our private business." such is the enormity of our sin, and the denseness of our ignorance when we shut god out of our business affairs. if god may not be in our daily enterprises he will not deign to be in our prayer meetings. this is the message of jesus to all men, to employers and employees alike; this is the will of god, that _in_ and _through_ his children he may make all things vocal with his wisdom, and beautiful with his love. scholars may look into nerves and brain, but the spirit is fully revealed _before_ the face and not back of it. so the infinite god and father of our spirits is fully revealed, if at all, in benignant eyes, friendly hands, willing feet, and gracious words. it is the way we grow our bodies, and shape our institutions, and manipulate all the forces of nature that we reveal what manner of spirits we are. if our spirits are evil, then god is denied bodily expression. there is no use saying lord, lord, if we do not the things which he tells us. chapter v losing the sense of immortality a general statement the "what" and "where" of god is still incomplete so long as we confine our thought to the mere fragment of time measured by this earth life. though we have found the unity of all parts in the christ life, yet that unity is and can be but imperfectly realized by society on earth. a longer time and a wider sphere must be considered if we are really to know what god and man is. therefore, god, man, and the universe must be viewed in the light of endless time. if in certain respects this generation is conspicuous for its lack of faith, in other respects it is notable for its abundance of faith. the new knowledge acquired along many lines instead of destroying our belief in immortality is going to enrich it immeasurably when we have thoroughly digested the facts. in the meantime some minds are bound to be disquieted. it is most fortunate that the majority of people seem able to accept the fact of a future life as something altogether natural and inevitable. those who are not able to do so, however, appear to be increasing in number. yet we may rest assured that whatever will save the faith of the doubting ones will enrich the faith of those who find it easy to believe. and if those who doubt are not as numerous as sometimes appears, so much the better. whatever the real situation may be, it is our privilege and duty to deepen and enrich our faith to the extent of our ability. that so many express doubts on the subject of immortality is something to be deplored and, if possible, remedied. an old man, highly esteemed, despondingly said to me after the funeral of his friend: "we hope there is something beyond, but we do not know." in response to my word of assurance, he grew even more pensive and added, "no one has ever returned." to say the least this life-long member of the church saw nothing in future prospects to cheer his declining years. as i gave his feeble hand a warm clasp, i painfully realized that the light was fading from his soul as well as from his eyes. on my first visit after the funeral of a senior deacon, his widow plaintively repeated the words of the old man: "we hope there is something beyond, but we do not know." my prompt response was immediately checked by a languid wave of the hand, and an emphatic, "_no one_ can know." this uncertain state of mind is in striking contrast with that of the saints and martyrs; it cannot say, "to me, to live is christ and to die is gain." some highly honorable people tell me that they have no desire to live again, and express wonder that anyone has such a desire. the good influence we may leave behind us, they think, is immortality enough. a general loss of faith in immortality, i am confident, would work irreparable harm to society. it would completely destroy religion. the church, therefore, should do its utmost to keep alive a rational and heartfelt assurance of immortality. this, i am sure, can be done without, in any way, stultifying the intellect. in fact, the intellect must be made our ally if we are to succeed. at this point the remark of a woman ninety years old is very significant and reassuring. after reading a popular book of the day on immortality, she said: "i did not like it. i do not want anyone to try to prove immortality by science, because he cannot do it. i grasp the reality of a future life with my whole being." _why are so many people losing their assurance of immortality?_ 1. the contagion of doubt there is a contagion of doubt as well as a contagion of faith. with facts still favorable to a victory, an army may lose morale. when the general and all his officers keep hopeful, their confidence works its way down to the enlisted men. if the hopeful word is on many lips the morale is saved, and the whole army is confident of victory. witnessing to any belief has a tremendous psychic influence for good or evil. the facts concerning any great subject are never deeply analyzed by the masses; yet the people possess a rare power for sensing the spirit of their times. in the fight for eternal life the morale of the church is too low. the confidence at the top is not always as rugged and commanding as it might be. too many college men are confused in a jumble of ideas, and some of them, unfortunately, give their testimony on the side of doubt. no one should give an insincere testimony for the sake of helping out a weak cause. yet many college men are greatly remiss in not giving more careful consideration to a theme that vitally affects all human interests. at all events, the masses hear many expressions of doubt, and are not slow to pass them on. a large number of people who stand aloof from the churches hear a dozen denials to one affirmation of belief in immortality. many radical socialists carry on a determined propaganda against belief in immortality for political and economic reasons. they say to the restless crowds: "the church is fooling you with the hope that the wrongs of this life will be righted in another; but there is no other. if ever you get your share of good things you must get it soon, for your life is short. therefore, down with the church and king capital!" i am not fearful for the grounds on which the assurance of this great christian belief rests, but i am disturbed over the prevalent ignorance and indifference manifested. 2. the inability to make a religious use of modern knowledge the christian view of life in its relation to the whole body of modern information has not been adequately given to the people. and they are seriously affected in consequence of this neglect. that irreligion does not tend toward assurance of immortality i regard as an incontrovertible position. yet to say that all doubt is due to a lack of christian devotion is not true. many good christians are confused, and seek help to regain the comforting belief that death does not end all. all clearly ascertained truth about the universe should prove a help to faith, but until people know what to do with so many new facts, they prove a decided hindrance. take for example just one popular subject of the day, physiological psychology: when taught by men who have never grasped the christian philosophy of life, it affords the shortest possible road to atheism and the denial of the human soul. this modern branch of learning, though the finest of servants, is the meanest of masters. it has slain its thousands. physiological psychology has its own field of investigation, but it is never safe when it parts company with sound philosophy. 3. the loss of a satisfying conception of the future life in sharp contrast with former times, this generation has no satisfying conception of the future life. and naturally an indefinite and hazy future makes but slight appeal. many instinctively turn from such a future to save their peace of mind. they prefer something that is definite and interesting. it is a matter of common experience that the heart will not glow if there is no picture on the canvas. unless we can so adjust the lens of our minds as to project something more than confused colors, we shall never bring back the former interest in a future life. unfortunately, there has not been much striving on the part of the church to construct a future that will harmonize with the newly discovered constitution of the universe. and without this end in view all striving would be in vain; nothing will avail that does not relate the future to the divine framework of god's present universe. the common conception of heaven has been of something quite apart from the existing world as we know it. among all with whom i have conversed, i have not found one who expects to have a physical body in the future life. they have erroneously interpreted a "spiritual body" to mean a spirit body. this crude idea of a spirit body is a fair sample of a hundred other fancies and misconceptions. when the commonly accepted idea of heaven became as distasteful to the minister as it was to many of his congregation, he stopped preaching about it. the laity may no longer be seen enjoying a rapturous contemplation of future bliss. instead, they accuse persons so inclined of other-worldliness, and point out to them that they are not as good as they might be here and now. so, for one reason or another we seldom give more than a furtive glance at that which lies beyond the grave. in proportion as the vision has gone from the mind, the sense has faded from the soul. the old picture of heaven has become altogether inadequate, and no other has been put in its place. considering the sudden transition through which the world has been passing, possibly this stage of affairs was inevitable. 4. the growing habit of classifying the future with things unknown and unknowable at last there has arisen in the church a considerable class that strives to discourage any effort to inquire into the future life. "one world at a time" is their motto. the future is classed among things unknown and unknowable. this type of mind is trying to arouse interest in the present by drawing attention from the future. said a woman professor to a student: "if ministers would talk less of things about which they can know nothing and do more to help those about them, they would show more sense and accomplish a great deal more good." i think i know some ministers who might do more for their environments, but i happen to know of none who talk much about the future. this teacher so enthusiastic over a fragment of the truth has never suspected how meager and one-sided her education is. she has not grasped the thought of our age which recognizes, above everything else, the unity and solidarity of things. so she protests against any _rounded-out_ conception of life. it is not strange, therefore, that immortality is to her a disagreeable theme that she would like to see tabooed. a professional man once said to me: "when you came on the train the other day our mutual friend, mr. a. said, 'there is the parson,' and then nudging me remarked, 'say, he knows no more about the other world than we do, does he?'" "so that is what you were talking about," i replied. "well, i am surprised. i thought you were modern men, and knew that there is no other world. science, philosophy, religion, and common sense, teach us that there is but one world, a uni-verse. we now live in all the world there is. but since we have not penetrated it very deeply, if your friend had remarked that the minister was no more developed than you, or that he had gone no deeper into the meaning of the universe than you, he would at least have been on debatable ground. when, however, two men of your opportunities could sit there and talk about another world, i am ashamed of you. the universe is as much one as my watch is one. every particle of it enfolds us continually and never ceases to pour its energies through us. every part of the universe is beating upon us to waken us, if possible, to its meaning. if i live for an eternity, i shall be in the same world as now, and what i truthfully know about it now will still be true after my body has decayed. god's one-world is the only world." no wonder that people become confused and mixed up with their plural worlds, and broken fragments of worlds. 5. an inadequate conception of the kingdom of god more than a generation ago it came to us like a new discovery that while jesus rarely spoke of heaven, the expression, "kingdom of heaven," was continually on his lips. this discovery turned the whole tide. and since then, "the kingdom of god on earth" has been the theme of the church. while heartily agreeing with this discovery, and sympathizing with the new aim, i still seriously doubt whether we have seen the kingdom of heaven in any such full-orbed sense as jesus intended we should. too often we unwittingly preach a kingdom of _earth_ on earth; we leave something out. that which jesus preached was somehow more religious. surely it is an inadequate kingdom of god when it, as so often happens, degenerates into a _mere_ scientific cooking-school, or a _mere_ scientific system of sanitation, or a _mere_ several other things lacking in god motive and god consciousness. the kingdom of god is more than a program of social service; it is a god-filled and god-ruled society. a genuine kingdom of god on earth will be pervaded by a heavenly atmosphere. even a social religion may become so unsocial as to eliminate the head of society; it may consign him to the oblivion of forgetfulness. no woman, whose duty it is to be a cook, can be a perfect christian while she is careless about the preparation of food for her family. yet one may be a scientific cook without being a christian. it requires more than beautiful, material conditions to make the kingdom of god on earth. i know families with beautiful mahogany dining rooms and all that goes with them, whose good food is so well cooked that it almost melts in their mouths, and yet they give god no thanks. indeed, there are those thus situated who think nothing about god. this is not meant to imply that the conditions of poverty and ignorance are any more favorable to a christian life. coming one day from a poor family's home across the street, my little son said: "papa, does mr. r. love the lord?" when i told him that i did not know, "well," he replied, "i don't believe he does, because he sat down at the table to-day with his coat off and never thanked the lord for his food. he just looked around and said, 'pass the taters,' and that is all he said." from what i knew of this poor man, he was probably neither more nor less a pagan than the man with a mahogany dining room. the doctrine of the kingdom of god on earth, with but little consciousness of god, is surely increasing among rich and poor, both in the church and out of the church. and as personal acquaintance with god goes, the assurance of immortality invariably fades. many women, of varying degrees of intelligence and social standing, are doing commendable social work for the love of humanity with but dim consciousness of god. it has come to pass that fine women may whisk about in silks and limousines visiting day-nurseries and the like without bending the knee to the father or remembering that the babies are god's little ones. yet no right-minded person wishes to diminish the social service of this day by whomsoever rendered. on the contrary, he feels that the church which overlooks the poor babies should have a millstone hanged about its neck and be cast into the sea. nevertheless, a kingdom without the consciousness of god in the hearts of its subjects will never succeed in saving the assurance of immortality. the old religion could not succeed without a bottom, and the new religion will not succeed without a top. this topless kingdom, spreading far beyond the church, is making many feel that they are better off without the church. some of these are sincere and substantial men and women, while others of them are extremely superficial. many of the latter class will tell you with real self-appreciation that they look after poor stray kitties, and feed the birdies in cold weather, and in fact befriend all the animals. really, they are too busy with good works among animals and needy people to go to church and, as one of them told me, they are not among the narrow-minded people anyway "who believe in hell." this generation needs to learn the necessity, and the sane psychology, of christian experience. to put it plainly, it should be converted to god. with god in our thoughts and affections we can hardly be too careful about the material side of his kingdom; for the religion of jesus means the spiritualizing of the material, all the way from our bodies to the end of the material forces that are at our command. though ever so many cups of cold water be given, if they are not given in his name or with a consciousness of his share in the gift, the kindly deed will not impart to us christ's assurance of life eternal. 6. we automatically lose the assurance of the future when we lose the reality of the present because he _has_ nothing in his ice-bound world, the eskimo hopes for nothing. there is nothing within his present grasp that suggests great things to come. whereas, the civilized man hopes for a glorious future not yet attained because he sees that the present warrants such a hope. no one can reasonably hope for that which the present does not justify. only let him be sure that he knows the present. men who miscalculate the future usually do so because they fail to apprehend the present facts. we cannot judge what the fruit will be unless we know the particular variety of tree. the future history of the universe depends upon whether there is a god _now_. either there is or there is not a god. if there is, the one not knowing him has a very superficial knowledge of the world that now is. a god-projected and a god-filled world will have a very different future from a world of mindless ether and mindless electrons. the discovery of electricity and some knowledge of its behavior were necessary before men could dream of electric cars and electric lights. when electricity and some of the laws were known, however, the dream was unavoidable, and like many another rational prediction it has come true. when the thought of god fades, christian hope dies. if one is only _agnostic_ with reference to the existence of god, he is simply agnostic on the subject of immortality. in exact proportion as we lose connection with the deeper realities of the present, we forfeit insight into the future. as one who is entirely ignorant of chemistry has no criteria by which to judge the future of chemistry, so the one having no personal consciousness of god, nor clear vision of the deeper meanings of life, has no data for a rational prediction of the future. paul said that the rulers of his day did not know spiritual things, or they "would not have crucified the lord of glory." not knowing god, naturally they did not recognize his purpose when they met it in the character and teachings of jesus; so they ignorantly put jesus to death. things which their eyes saw not and their ears heard not, were recognized by those who knew god. "for who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of god none knoweth, save the spirit of god. but we received the spirit which is from god; that we might know." our expectations for the future always rise spontaneously out of our vision of the present. whether it will rain within the next forty-eight hours i can but imperfectly predict because i recognize but a few vague weather conditions. the weather bureau, however, with many more present facts at its command may predict with far greater certainty. the man who knows nothing but a material universe cannot believe in immortality. any effort to convince him is but a waste of breath. if he is right in thinking that the universe has no soul, then he is right in believing that there is no future life. the soul--granting that it has a soul--is the best part of the universe. to have lost god, therefore, is to have lost the best part of reality. and the loss does not end here, for, in the best sense, we have lost the world also. though its chemistry and physics remain the same, its higher meaning and finer uses no longer exist, for us, when god is eliminated. to comprehend the universe we must know it philosophically, poetically, and religiously, as well as scientifically. some unwisely think that to know it scientifically and poetically is enough. if the forces of nature are energies proceeding from an infinite mind, and if we might so use these forces as to express his wisdom and love in all human relations, then the universe is fundamentally different from the atheist's world. the one who does not recognize an infinite mind of love and righteousness, must prostitute the world to uses lower than the highest. and as soon as he does this he has not only lost the soul of the universe, but in the very finest sense he has lost the body of the universe as well. on such a poor foundation, his common sense saves him from the folly of trying to build a temple that pierces the skies. he may still remain a gentleman, and have a most kindly and unselfish disposition within certain limits, but at a thousand points he will find his will at right angles with the one who lives in a different world,--in a world that warrants the long look. i have experienced the world from both points of view. and though my common conduct did not vary greatly, yet when i was deeply conscious of god, and saw the universe all vibrant with his thought and love, my life in its inner meaning and quality was different from center to circumference. here, then, is the crux of the whole matter. in so far as we have lost the assurance of a future life, it is because we have lost so much of the present that what remains of it is not sufficient to arouse a lively anticipation of immortality. true, our sense of reality is oppressively intense in the physical realm; we clutch, with death-like grip, that from which the soul has escaped. but the husk will not support spiritual life nor give assurance of the life to come. chapter vi finding the sense of immortality how shall we find the assurance of immortality? 1. we automatically find the assurance of the future when we find the reality of the present. naturally, assurance will be found, if at all, where it was lost. we shall automatically find the assurance of the future when we find the reality of the present. it is not claimed that all professing christians have a firm grasp on reality; for when religion is no more than a superficial formality, its credulous devotees experience neither truth nor doubt; they are religious automatons. but if we do not allow such christians to attract us to heaven, neither should we permit them to drive us to perdition. if one succeeds in finding god, if he learns to grasp the religious significance of the universe, and if he achieves a personal experience of the kingdom of god, assurance of the future will come unbidden and unsought. these great and present realities are the gateway to life and the guarantee of good things to come. _only let one find, assimilate, and build upon this three-fold present, and the soul will blossom into hope._ some reasons why the quest for reality is not more frequently and earnestly undertaken. a. the moral failure of christians some refrain from any effort to make religious attainments because of the moral failures among professing christians. but there are many failures in business, education, citizenship, and every other line of human endeavor that is worth while. on that basis a person would refuse to live at all. we all know there are some religious sceptics who are much more upright than some believers. from a christian civilization they have inherited strong wills, a deep moral sense, and physical bodies with no marked weakness. many of them have kindly dispositions and charming graces. among their most helpful friends and favorite authors they count many of the best religious people. they themselves are one of the best by-products of christianity. if they did not live in a christian civilization they would not be what they are. many such are doubters simply because they have not found their religious teachers. they have probably encountered that which, for their type of mind, was a very unfortunate religious environment. it would have been better for some people if they had had different parents, or a different church, or both. however, it is a simple matter of observation that a large percentage of humanity is weak whether believing or sceptical, whether it goes to church or does not go to church. a man who has a real saint in him may at the same time have seven devils in himself to fight. with no patriotic ideals or emotions some men can keep morally straight, while some noble self-sacrificing patriot may, if he is not very careful, fall into the ditch. it is fortunate that some doubters are so good, and a pity that some christians are so bad; but regardless of just how good or bad any of us is, if this universe has a soul it is of the greatest importance that we make his personal acquaintance and learn his plans; and if in anything we have deviated from his plans we should humbly repent and get in line with the power that must ultimately break us if it cannot make us. if one is strong enough to perform ordinary duties without the conscious help of god, that is no reason why he should run away from his father and treat him with silent contempt. the father desires the company of his son, and in a thousand ways great and small needs his son's help. b. because the average christian cannot answer technical questions others regard the religious verities lightly because the average christian cannot answer technical questions pertaining to his faith. yet there is not one cultivated person in a thousand that can answer technical questions concerning the material universe in which we all live. the most highly civilized and prosperous community succeeds simply because it relies on the technical knowledge of the few. most of us know electricity neither practically nor theoretically. even among practical electricians, how many could answer more than the simplest questions? it requires no profound knowledge of the subject to wire a house and give its occupants light and comfort. yet the practical electrician knows as well as the expert that he is dealing with a real force, and may be able to wire the house better than the theoretical electrician himself could do. how many good cooks are there who could chemically analyze the food which they have prepared for their families? it is absurd to expect the average christian to go into all the psychology and philosophy of his religion; as it is absurd to deny the reality of his experience because a full analysis is not forthcoming. the large majority of people have neither time nor qualifications to go into an exhaustive and technical examination of the philosophy and science of religion, any more than they have to go into the philosophy and science of the material world. fortunately, a more practical way stands wide open to them. because men are men, they may possess the great realities before they can adequately explain them. they know the stars before they are astronomers. they have an implicit knowledge of god which under right conditions becomes explicit. they have intuitions and common sense, the foundation of all knowledge. it is their privilege, likewise, to put things to the severe test of use. in the material world men risk their lives and fortunes on the truth of sciences of which, at first hand, they are totally ignorant. but by so doing they find themselves the richer and the wiser. likewise, the christian multitudes who take the spiritual world practically, find themselves the recipients of untold blessings. their knowledge, to be sure, is only practical, but it is their knowledge, and they would be willing to die for it if necessary. one may have the reality without the analysis, or he may have the analysis without the reality, or, unfortunately, he may have neither. the happiest possible situation is where he has both. a man may be justified in giving money and labor for the support and extension of religion without himself being a psychologist or a theologian. just as the men who have given the most money for the advancement of the sciences do not know enough about these sciences to teach them. yet we do not call them fools; we highly esteem them as philanthropists and benefactors. they are often as intellectual in the practical world as the scholars are in the scientific world. the practical and theoretical everywhere supplement each other. there should be experts, by all means, who know religion technically as well as practically. and to these many inquiring troubled minds should go for help, just as the business man goes to the experts for knowledge that lies beyond him. some sceptics take special delight in perplexing common christians with the deepest philosophical aspects of their faith. why do they not go to the experts? many religious doubters never go to any one with their problems; while others of a more superficial character go to the religious quacks, and thenceforward help to swell the ranks of some ridiculous or fanatical religion. it is doubtless true that almost every one could find his religious teacher if only he would look for him; one who could interpret religion in such a way as to satisfy his reason and meet his deepest need. if there is any possible way of bringing honest doubters and religious experts together it should be done for their mutual benefit. but here is one of the gravest practical difficulties that we have to face. c. antiquated forms irritating to sceptics crude ideas still cling to the popular statements of religion as barnacles cling to a ship. this unfortunate and unnecessary fact drives away from the church many conscientious minds. though not many of us are scientists, yet we all live in a fairly well reconstructed material universe. without knowing any mathematical astronomy our general notion of the heavens is fairly correct. ignorant as we are of physics and chemistry, yet we have in our minds a moderately fair picture of a world that is compounded from the gases. the old picture of the material world has given place to the new, even among the uneducated masses. but, sad to say, the simple, complete picture of the reconstructed religious world has never been given to the masses. sometimes we lug in a little of the dry and technical science that lies back of the new picture, but rarely do we give the picture concrete and whole, unburdened and untrammeled by the technical substratum. as a result only a handful of christians have the simple, modern conception of religion in anything like complete form. yet no task should be easier or more delightful than just this work of giving the people a complete picture of the religious world in which we live. recently i met a man who is a good worker in one of the most prominent churches in america, and i was surprised to find that his ideas of religion compare with those of his renowned minister as the ptolemaic astronomy compares with the copernican,--and yet he has no realization of the discrepancy. his capable minister should draw the picture for him. a great many sincere and genuine churches greatly irritate the sceptical mind because of the forms in which their religious ideas are clothed. like a grapevine that is never trimmed, their faith is free and easy and of luxurious growth. to the critical doubter the suffocating atmosphere of the church seems unreasoning and unreasonable. it is not that he wants something learned, but something that does not rough his mind into a state of irritation. the mischief done is great. it is the imperative duty of some people to go to another church; and in some cases to another denomination. though the fault is on both sides, yet they will never be able to make a harmonious adjustment. instead of finding a church, or some specialist, that could teach him, unfortunately and untruthfully the sceptic usually decides that it is impossible for him to be a christian. so he resolves to be what he regards as an upright man and lets it go at that. but he does not find the great realities, except in a most vague and attenuated form. d. the provincialism of sceptics the most hopeless situation of all is where sceptics consort almost wholly with sceptics. they can soon kill the last remnant of religion that lingers in their hearts. the provincialism of doubt may be even greater than the provincialism of a bigoted faith. in their hearts, sceptics often try and condemn intelligent christians with but slight knowledge of what the christians believe and with even less knowledge of why they believe it. many doubting minds take it for granted that all christians conceive of religion as they themselves did when they were children in sunday school, or boys and girls in a junior endeavor society. they think that a little scientific knowledge of the material universe makes anything more than agnosticism impossible. if their knowledge of religion and their philosophical knowledge of the universe were all that is known, they would be right. by learning a little more of religion, and by acquiring a better philosophical as well as scientific knowledge of the material universe many have regained their grasp on god. for such as have come to see god as the center and soul of all things, natural science, instead of being a hindrance to, has become one illuminating phase of theology. as a christian believer, i find myself continually going to expert scientists to ascertain their latest findings. and i can truthfully say that, from a religious point of view, their verifiable report is always interesting. it is good news. it lifts me to higher levels of thought, to nobler planes of social conduct, and to loftier heights of fellowship with god and men. god's blessings on any man that discovers anything new in god's world and reports it correctly! a friend once said to me: "i do not know whether there is a god or not, and i am not going to bother my head about it; i am just going to wait and see." if, however, he finds himself alive after the death of his body, i venture to assert that the old problem of finding god will still confront him. we may rest assured that there is no ghost-god to be seen after death. this man has utterly misconceived of god and of the method of finding him. death will not be a substitute for spiritual development. if ever he finds god it will be as a loving intelligent will, and not as a glorious ghost on which his physical eyes may look. "god is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." if we would know god we must seek him as he is, and not as something which he is not. let the sceptic consider well this statement: so far as we can _see_, everything would necessarily appear just as it does if there were a god. i have never interrogated any one who could suggest anything to the contrary. if god actually exists, we shall never know him as we know man with local form and articulate speech, unless we come to recognize him in man. i dare say we shall _never_ become acquainted with god save as we learn to know him in our own souls, in other people, and in nature. so if we ever expect to know him we would as well put forth the effort to know him now. if it could be proved that there is a god we should still need to find him. but if we find him we have no need of further proof. our problem then is not one of proving, but of finding. 2. equal striving for spiritual and material things is necessary all normal people have senses which give them physical objects. without these, we could not commence to live a rational life. but we must acquire some sense to make our senses of value. most of our seeing, in the physical as well as in the spiritual, is with our sense and not alone with our senses. to achieve insight in any line requires effort. the man who has senses only, lacks the insight of the man who has both sense and senses. therefore we must earn not only our bread by the sweat of our brow, but everything else which has priceless worth. how covetous we all are for the material side of things! that we may truthfully know and really possess the material side of the universe, we put forth prolonged and painful effort. our striving, however, to know and to possess the _soul_ of the universe is pitifully meager. if we strove no harder for the former than we do for the latter we should be ignorant and poor beyond recognition. having long neglected the soul of the universe we look up, occasionally, and demand proof that the world has a soul. however, it is not _proof_ that we need, but religious insight. if i ask proof that classical music is beautiful, i must either take other people's word for it or else acquire musical sense by living with classical music and classical musicians. the senses of the average man pronounce classical music very ugly. mathematical or business ability will not suffice; it will more likely hinder, because as a rule it has been acquired at the expense of musical development. there are those who actually make fun of classical music without any realization of their personal defect which they are advertising. charles darwin was probably never surpassed in the amount of data gathered for scientific observations. and yet, there are persons in every civilized village in the world who are better judges of music; and paul, to say nothing of jesus, was so far ahead of him in religious insight that the contrast is painful. in every realm of knowledge known to man, so-called proof is but seeing and understanding and appreciating. logic does not prove anything. if for our major premise we say all normal men are rational, we rest our belief on observation. if for our minor premise we affirm that here is a normal man, we do so on the ground of observation. if both observations are correct, then we need no proof that the man of the minor premise is rational because it is self-evident. logic is often a convenient method of seeing, but it is never a proof. even in mathematics we do not prove, we see. not a single proposition in mathematics is proved; its truth is only perceived. the so-called proof is but a method of separating the elements of a condensed proposition so that these elements, one by one, may be recognized. the certainty began with one or more axioms, and proceeded with rules built upon observation, and the certainty at every step to the finish rested on something self-evident. a prominent man assured me that he could prove that two and two were four. however, the first thing i learned in geometry was that an axiom was too self-evident to be capable of proof. the highly complex methods which we have devised for reducing intricate mathematical statements of their axiomatic verities we call proof, but the term proof can only be used in this accommodated sense, for fundamentally we have proved nothing; we have simply increased our intelligence by using a speedy and ingenious method of looking. when it is said that one does not know how to prove a proposition, it only means that he does not know how to separate and arrange the elements in such a manner that the mind can see them. fundamentally, _nothing in the world is proved_. when we clearly see, doubt flees and certainty comes. if in anything a person insists that he can not see, all we can do is to ask him to look again; or perhaps we may try holding the truth at different angles, or we may present its elements in some new order. if, however, nothing enables him to see, then in respect to that particular thing he is damned. i had a very intelligent friend who was dismissed from an important position because he was color-blind. while some have much stronger religious intuitions than others, yet i think there is no normal person who may not, if he goes about it in the right way, achieve religious insight. it takes a great deal of maneuvering to get some people to see mathematics. and the average sceptic has not put forth the effort to see religious truth that the average pupil has to see mathematical truth. but i know sceptics who _have_ put forth such effort, and they have succeeded. when a sceptic wins a faith, in the nature of the case it is vital. saving faith in religion, as in everything else, is the feeling of certainty that follows clear insight. and clear insight into any subject depends upon intelligent study and faithful practice. while there are many things that we positively know, and many more that we may come to know, yet it is through rational experience, and not so-called proof, that we come to know them. as hungry cannibals feed upon the body of a civilized man with never a thought that his trained mind would be worth more to them than his body, so multitudes feed upon the body of the universe with no thought of what its animating will might be to them. to all who sustain such an attitude toward the universe, its body looms large while its soul fades. as the cannibal missed the wealth and civilization which the larger mind of his victim could have brought, so the mere world-consumers miss that which the soul of the universe could abundantly give. if it were divinely conceived of and divinely used, the physical universe and the social relations therein would be infinitely enriched. but when the soul of the universe is lost, and the body of the universe is narrowed down to the temporal uses of the materialistic mind, we have lost the best part of reality. but if we know what god and the world are to-day, we have a solid basis for knowing what they will be to-morrow. the future is not a new life and a new universe and a new god, but the present life and the present universe and the present god to-morrow. the remedy for a hazy future is a luminous present. since god carries all men, good and bad, in his bosom, what a pity it is that we allow sloth and selfishness to deprive us of his acquaintance and fellowship. a little play-fellow once refused to speak to me in the presence of his newly arrived cousin. finally he said to his cousin with a sneer, "dick spoke to me three times, and i never let on that i heard him." this cut me deeply. but i now confess with sorrow and shame that the god who carries me in his own life has spoken a thousand times to me when i never let on that i heard him. i have often tried to forget him that i might enjoy pleasures of which he could not approve. all souls are in touch with god, and in that sense know him, even when they do not recognize who or what it is that touches them; they are like the fishes that know the water but can not find the sea. at last it has come to this: i have simply learned to see the universe that enfolds me, as the present energy of an intelligent will. i see that will coming to human expression in me, in my christian friends, and in a social kingdom of infinite possibilities. that which i see _works_, and _coördinates_ with all that i know, making me more glad and more strong as the years go by. god seems to live in me and about me and through me. that in which i live and from which i cannot escape for a single moment of my existence, i do not try to prove. my task is to see it more intelligently and to adjust myself to it more perfectly. i can testify that the more i learn and _the better i live_ the more clearly do i see that that in which i live has sense as well as chemical energies; and that its deeper meaning and purpose may get to the surface through my life. i no longer live in a dirt world, but in a mind world. i believe neither in a muck world, nor in a ghost-god who is somewhere in hiding. my universe has come to be a will in action, a will that enfolds me with its energies and does not let me go. when the universe is otherwise conceived i do not like it. my intellect and instincts rebel against a universe materially conceived and materially explained. it is too twisted and dwarfed for all the facts. i am rationally convinced that i see a larger and better world. to me, worship is the deeper penetration into that will in whose enfolding energies i live and move and have my being. my world has become an oratorio with both peaceful and dramatic passages. i get nerve thrills from its music; and more, since its text is written in plain english, and not in an unknown tongue, i see the majestic pageant of a well-ordered creation. i understand what the music is about, and experience a joy infinitely beyond what i should if the music were without words. and though i meet some severe hardships, yet i am convinced that this is the best conceivable world in which to _begin_ a life that is to live forever. history helps me, science helps me; and i feel myself borne along by a union of forces toward a glorious goal. god becomes more and more articulate in me and in all men and in all nature as we learn to will his will and to use nature's forces as the instruments of our enlightened and purified spirits. i also find that this vision will not leave me unless i live beneath my best. if, therefore, my best life and best vision go together, it would be folly to do anything that would break the harmony. some may say, "this is nothing but the way _you_ see things, why not give us something more?" no one has anything to give beyond what he sees, unless he gives what some one else has seen; and that is entirely uncalled for if he can not tell it better than the other man has done. the only justification for the appearance of another book is that the author thinks his vision is sufficiently like what others see, and at the same time enough different to make it useful. "but i can't see it your way," some reader may retort. well, i am sorry. obviously, if we are sincere, it is for us to go on living and preaching the gospel with the hope that some day he may come to see. the master himself was shut up within the same circumscribed method. however, my contention is that if we have "pure hearts," and are not unnecessarily confused in thought, or possessed of erroneous thoughts, we know god here and now. this is the luminous present that clarifies the hazy future. not all men know god, but in my opinion all may know him if they go about it in the right way. every human being, consciously or unconsciously, must submit to having his life moulded by a world with a god or by a world without a god, and the finished life will be as different as the two worlds. 3. the final step in the effort to know god to know god and to win the hope of immortality one must do more than formulate a set of correct ideas. correct ideas will greatly aid, yet alone they are utterly inadequate. when the scientist gets his idea, he proceeds to experiment with it. if he does not at first get the hoped-for results, when the idea is clear and impelling, he performs his experiments over and over again in the most painstaking manner. in religion, however, many will never go beyond the idea. they wish to have the idea fully established without experiment or application. the reason for this difference is that, in religion, the experiment can not be made on carbon and zinc, but it must be made on the man's own soul. the experiment cuts right into his moral, emotional, and sentimental nature. how often a man will admit, "i can see no flaw in your idea, but i am not convinced that you are right." when the scientist gets his idea, whether it is true or not, he acts as if it were true until he has tried his experiments, and does not always abandon the idea when his tests fail; he realizes that the fault may have been in the experiment. many of the greatest facts in science have long been baffled by faulty experiments. like consequences occur in religion. if instead of going on to the experiment and application one keeps repeating forever the question, "i wonder if the idea is true," he will never get anywhere except into a deeper state of doubt. a wise person while putting his best idea to the test will say, "i am hopeful that it will turn out favorably because it is such an attractive, promising idea." religious ideas must be planted in the soul as seeds are put into the ground, and allowed to remain undisturbed long enough to germinate. it is most fortunate when children, through experimental knowledge, have been taught to love good types of religion and music; and this while they are receptive, and before they are ensnared by a thousand other influences. yet no one, at any age, dare neglect his religious duties and privileges if he wishes religion to be an impelling power in his soul. in my youth, mathematics was a great inspiration to me, but through neglect my mathematical lamp burns low. to keep mathematics interesting and alive one must work problems applied to constructive business. for an example of a man who attained unto great religious certainty, take paul. he experienced a radical revision of his religious ideas, but his improved ideas were not enough. to test their validity he hurled himself upon the christian verities with all the force of his being; and in consequence, found a life of intimate friendship with god. thenceforward paul had great things to tell and magnificent things to achieve. "i can do all things in him that strengthened me." he felt that nothing could break this new bond. "for i am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of god, which is in christ jesus our lord." his friendship with god gave him a new conception of, as well as a new interest in, society. "so we, who are many, are one body in christ, and severally members one of another." god the father "is over all, and through all, and in all." paul's insight broke all former bounds; it elevated him to a boundless and timeless world; his insight gave him a deep sense of god and became the evidence of many things not yet achieved. here was personal assurance of god and immortality deep, strong, and jubilant. whence came it? such assurance is inherent in a life spiritually nourished and divinely employed. hope simply comes to such a soul, like color to the ripening apple. this generation, though engaged in many noble charities, shows marked signs of under-nourishment; its mind is active in the acquisition of material knowledge, and its body is overworked in the effort to accumulate wealth, yet its soul languishes. and there is a near likeness between a starved soul and a starved body. without hope or courage, a little girl sits staring out of great innocent eyes because she is under-nourished. this poor fading flower is in striking contrast with the little apple-cheeked girl in bloomers who believeth all things and hopeth all things and (as her brother knows) can do pretty much all things. this startling difference requires no lengthy explanation; nourishment and exercise tell the whole story. so in our day many languid souls ask, "where is thy god, and who knows whether there is a life beyond?" for an instructive contrast, place beside such a life the life of jesus. living in the bosom of the father, doing the father's will day by day, seeing life in the light of divine love, and witnessing the effect upon those whom he won to a life of love and service, made it impossible for jesus to lose faith in immortality. while enduring the pain of the cross he could say to the malefactor, "to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." the abundant, buoyant life nourished in the life of god and exercised in the service of god and man, is the source of hope for the life that is yet to be. 4. conscious of the existence of god, we become certain of immortality it is clear as daylight that god himself will be defeated if he _loses his family_. attention has already been called to the fact that, with the loss of his family, god would be reduced to a child-god playing with a toy world; and that without the coöperation of other wills he could not finish his toy. he would be in the position of having a world full of raw material, material capable of infinite, spiritual and social uses, only he would be destitute of any such help as would enable him to turn the universe to any account whatsoever. if he were left solitary in the world, all god's labors in creation would lead directly to shameful defeat. without other inhabitants than himself, the universe would become one colossal piece of junk. yes, it would be worse than that; even junk has value where there are people. without intelligent souls to inhabit the universe, an appalling night would settle over all creation. love, truth, wisdom, righteousness, and the last semblance of a kingdom would be gone; and god himself would as well die with his children; he would be destitute of character, and incapable of completing that which he began on such a magnificent scale. having a universe like the present on his hands, with no one to use it, nor to inhabit it, god would be an object worthy of ridicule. the idea that god could murder his children, or carelessly allow them to perish, and then spend an eternity in an unfinished and depopulated world shatters reason itself; such a thought is too appalling and abhorrent to be entertained for a moment. just as sure as there is a god, we shall continue to live. anyone who believes in god and does not believe in immortality surely never gave two consecutive logical thoughts to the subject. (1) _ultimately god will have no children at all_, (2) _or he will have an endless succession of short-lived children_, (3) _or he will have children that survive all changes_. the first obnoxious idea we regard as impossible and unthinkable. a being that could live in perpetual and absolute solitude, with no more reason and character than such a position would warrant, is not a person that we should call god anyway. the second thought of god having an endless succession of short-lived children is in some respects worse. in the autumn of nineteen hundred and fourteen, a friend said to me: "what _is_ there, i should like to know, in christianity? here we've had the christian religion for more than nineteen hundred years--and now this war. oh, there is nothing in it!" "no," i answered, "we have had christianity about thirty-three years; that is, a few people have had it." when asked what i meant by such a statement, i told her that the earth was inhabited only by children; that the average age of all living people was only about thirty-three years; and that they would scarcely get beyond the spanking period until their places would be taken by another set of babies; and that these new babies would scratch and bite, and be tempted to lie and steal just as all the babies before them had done; and that these in turn would soon give way to another set of babies. i told her that all the knowledge and character on earth would, in a few days, need to be transferred to the minds of babies not yet born, or it would entirely disappear from the earth. "moreover," i said, "how do you know what christianity has accomplished? you have never been where the christians have gone? what do you suppose the apostles and all the christians who are nineteen hundred years old have been doing; and the multitudes who are eighteen hundred years old, and so on down through all the centuries? you have seen only a succession of kindergarten classes." though progress on earth rests exclusively upon successive groups of children, yet we gladly recognize the social achievements that have been made during human history. we keenly realize also the sin we all share in not having produced better social conditions than now exist. nevertheless, i am absolutely certain that no succession of infants will ever be able to put this universe to its highest possible uses. god will never get far with his great cosmic enterprise if he employs only ignorant little children; and that is clearly what he is doing if death ends all. what a pity and shame it would be to throw away such a universe; a universe of infinite intellectual, spiritual, and social possibilities. and what a crime it would be to destroy the intelligent beings who could turn the universe to full account if only they were allowed ample time. that god will not do anything so foolish and wicked we may safely rest assured. at the close of one of my services a man came forward and spoke to me, saying: "if everybody were good, your job would be done." "now i must scrap with you," i said. "if all were good, i should have a larger and a better job. the good people, and not the bad people, have the greatest desire for church. why is the engine put on the track at all unless it is to go somewhere? for what purpose does anyone become a christian, except to learn more about god and his plans in order that he may embody them in a kingdom of love and righteousness? i am too young and ignorant to preach you a very good sermon now, but if you will come around where i am a thousand years from now, i will preach you a sermon that will make you sit up and take notice." something must be left out of the mental structure of one who can make such a statement as this man made to me. in the face of such conceptions of life one wonders that religion commands the respect that it does. there is no doubt concerning the unlimited possibilities of the universe, nor of the limitless possibilities of the human spirit if it is given a chance. standing as many of us do on the threshold of these greater possibilities, who but a devil could shut the door in our faces? if god wanted us when we were ignorant and sinful, he wants us even more now that we are a little wiser and a little better. if he intended to crush us before we were fairly started why did he ever raise us to such hope by allowing us to see the infinite possibilities? as to our ability to survive the shock of physical death, if god made us live in the first place, he can make us live on through all changes. if, however, god alone survives he will be quite worse off than his dead children; they will simply be extinct, while he will go to the gloomiest sort of hell. who could wish to be a mad god living alone through eternity in a graveyard? with everybody dead, and all kingdoms gone, and all work at an end, the universe would be one vast--desolate--hell; such as a bad god would deserve. how _can_ any one believe in god and not believe in immortality? chapter vii what difference does it make whether we believe in immortality if we live as we should in this life? 1. how can one live as he should? some say, "what difference does it make whether we believe in immortality, if we live as we should in this life?" we also would ask a question. how can one live as he should if he eliminates god and his plans? god planned a "whole" or he planned nothing. we willingly admit that some honest doubters have a larger share in god's life than they realize. they have heard the message of truth and love, and though confused as to its origin, they accept much of it as binding upon their lives. in many things they conscientiously do god's will without recognizing it as such. no one is so bad but that he sometimes obeys god. the meanest man thinks some of god's thoughts after him, and makes some voluntary sacrifices. it may never occur to him, however, that god has any part in the matter. yet no one lives as he should until he lives the highest type of life of which he is capable. it is easily possible to be doing good in one direction while exerting a baneful influence in another direction; and easier still to be overlooking something of grave importance. many well-meaning persons pursue courses of action that work great harm to themselves and to others in the long run. no one should flatter himself with the thought that he has lived as well as he should, until he has lived as well as he could. no man on the outside of a business can do what he would if he were on the inside. a really good man must try to know god and the plans of his kingdom from within; he must take daily orders; he should be strictly honest toward god; he should feel the joy and enthusiasm that come from partnership with god in a great enterprise. but this type of good man will most likely feel sure of immortality. a lack of assurance is a practical proof that something has gone wrong in the life; it may be confusion or indifference, but more likely it is both. 2. the difference in social service unless we know what the superstructure is to be, it is impossible to lay the right kind of a foundation. a good foundation for a bungalow would not answer for a fifty-story skyscraper. and to put a skyscraper foundation under a bungalow would be the most foolish waste of time and money. paul gave up everything that the average good citizen holds dear, and spent his entire life in laying the nobler foundation. he believed that the superstructure would be stupendous, and of eternal duration. no sane person would live the life paul lived unless he believed in immortality. the same is true of jesus. here is a clear-cut and portentous cleavage between good people who are christians and good people who are not christians. i do not mean to intimate that a patriotic agnostic would be any more reluctant than a believer to die for his country. it is largely a question of what he considers is worth while. a good sceptic is willing to help educate and civilize in a general way, but he will put forth no effort to evangelize. he does not realize the impossibility of civilizing a non-religious world. he would permit the whole race to be non-religious like himself. he would send all the billions yet to be born into the future life without any knowledge of god or any spiritual achievement. his attitude would so over-populate the future country with dwarfed and degraded people that our missionary work in a future state, if we are permitted to undertake it, would stagger a st. paul. when we see the number and quality of our neighbors over there we shall realize the enormity of our mistake. and still they will come, the uncivilized and unchristianized descendants of ancestors whom we neglected. almost every civilized community in the christian world had its foundations laid by missionary effort; and it has been kept civilized by a work very similar to that of missions. the firmest ground of hope for the civilization of the race is in the combined educational and religious work of missions. darkness cannot come to the light, but light may go to the darkness. the longer missionary work is neglected the more of it will there be to do; and that which we leave undone here will be accumulating for us over there. with what amazement non-missionary christians will face their accumulated missionary tasks in the future life! it is my impression that fifty per cent of the church members do not believe in missions; that is to say, they do not believe in extending the religion of jesus if it involves any work or expense for them. they themselves will first need to be saved, if they are to be like their master and share any of his vision and compassion. then there is probably another twenty-five per cent of professing christians who believe but little in the extension of the gospel. so between the agnostics and the half-christians, we are not doing a very good piece of social work throughout the world. and this is true whether we have in mind the future history of society on earth, or of society as it shall migrate to our future home. whether or not we have christian assurance of god and the future life makes a tremendous social difference both for this life and for the life to come. unless we are active and aggressive in the work of extending the kingdom, every form of vice will thrive and multiply in our most cultivated and civilized communities. what hope then is there for benighted peoples where there is neither salt nor leaven? my experience of thirty years in the ministry convinces me that those who have their eyes on the whole earth, do several times as much work for their home communities as do those who believe exclusively in home missions. it is astonishing what narrow service so-called broad-minded people can render, and what wide achievements can be accomplished by so-called narrow-minded people. observation will show that it makes a vast difference in the kind and extent of social service rendered if one believes in god and immortality. 3. the difference in personal preparation we tell our young people entering high school that they should decide at the outset whether they are going to college; and if possible which college, as the entrance requirements of colleges differ. what should we think of one who would ask, "why need i bother my mind about a possible college course in the future if i keep busy and learn something well? what difference can it make?" yet we grow weary with hearing the question, "what difference does it make whether there is a future existence if we live as we should in this life?" do they suppose that it is easier to make the freshman class in heaven than it is to make the freshman class in college? i dare say the requirements are different, but if heaven is worth going to the requirements can hardly be less specific or exacting. many people who never went to college are far advanced in things pertaining to god and his kingdom, while some college people do not know the a, b, c of religion. their standing in a future life cannot possibly be the same. like many others, i was brought up to be honest and hard-working from the beginning. according to ordinary standards, i was living as i should. yet when i heard of college, and had hopes of going to one, a subtle change came over my whole life. while the old duties were performed in the old way, at the same time a complete revolution was taking place within me. the imagination and will readjusted everything to the new and larger sphere for which i hoped. since no one thus far had gone to college from our frontier community, some of the neighbors thought me to be a foolish dreamer. what good would it do me anyway, was what they wanted to know, since i was already good in "figgers"? when i was probably fourteen years old, a young man told me of some one in another township who was going to study algebra. "what is that?" i asked. "well," he said, "it is something like arithmetic, only they use letters instead of figures." "now that," i promptly told him, "sounds foolish. why aren't figures good enough?" "ah," said the young man's father, "algebra is a mighty fine study! you have noticed that merchants mark the price of their goods with letters. now if you know algebra they can't cheat you." so i made up my mind then and there that i would study algebra. my first experience with college catalogues, which came a little later, was both interesting and amusing. i had often wondered what there could possibly be to study beyond history, geography, and the three "r's." but at last with a college catalogue in my hands here it was: de amicitia, de corona, trigonometry, etc. after reading pages of unheard-of and unpronounceable words, i scarcely knew whether it was about something to eat or something to wear. theological terms seemed plain english by comparison. in those primitive days it took one more year of preparation to enter the classical course than it did the scientific. for that reason alone i promptly decided to take the classical. although i knew nothing of what either course was really about or what it was good for, yet i did not want to bear the stigma of any short cut. i wanted to learn it "all." though it did not take long to learn what the college course was about, yet it did take some good faithful application to prepare for entrance examinations. many people take their religion as some lazy boys--found in every high school--take their education. these boys have a very light regard for college requirements. john is certain that he is as good a student as charles or a half dozen other fellows. he emphasizes the fact that a "grind" like james is the most unpopular fellow in school. all suggestions of future trouble fall on deaf ears. every year train loads of these fellows go to take their entrance "exams." yes, they arrive at heaven, or college, and may chance to see the lord of the institution. but some one calls them in to test their latin eyesight, and another to determine their mathematical vision, and if their power of penetration is not sufficient for college subjects, back they go. this is a tragic experience for the lads, to be sure, yet they must learn that promotion means fitness. i have known of young men entering the academy of the college town because they were ashamed to go back home. they were good fellows, but they lacked college fitness. think of a good sensible fellow who has never studied arithmetic going to college! and then think of a good sort of person going to heaven who has never acquired the spiritual insight to know god! a man in college who is mathematically blind, and a man in heaven who is god blind! if one thinks of god as a visible ghost in heaven, he will overlook many of the essentials until the pitiful disillusionment comes. and if he thinks of the future home as a doll's heaven, he will make no thorough preparation for entrance. when a young girl was once lured to a very superstitious church, a friend said to me: "well, what difference does it make--we are all going to the same place." but when i asked her if she would be willing to send her daughter to a poor day school or to some wretched music teacher, she had never thought but what that was different. everything but religion must be properly taught; how that is taught does not matter, "because we all are going to the same place." on that basis, if all were going to live in new york city, i suppose it would make no difference what kind of superstition they were taught. the expectation of joining a higher and holier society after this life cuts as deeply into my present life plans and purposes as did the expectation of going to college when i was a frontier lad. no matter how upright and industrious one is in the ordinary affairs of life, take away the hope of college or the hope of a future life, and it makes a difference at a thousand vital points. i once intercepted a stone mason who was building a wall where the specifications called for a window. he was not at all inclined to be convinced of his error. after reading the specifications again he said, "i am right." "but," i replied, "you are confused as to directions." then he appealed to a weather vane on a near-by steeple. when i informed him that the church had been moved and that the points of the compass were entirely wrong, he pulled down the wall that he had so perfectly built. he did not ask what difference it made so long as he was doing a good piece of masonry. he was glad to get the wall down before the superintendent saw it. if, now, we go on the assumption that god has no plans in what he is building, then we must conclude that he is the most ridiculous person that ever went into the construction business. the shock of disillusionment when it comes, as it is bound to do, will be tremendous. it is one of my greatest sorrows that so many of my friends are building solid masonry in their lives where god's specifications call for windows; and windows where there should be solid masonry. the windows in the life of jesus all looked out on the side of love and eternity. the light of a heavenly kingdom was always streaming into his soul. we make the same mistake in building our cities and social institutions. they but vaguely represent the human temple called for in god's specifications. and the farther we depart from the plan the more difficult it will be to return to it. paul told some of the people of his day that they might escape with their lives as from a burning building, but that what they had built contrary to the divine pattern would be reduced to ashes. i once knew a merchant who had twenty acres of new land broken and planted with onion sets. a temporary house was built to care for a dozen or more workmen. the ground was pulverized to ashes, the onions were planted, and the weeds were kept down so that none ever appeared from the road. it was a fine piece of work. the men toiled, the onions grew and finally blossomed, and the field presented an attractive sight. but alas! the merchant had purchased winter-onion sets, and in all that field there was not one bulb to reward him for his pains. what difference did it make--he and his men surely did some good work? many there are who flourish like that field during the days of their strength; but when they ripen there is no bulb, nothing to garner. one of these men with the meaning of life exhausted at sixty remarked to me that one was too old when he had passed forty. a short time before his death washington gladden was a guest in my home. as he sat in an easy chair after dinner speaking of other days, and especially as he spoke of his sainted wife, i noticed how old he had grown. though his body had about run its course, yet the light of his soul had not been dimmed. in my heart i said, "what a dear old man you are, dr. gladden. you are nearly all soul!" he had kept the faith. and it had made a difference; for him, for me, and for all the world. while the old man sat there and conversed with the family, the light of his soul sent a shining ray "far down the future's broadening way." chapter viii how shall we conceive of the future life? 1. its relation to the present constitution of things granting that there is a future existence, are we not wholly in the dark as to what it is like? is it possible to form any conception of heaven that is not offensive to the intelligent mind? professor leuba says: "as soon as, no longer satisfied with a general assurance of unruffled peace and unalloyed enjoyment, we demand specifications, we find ourselves in the presence of ideas and pictures, either absurd or repulsive, or void of real attractiveness. the best gifted religious seers succeed in this descriptive task no better than the cleverest mediums." have we, then, no facts on which to build a rational conception of the future state? i believe that a satisfying view is a possible achievement, because we have some very important and fundamental facts from which to construct a picture. the minor details, of course, are unknown to us, but the main outline, which principally matters, may be very clearly conceived. as we have previously shown, the future does not have to do with a new god and a new universe and a new soul; but with the present god, the present universe, and the present soul to-morrow. the future is not some new thing; it is the old realities a little later, and a little more fully developed. that god will remain a stable factor in the equation, we may rest assured. and we can read nature well enough in this scientific age to understand that it is no sudden and fickle movement void of law and order. neither are we entirely ignorant of our own rational souls that organize themselves into civilized communities by combining and giving shape to the forces of nature in which we live. we have plainly seen that neither god, nature, nor man has any worth or significance when separated from each other. in the future life, therefore, there is but one factor that is different from those found in the present constitution of things, and that is the loss of the present human body. and even this difference between the present and the future will be largely rectified, according to the scriptures, by our receiving new bodies. for too long we have foolishly tried to show that the soul could live without a body; and this in the face of the scriptural teaching, that god will give us new bodies. in our effort to show that the soul is able to live independent of a body, we have likewise run counter to experimental psychology and philosophy. scriptures say we shall have new bodies. psychology shows that the souls with which we are acquainted are dependent upon the body for consciousness and every intellectual achievement. philosophy likewise teaches that man can not exist outside of god. therefore when these bodies with which god now enfolds us die, he must again enfold us or we shall perish. there is no reason for thinking that a soul can live if disconnected from god, and the universe of god, in which it lives. if god again enfolds a soul, that new enfoldment will be its new body. and it will not be a spirit body because that is a contradiction of terms. as the scriptures teach, it will be a _spiritual_ body; that is, it will be a highly refined and delicate instrument of the spirit--yet a real body. this new body, as was the case with the old, must be our first point of contact with the universe of god. and in the future life, as here, the whole universe will be our augmented body as we progressively become articulated with it. so all the old conditions of the present life will be restored on a higher plane. whether the new and refined body will closely resemble the old, is a matter of speculation. however, it must be the instrument of the spirit; and therefore it will have functions similar to the higher intellectual and spiritual uses of our present body. we shall be conscious in it and think with it, and through it we shall manipulate the forces of the universe. if we can keep well, and work without friction, and all pull together i see no reason why we should not accomplish marvelous things in this universe, and at the same time derive a very dignified satisfaction from it all. however much advanced the new life may be, we shall still be the same persons living in the same god and in the same universe as now. we shall still be living for the same social and righteous ideals as now, and our motive will be the same old motive of love and good will. god is not a naked spirit hiding behind nature. he is a loving intelligent will revealing himself by his outgoing energies which we call nature. in the future life, the same as here, god will be trying to come to the surface through the bodies which he provides for himself and his children. and he will be striving, likewise, for a full expression of himself through all the institutions that his children will be organizing out of his beautiful and boundless energies. nature is not the gross, crude thing that ignorant people take it to be. neither is it something apart from god. with the little intelligence that a few have acquired on this kindergarten earth, we begin to see what a divine thing nature is. when it is better known and more wisely and lovingly used by god's children, all nature will be vocal with god's wisdom and love. 2. where is heaven? heaven is some place, or many places, in our present universe. god will never leave his beautiful universe that is so infinite in its complexness, so vast in its dimensions, and so rich in its millenniums of development, and go off into nothingness to build some sort of mystical and ethereal heaven. heaven will be as much a part of the universe as is this earth. and this earth is infinitely closer in its relation to the whole than we are now able to comprehend. almost daily, scientists are discovering new bonds between the earth and the rest of the universe. the inhabitants of heaven will not be less closely connected, but much more vitally and intelligently related to nature than are we. there are doubtless many spheres in this universe that would make good sites for a heaven. and it would be interesting to know how many of them are already so utilized. "in my father's house are many mansions." when we speak of mansions in the skies it would be well to remember that the earth is a pretty good mansion in the skies. the trouble is, being such poor christians, we have not built upon it a very good heaven. while we have not been wholly recreant in building a heaven on earth, yet we have often cursed this mansion by constructing many hells of smaller or larger proportions. another reason for believing that god does not plan for a heaven outside the objective universe, is the deep desire of man to make his richest ideals tangible and objective in a book, a piece of art, a musical composition, a noble building, or some splendid institution. life without expression and achievement, as we know it, is both unsatisfactory and dangerous. the same must be true in relation to god, as evidenced by his vast and beautiful works that have come forth unfolding out of the infinite past and now promise to expand and differentiate into the infinite future. even in the sphere of human lives he has impelled men to express his wisdom, beauty, and purpose according to human modes of expression. it evidently is not god's design to abandon his works of nature and draw back into his own thoughts and spend eternity in self-contemplation. he rather intends to utilize the unlimited capacity of nature, and the unbounded ability of his children, to give the fullest possible expression both of his children and of himself in a kingdom which has form as well as soul. in chapter iii i gave a description of the kingdom of god on earth. i shall now repeat that statement as an equally good description of the kingdom of god in heaven: "the kingdom of god is a loving intelligent family, organized around the father's good will, living in the universe as his home, using the forces of nature as the instruments of his will, and making all things vocal with his wisdom, love, and power." so little has the kingdom of god been realized on earth that it is like a kingdom on paper in comparison with what has doubtless been realized elsewhere in the universe. 3. will there be a holy city? there will doubtless be many holy cities and plenty of country too. the holy city described in the book of revelation was, in the thought of the writer, to be located on earth. while it should be our aim to build an ideal city on earth, yet like most of our aims it will probably fall short. if in some respects the city of revelation does not appear to be the most desirable kind of place in which to live, nevertheless, as a thing of symmetry and beauty it is a marvelous picture. a perfect city is a wonderfully attractive thought; and none the less so because one enjoys a vacation in the country. if there is no ideal city in this universe, there should be. new york, london, and paris, in spite of the ugliness, squalor, crime, and disease which they contain, are very fascinating. they bring together so much knowledge, wealth, and power that one feels the mighty impact of it all upon his soul. if one lives under the most favorable conditions in a great city, his consciousness so blends with the whole that the city seems to be but his larger self. this is simply the fuller experience of that law of consciousness which makes a man feel larger when he puts on a fur coat, or taller when he wears a silk hat, and causes a woman to feel like her silks and plumes and fluffy garments. a city without crime, disease, poverty, or ugliness; a holy city filled with art, music, knowledge, love, and every kind of fascinating employment; such a city would lift one into a sense of joy and greatness beyond words to express. from our present meager knowledge of the universe, what kind of a city would be possible if all the laws and resources of nature were fully utilized? considering, then, the millions of people who have grown rich in wisdom and character through millenniums of experience in the congenial company of their fellow citizens of a heavenly kingdom, what is it reasonable to suppose they have done in the way of realizing these possibilities? even with our limited knowledge of nature's resources, we know they could have built a city that would make the one pictured in revelation look like a beautiful christmas toy. and if the departed are living in our universe and not in a vacuum, what could have prevented them from achieving such a glorious result? "for thee, o dear, dear country, mine eyes their vigil keep." every one is justified in viewing his life in the light of this larger perspective. for by so doing he not only prepares himself for better citizenship in the life beyond, but at the same time accomplishes a larger and better piece of work on earth. when we break our lives and the universe up into fragments, as so many do, we are like children playing with broken pieces of china. for each of us there is one life, in one universe, under one leader. beginning in weakness, life grows into strength; beginning in ignorance, it develops into wisdom; beginning in selfishness, life expands into a kingdom of love and righteousness. at first we are submerged in the material; but finally we discover that the material is of spiritual origin, and that it can be turned to spiritual ends. like true artists, we no longer scorn the material forces, but see in them all the latent image of the divine. whether the image that finally appears shall be a devil or a god will depend upon the hands that shape the material. 4. will there be music? though we may laugh at mark twain's caricature of the saint with his golden harp, yet music is not to be laughed out of this universe. there will be music, of course; though heaven will not run all to music, yet there will be plenty of it and it will be of the right quality. we know perfectly well that this vibrant universe has unlimited musical possibilities, and that we have scarcely begun to utilize these possibilities either in the way of music or instruments. with the instruments improved a thousand fold and multiplied a million fold, they would call for such noble music as has never yet been written. with the technique possible to more highly refined bodies, with time to outgrow all amateur execution, with the leadership of all the musical geniuses of the ages, and with an unlimited number of voices and performers to select from, the music of a heavenly city should surpass our wildest dreams. and there is no sensible reason for thinking that there would be music without sound or that there would be musicians without instruments. we have no right to think well of god, and at the same time think ill of his forces with which he enfolds us. 5. shall we meet our loved ones? i see no difficulty in the way of meeting our loved ones in a future state. of course, i could not abide permanently with my parents, and they with theirs, and so on clear back to adam. the great population would, of necessity, be scattered over a wide area. after reaching maturity we do not, as a rule, live with our parents here on earth. the connection is kept up by the different modes of communication and by an occasional visit. and though the distances there would, doubtless, be much greater than here, yet the means of communication and of travel would much more than rectify the difference in distance. in heaven, as here, we should probably have some friends near by and others remote from us. however, we have already overcome space to a marvelous degree on earth; and have scarcely commenced to use the resources of which we are aware. we not only have the omnipresent mail system, the telegraph, and the telephone, but we have made some use of the electrical pen, and are rapidly developing the wireless telephone. scientifically it would be possible, even now, so to develop the wireless telephone that a speaker could be heard by every one in the united states at the same time. if we could project the images of those speaking, as we are hoping to do, we should have a very good hint of the possibilities of communication in a future state. with finer bodies, and finer instruments, and a better knowledge of nature's forces, it seems credible that we could see and hear our friends with but little regard to distance. there is no reason for putting limitations on the possibilities of nature, even here on earth; and much less reason for doing so in connection with the future state of existence. all the suggestions are in the opposite direction. the x-ray enables us to see through solid bodies. radium, which has no appearance of light, will affect a photographic plate through a foot of iron. actinium, one of the radioactive substances, is said to have a chemical activity which is about a thousand million times swifter than that of radium. and the discovery of new rays is getting to be a common occurrence. everywhere, nature is suggesting heretofore unheard of possibilities; it is apparently vindicating what we have been saying, that nature is of god, and that we are enfolded in his energies for the purpose of using them. nature, that proceeds from god, is doubtless as exhaustless as god himself. there are no indications that it will ever fail his children as they move on and out into largeness of life and richness of experience. we little children on earth, as previously illustrated, are in quest of omnipresence; and we are slowly achieving it by progressively taking on the universe as our augmented bodies. then how much more rapidly may we realize this process of enlargement under the new conditions to which we are going? not only shall we have finer bodies, but we shall be in company with those who for thousands of years have been learning the secrets of god and his universe. our increased knowledge of the world in which we live does not raise new barriers between citizens of heaven, but suggests a thousand rational modes of contact inconceivable a hundred years ago. every day i am more amazed at the way the natural sciences assist christian faith. yet this is as it should be if all things come from god. 6. shall we see god? certainly not as a ghost; but we shall see him in the face of jesus. we shall likewise see him in our loved ones. since all bodies are primarily god's, we shall see him in every face, when the purified souls of his children permit him to come into possession of his own. one glorious evening in the springtime, i sat in the gloaming with my father by the roadside. from an exceedingly hard day's work we were "dead tired." yet for our healing, the air was filled with the scent of newly turned turf and the fragrance of blossoms. a large drove of swine was crunching the corn which we had just provided them. the woods, beginning at the other side of the road from which we sat, extended into the deep valley. from the dark shadow of the woods rose the incessant din of the whippoorwills. as we sat there, feeling a thousand influences from the sweet mystery of it all, my father turned to me and said: "i know you are very tired; we have really worked too hard, but the debts must be paid. i want you to know that i appreciate what you are doing. you have been a good boy, and i have confidence in you. it will not be long until i am gone. but what a satisfaction it is to feel that you will be a good christian man accomplishing in the world, when i am gone, things which i have not been able to do." as the golden glow of a late evening sky fell across his face, it mingled with the light from his soul and clearly revealed the eternal. god had looked into my soul through that face, and i had looked into the heart of god no less than into the heart of my father. yes, he has been gone many years, and i am here fighting the good fight, but oh my heart, what shall i see when next i look upon his face! we may depend upon it, the invisible soul of god and the invisible souls of his children shall become visible through their bodies, through their activities, and through their institutions which are in common. their spirits shall likewise become audible through music and speech. our father in heaven differs from our god on earth only in this: on earth there is so little to express him, while in heaven there is so much. god truly has a throne in heaven, but the great white throne is the pure and loyal hearts of his children. 7. will there be burdens to bear in heaven? heaven will not be too "soft" for our good. there is much bad work to be righted, and unfinished work to be completed. we shall have glorious tasks to perform, and splendid problems with which to grapple. sharing god's purposes as well as his joys, we shall still be discovering the mind of god, and getting a firmer grasp upon his laws and forces; we shall still be organizing nature and society into a more glorious kingdom of love, beauty and power. we shall be making the ideal real, and the unseen visible. we shall accept god's will in our souls. we shall accept his will in the forces of nature, and make his instruments more vocal and more radiant as time rolls on in eternity. chapter ix losing the bible to find it if the bible contains errors, how do we know that any of it is true? a general statement as this volume is designed to be a simple guide in the deeper and more perplexing problems of religion, it would be incomplete without a brief consideration of how god has revealed himself through the scriptures. in the selection of material and in the method pursued, the author has been guided solely by what he considers the safest approach to the scriptures and the best "first aid" for wounded christians. "in my opinion, the bible is just about one-half true." this was the quiet and serious remark of a young woman who had recently taken a bible course in college. like many others, she was judging the bible simply as a work of history, literature, and science. its progressive revelation of religion she had largely overlooked. the bible is not properly appreciated, even as literature, without taking into account its main purpose; namely, to teach religion, and not to write infallible history nor infallible science. the biblical writers undertook to set forth, in a perfectly human way, the religious ideas and sentiments that god awakened in their souls. through succeeding centuries these truths grew clearer and more comprehensive until they culminated in the life and teachings of jesus. the most elevated religious ideas and ideals found in the scriptures constitute, in my opinion, the absolute and universal religion. ideas and ideals superior to these are not known to man. that anything _could_ surpass them, i cannot conceive. to convey these inspired truths to the world, the writers wisely made use of poetry, fiction, tradition, history, and physical phenomena; they conveyed the divine treasure to us in earthen vessels; and though the vessels are beautiful, yet they bear the marks of human imperfection. we all know that an illustration may clearly illustrate without its own truth being verified. our young college friend had lost the bible of her childhood but, unfortunately, had not found the larger and better bible easily within her reach if only she had known. as already intimated, even the religion of the bible was not fully revealed at once. certain crude ideas lingered until they were pushed aside by a fuller revelation. to be able to follow the inspired truths from their beginnings in the scriptures until they appear full-orbed in jesus is of very great value. their full worth first appears when we know all the vicissitudes through which they passed while struggling for a place in the sinful, stupid lives of men. the history of a truth is just as important as the history of a man; and fortunately the bible furnishes a fair human history of every great religious truth. as the streaks of morning light grow brighter and brighter unto the rising of the sun, so the rays of god's light shine through the scriptures more and more until the christ appears. as a progressive, trustworthy, and indispensable revelation of religion, the old and new testaments cannot be too highly appraised; but as books of science and history, they are sometimes overestimated. to believe that its religious value is destroyed if the bible contains errors in history and science, is a position as dangerous as it is false. we theorize about the scriptures more than we study them. even in ministers' meetings, i have listened without profit to many heated discussions on the subject of inspiration. the discussions were worthless because they had nothing to do with the facts of the bible. we might as well claim that the casket is a jewel because it contains a jewel, as to claim that the literary forms of the bible are a revelation because they contain a revelation. it would be as sensible to affirm that the whole mountain is gold, as to declare that the human element of the bible is infallible. yet no one turns away from a rich goldmine because the whole mountain is not gold; neither does he fear that the precious metal may not be distinguishable from the rocks,--else it would be of no more value than the rocks. if god had made one mountain of pure gold, it would have saved much trouble in mining; but he did not give us gold in that way. he mixed the precious metal with common elements, and he mingled his truth with human thoughts and human institutions. all things considered, both religious truth and gold are more valuable for having been given in the manner they were. to deny the facts, or to quarrel with them, does no good. the sensible thing for us to do is to seek the gold and the truth with all our might; for if we seek we shall find. if one is careless, he may mistake "fools' gold" for the real. but, fortunately, there are ample means for testing both gold and religion. how shall we find the treasure that is in the bible? in the same way that we find the treasure in the mountain; by using our intelligence and strength in company with those who know most about it. our prospects for finding god's word are good; because his word will find us if we are entirely sincere. if a person studies his bible with the help of competent teachers, and at the same time keeps his heart wide open toward god, the great verities of the scriptures will surely find him; and they will find him deeply; they will find him so deeply that he will be thrown into the dust of humility and, at the same time, lifted to the sky of hope. yet who pretends to have found all the truth there is in the bible? we can only find that which finds us. if we wish the word of god to find us more deeply we must give it a better chance. "then the bible is only for the learned," someone will say. no, the least educated mind can readily grasp the most essential facts of religion as set forth in the scriptures, and as expounded by a consecrated ministry. he can likewise hold to these facts with deep feeling and true devotion. if one is ignorant of science he is not troubled by unscientific statements. whereas, the educated man is greatly distressed if told that he must either believe statements which he knows are not true, or else throw all religion overboard. if the church tries to carry all the ignorance and all the trumpery of the ages as a part of her precious message she will break down under the load. multitudes will turn from her with scorn. it is a sin against god and the human soul to make claims for the bible that are manifestly not true. the bible is so good that we do not need to lie for it; the light that shines through the scriptures is able to make "wise unto salvation." having found the great pearl that is in the scriptures, one will experience the joy of being rich; and when he is once rich, he will not readily part with his wealth. besides, other rich souls will bear testimony to the intrinsic value of his treasure; and best of all, god will bear witness with his spirit that he is not deceived. the reader may ask, "is it possible to find in the bible that which nothing could induce us to relinquish,--something more precious than life itself?" it is my testimony that we can. the religious truth of the bible, having completely conquered my reason, commands my conscience. its supreme message fits my soul as a glove fits a hand. the best that the scriptures teach, i find myself thinking. and i cannot avoid thinking the same without being a traitor to my own soul. though i cannot believe every statement in the bible, yet i think i should be committing mental and moral suicide if i did not believe and practice the essential teachings of the scriptures; especially the matchless teachings of jesus. moreover, if one believes and practices the best there is in the bible he will be a christian whom the master delights to own. important as our discussion thus far may be, it is not the main thing; it is simply our attitude toward the scriptures, and not the truth which they proclaim. it is one more appeal for a rational religion without stating what the rational religion is. this generation has had altogether too much of that kind of exhortation. if we would but tell the good christian people what the rational religion is, possibly we should not need to exhort them to accept it. how may one find the word of god, contained in the scriptures? the method illustrated 1. the story of creation what message of permanent religious value is there in the story of creation? in the story of creation, one thing stands out clear and distinct. _the universe is god's loving wish. creation is god's will going forth._ god simply said, let it be, and it was. so far as christian scholarship has yet advanced, it does not realize how a thought more fundamental, spiritual, and moulding could enter the mind of man. that a loving god wills the universe, is the great diapason note in the hymn of creation. and the next great note is that of divine appreciation,--"god saw that it was good." then follows the note of blessing. and, finally, the child bearing god's image is made lord over all. these four epoch-making truths constitute the imperishable word of god. these four truths represent the sum and substance of all i have been trying to elucidate throughout this book. slowly, but surely, modern philosophy and science are helping us to understand this superb affirmation of genesis, uttered thousands of years ago. not that physical science knows anything about god, but that the discoveries of science make it easier for the intelligent christian to believe that god willed, and continues to will, the universe. this idea of one good god causing and sustaining the universe by the mere fiat of his will, did for religion what the copernican theory did for astronomy. as the copernican theory made modern astronomy inevitable, so this view of god and his universe led unerringly to the christian religion. and the kingdom of god, in its vast sweep through eternity, will rest upon these fundamental facts so beautifully expressed in the first chapter of genesis. that they were uttered so long ago, in a world of polytheism and low morals, fills the mind with wonder and praise. the writer of this story, however, did not have a scientific knowledge of the universe which, religiously and philosophically, he so perfectly related to god. but the religious value of the story is not injured in the least by the author's manifestly crude knowledge of astronomy and geology. in spite of all our advancement in science, since bible times, our knowledge of the universe is still very crude. to learn _all_ about nature scientifically will require eternity. it was the poetical, philosophical, and religious significance of the universe that the inspired writer discovered; science could abide its time. the writer of genesis, like his contemporaries, regarded the earth as the center and main bulk of the universe. his universe was the child's universe, the universe of the unaided senses. on a very large scale the world, in his thought, was something like the old-fashioned cheese dish with a glass hemisphere over it. this huge covered dish floated in a universal sea. the glass cover, or firmament, kept the upper sea out except when its windows were opened to let the sea through in the form of rain. the dish, or earth, kept the lower sea out except in time of great floods when, as they supposed, the sea worked its way up through crevices in the earth. the sun, moon, and stars were supposed to be inside the vault. this ancient conception of the universe pervades the scriptures. in the twenty-fourth psalm we read, "the earth is the lord's and the fulness thereof: for thou hast founded it upon the seas and established it upon the floods." religiously this is superb, but scientifically it is incorrect; the earth does not rest on a sea. "the earth is the lord's and the fulness thereof:" for thou hast hurled it into space and lovingly marked out the way that it should go. the babylonian bible, which is many centuries older than the old testament, says that apsu and tiamit first created the gods of order, or light. this corresponds to the first day in genesis. but our author discards all these gods and goddesses when he tells us that "god said, let there be light, and there was light." whether light was the first act of creation or not, the best modern philosophy would confirm the statement that light was the result of god's wish. light energy is a mode of the divine will. the babylonian bible tells us that after marduk had slain tiamit in a great battle, he took his sword and cleaved her in two as you would a fish. with one half of her he made the firmament and fastened it to keep out the upper sea. this corresponds to the second day in genesis. while the biblical writer does not change the babylonian day, yet he has no use for the monstrous idea that the firmament was made out of one half of a goddess. according to our bible, "god said, let there be a firmament, and it was so." our author, as the narrative shows, in keeping with the crude science of his times, thought that the firmament separated the sea that was above the firmament from the sea that was below the firmament; and that the sea under the firmament covered all the earth until god gathered the waters under the firmament unto one place and caused the dry land to appear. but if we know anything at all, we know that there is no firmament. god could not have made a firmament, for there is none. he could not have made space on the second day because space is nothing. and according to the story itself, he made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day,--the day after he had made grass and fruit trees. when, as a child, i thought that the apparent ceiling of the earth was the floor of heaven, my scientific ideas were no more crude than those of the writer who thought god made a firmament. but if there had been a firmament, as it appeared to the untrained senses, then it would have been made exactly as our inspired writer affirmed; and not after the ridiculous manner of the babylonian bible. our author's philosophy and religion in this case were perfect, but his science was wrong. so what is the use of trying to make out that the bible always harmonizes with science, when it is absolutely certain that it does not? when in college i asked my professor in geology how the earth could exist and grow grass and fruit trees bearing fruit before the sun was made. he replied that the sun, of course, was made previously, but that it did not appear until the fourth day when the vapor had settled by virtue of the earth's cooling. however, that would leave no creation for the fourth day; and besides, the second chapter of genesis tells us that there was no vegetation yet because the lord god had not caused it to rain. according to my professor's explanation it was too wet to see the sun, and according to the second chapter of genesis it was too dry to grow grass. the biblical writers were not inspired to write science, but religion. and it is just as certain that they did not know much science as it is certain that they did know much religion. in this story of creation the writer took his crude, yet beautiful, little world and lifted it up into such perfect relation to the infinite creative will that no one has ever been able to improve upon it; and the more we learn, the more certain it appears that we never shall be able to revise his statement of how the world is related to the divine will. besides, the thought is so precious and so fruitful that we have no desire to change it. a message may be perfectly true while the material used to convey the message may be mixed with error. for instance, i once used an illustration in electricity to make plain a deep spiritual truth, and the evidences were unmistakable that my purpose was realized. however, on the way home my little son said, "oh, papa, i was awfully ashamed of you to-day, you made a mistake in your electricity." convinced that i was wrong i said, "it is too bad." then he tried to comfort me by saying, "oh, well, i don't suppose that more than two-thirds of the people knew the difference." nothing could have been more true than the religious idea i was trying to elucidate. those who did not notice my error in my electricity, in addition to getting the idea, thought the illustration a good one. and while those who did recognize the mistake may have inwardly smiled, yet they too grasped my meaning equally well. every one present knew that i was not trying to teach electricity, but religion. in like manner, while recognizing the crude science in the story of creation, we may adore the matchless revelation of god in his relation to the universe. it is as if i had made something beautiful and ingenious for the people of darkest africa. at first, they would be afraid of it. not until they were persuaded that it was made in love would they come forward and cautiously lay their hands upon it. then as their fear subsided and their appreciation increased they would exclaim, "and devils didn't make it, and it won't hurt us, and you made it for our good!" but after their first curiosity had been sufficiently satisfied, i would touch a spring and awaken new wonder by showing the invention to be different from what they had thought, and ten times more wonderful. and thus, at every new revelation of the gift, their mistaken views would be corrected, and their admiration and love for me would be increased. so, in the story of creation, god presented the world to his children by first telling them that devils did not make it, and that vicious gods do not infest it; but that it all proceeded from his will as a loving gift to them. though they still thought the universe like that which their unaided senses reported to them, yet the thing of supreme importance was that the loving gift came from a good god who rules over all. than this revelation, nothing could be truer, nor more calculated to put their hearts at rest from fear. it marked a complete transition from a polytheistic and immoral conception of the universe to a theistic and ethical conception. through all the centuries that have followed, this new revelation of god in his relation to the universe has been arousing the noble ambition and commanding the loving obedience of men. as men have studied their good gift from god, a growing scientific knowledge has enabled them from time to time to unlock the mysteries of nature; and behold, their good gift was not a snug little world floating in a sea, as they had thought, but a magnificent solar system flying through space, and pulsating in an infinite sea of ether; and the supposed firmament was but a light effect on particles of dust in the atmosphere, caused by the light as it makes its journey of ninety-three million miles from the sun. and once more devout men exclaimed with awe, "is this what the good god made for us by the mere fiat of his will?" that god said, "let there be light: and there was light," was the affirmation of an inspired man who little realized that light travels the distance of eight times around the earth in one second, and yet requires more than four years at that speed to come from the nearest star. thus science may forever change our conception of the world, and our sense of the creator's majesty. someone may say, "is not this upsetting our old bible?" i think it is. but when a friend expostulated, "pat, don't you know that your stone wall will upset if you build it on that swampy ground?" pat's reply was, "faith, it is two feet high and three feet wide, and if it upsets it will be a foot higher than it was before." it is but truth to say that our old bible is two or three times higher than it was before modern learning upset it; and may scholars keep on upsetting it as long as they can make god's word stand out clear and strong above all human learning and bigotry and superstition. 2. the story of the garden when i was a boy, nearly every one grew gourds on his picket fence. and at almost every well there hung a gourd dipper. how many cool and refreshing draughts of water i have taken from gourd dippers i dare not say; but the memory is precious, and i should be delighted to repeat the experience now. no one, however, was ever foolish enough to tell us that after drinking the water we must eat the gourd. now, the bible is just full of gourd dippers from one end to the other,--and for this i am pleased. let me present one of these gourd dippers. it is the story of the garden. here is refreshing and life-sustaining water. it is not in a well, but in a spring that bubbles clear up to the surface. you need neither rope nor bucket,--nothing but the gourd; and a child may help himself. this story is a bit of inspired genius, if ever there was any. my library contains great fat books on ethics, yet i never knew half a dozen men or women in my parishes who had the grit or grace to read one of them through. the mental discipline in reading them is good for ministers, though the conclusions arrived at in these books are identical with the teachings in this simple story. if the methods of these writers on ethics had been adopted by the biblical writers, very few people would be any the wiser for the bible. but, from the dear old gourd a child may drink with ease and satisfaction. this beautiful allegory was true to fact when it put adam and eve in a garden. human beings can live only in a garden; they must have a base of supply in the products of the soil. but what about the forbidden fruit? as a child, i did think it too bad that the lord put the forbidden fruit in the garden when he must have known that it would cause no end of trouble. however, when i became a man i realized that even god could not make a garden that was fit to live in, without its having forbidden fruit in it. the grave is the only place where there is no forbidden fruit. recently i spent ten days in our capital city. and it _is_ a beautiful garden, with many things "good for food" and "pleasant to the eyes." during the ten days, washington was my garden; and the other occupants there made me feel that i was very welcome. but did not they and i know that there were at least a dozen kinds of forbidden fruit that i might not partake of without running the risk of being tarred and feathered? forbidden fruit is not bad fruit, it is fruit that belongs to some one else, or to us at some future time. it is all ours now, in a way; the wealth, the beauty, and the people are ours within certain limits; and it is this that makes our lives worth living. when, however, we begin to break up families, or to take anything that belongs exclusively to others, we have eaten the forbidden fruit,--and the curse is upon us. "in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." this is the infallible word of god, spoken to our first parents, to us, and to all mankind. instead of haggling over the question of swallowing the gourd, we should preach this truth about forbidden fruit until offenders feel their hearts filled with holy fear and wholesome disgust. though the story of the forbidden fruit is truly wonderful, yet it is no more wonderful than that which makes the serpent the symbol of temptation. the serpent does not chase its prey like some bellowing hound, but silently awaits the victim's coming. as the serpent lies coiled in the midst of your flowers, so temptation lurks in the heart of some pleasant situation. you may be looking with legitimate pleasure upon some beautiful thing that belongs to your neighbor, and, before you are aware of it, the serpent of covetousness has struck its fangs into you. if, however, the temptation is seen before you are bitten by it, like a serpent, it makes strange circuitous routes as if it were coming and going from every side. it stops to parley. and if it succeeds in entwining itself about you, it crushes you with every part of its sinuous length. in countries that are infested with serpents, the reptiles go everywhere; they even hang from the rafters of dwellings. just so, temptation may appear anywhere to surprise or to charm you. if you are as good as the master, temptations will assail you. if like lincoln you should climb from a hut to the white house, even there you will be confronted by serpents of monstrous size striving in every possible way to beguile you. he who advocates a walking and a talking snake, does so to the great detriment of god's word. we are in no danger from talking serpents; but we all are in great danger from serpent-like temptations. this parable and fable of the garden is meant for our edification and safety. as an analysis of temptation, sin, and punishment, for all people and for all times, nothing can surpass this story of the garden. seeing that it contains such vital thrilling truth, it is a great pity that it has fallen into almost universal neglect. the story has been killed by the credulity of its friends. 3. the bible stories in general i now call your attention to the interesting _stories_ scattered all through the bible. the story of the flood is an example. in a very simple form these stories were told long before they appeared in the scriptures. and, doubtless, there was a nucleus of truth in them or they never would have been started on their rounds. as they were repeated about the campfires to children and illiterate slaves for generation after generation, everything that failed to interest, naturally, was forgotten. this made them the most tried and interesting of stories. in nothing did the inspired writers show greater wisdom than in making wings of these interesting tales to bear their spiritual messages afar. if the modern church could learn the spiritual utility of a folk-story, the bible would start on a new mission of service; and much of the bible now neglected could be used with new power. the _value_ of the lessons thus heralded in no wise rests upon the historic accuracy of the stories. it is perfectly evident that the story of the flood involves the same crude conception of the earth as that which we have already described as the ancient and unscientific conception. if we contend for the literalness of this story we shall make its invaluable lessons of no effect for many people. the tower of babel is a like case. as a parable, it is a most accurate description of the folly this generation is in great danger of committing. germany really built her tower of babel, and is to-day suffering from a confusion of tongues. 4. the laws of israel--moral and ceremonial if we now turn to the laws of israel, we shall find the same blending of the crude with the sublime. the ten commandments are the noblest possible prohibitions; and they are still needed for many people in the old prohibitive form. yet jesus takes even these and transforms them into spiritual affirmations. he shows righteousness to be an inner principle,--a state of heart. "on love hangs all the law and the prophets;" motive is the soul of conduct. by carefully comparing the old with the new testament we see that the law, moral and ceremonial, was a strong movement in the direction of christ; but that, from the morals of abraham and moses to the morals of jesus, the way was long and steep. we also see that the journey often deviates from a straight line, and that the road at times is almost obliterated by the drifting sands. it is, therefore, evident that one cannot select just any verse of the bible and say behold! the perfect word of god. when jacob reports to his wives that he has been able to cheat the father out of his flocks because the god of his father has been with him, neither jesus nor the christian conscience of to-day believes it. in the old testament times god was giving his chosen people as much of his law as they could understand. sometimes the divine truth flashed out with great brightness; at other times, it was much beclouded by ignorance and passion. however, all the light that shines so brightly in the life of jesus, began shining, with varying degrees of luster, through the prophets and teachers of israel. it is just because the scriptures enable us to see the _growth_ and the _vicissitudes_ of god's advancing light in the souls of men that they are so valuable to us. for this reason we should study all the scriptures more faithfully, and more intelligently. the ceremonial law of israel was their method of teaching reverence and purity. though it strongly resembled the ceremonial law of their semitic neighbors, yet it was a more useful method of worship for israel, at that time, than if it had been farther removed from the customary worship of the day. when the israelites fell into idolatry, they worshiped the other gods in much the same way that they worshiped jehovah; and not essentially different from the manner in which the canaanites worshiped their gods. but for enlightened peoples, this has long since ceased to be a useful method of worship. slowly we are learning better methods; but we still have much to learn in the divine art of lifting men's souls to god. 5. the book of job passing by a number of historical books we shall next make a brief study of job. i once had an interesting conversation with a middle-aged minister who, though uneducated, was a perfect gentleman. his mind was filled with an elaborate and ingenious scheme of religion falsely drawn from job, daniel, ezekiel, and revelation. tons of brain power had been consumed by those who developed the system. yet a moderate amount of general information would have caused the entire system to fall in ashes. ministers and bible workers of this type still abound in astonishing numbers. in the conversation just referred to, the minister was wildly quoting from job. at one point i remarked, "but what you are now quoting is not true." "what," said he, "don't you believe the bible?" "yes," i replied, "but i do not believe that because, at the end of the book, god himself says it is not true. your motive is good, but it is a mistake to think that you can dive into the scriptures at random like that, and find god's word." we must remember that the book of job is a dramatic poem, cast in the form of a dialogue. whether or no suffering is a proof of guilt is the bone of contention between job and his friends; and both positions cannot be true. the author staged this dialogue on the ash-mound, outside the village. after the loss of property and children, job, all covered with boils, takes a potsherd with which to scrape himself and sits down upon the ash-mound. when the news of his misfortune reaches his three friends, they proceed forthwith to visit him. as these old sheiks approach job, and find him changed beyond recognition, they lift up their voices and weep. they also tear off their mantles and sprinkle dust upon their heads. seeing that job is in deep distress, they seat themselves near him and remain there seven solid days and nights without ever speaking a word. finally, job opens his mouth and curses the day of his birth, in one of the most pessimistic poems ever recited. even the comforters can scarcely believe their ears, so shocked are they at job's blasphemy. still, they retain a measure of sympathy, for eliphaz asks with great delicacy: "if one assays to commune with thee, wilt thou be grieved? but who can withhold himself from speaking?" you remember, job, how you instructed others when they were weak and afflicted. "recall, i pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent?" now be a man, take your own medicine, repent of your sins, and god will return your prosperity. but job only pours out his grief in fresh torrents. this causes bildad to respond with alacrity: "how long wilt thou speak these things? and how long shall the words of thy mouth be like a mighty wind?" nevertheless, in spite of bildad's lengthy rebuke, job continues to pour out his complaint until zophar can stand it no longer. "should not the multitude of words be answered? you are too full of talk for a righteous man. your boasting will not silence us. for your mockery we shall make you ashamed." and when zophar had finished his vehement reproach, job _was_ mad. "no doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." thus the argument went back and forth with criminations and recriminations, until job and his friends were exhausted. while the discussion was raging, there came along a young theologian who, being attracted by the discussion, remained to hear it through. it turned out that the speeches of both job and his friends were to him equally disgusting. so he decided to wait and set them all right by his superior wisdom. though this young man was filled with wrath at what he heard, yet he respectfully waited until the old men had finished. then he reminded them that it was his respect for age that had kept him still until now. having expressed his surprise at not finding wisdom associated with years, he takes thirty-three lines to tell them how smart he is; and assures them that they shall hear something worth while when he gets to speaking. some years ago while reading this with my wife, i could scarcely wait until young elihu got through boasting; i was thrilled with a desire to hear his new position. at last he began his argument. but, to my great surprise, i could see no difference between his position and that of job's opponents; and as my wife could see no difference, i was convinced that there was none. like job's antagonists, he argued at great length and with much beauty that misfortune is a proof of guilt. finally, however, he did add a suggestion. misfortune is a warning not to sin more, lest you suffer more. of course none of the older men deigned to answer this young upstart by so much as a word. the argument from all sources now being in, it was time for the artist to prepare a fitting scene for the approach of the almighty. consequently, the storm clouds gather and begin to drop rain. the lightning suddenly flashes to the ends of the earth. the quick crash of thunder makes the heart quake. it is such a time as when old leviathan churns the deep into white foam. and at last out of the awful whirlwind god speaks: "who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" stand up, job, and i will speak with you. where were you when i laid the foundations of the earth? have you walked in the recesses of the deep, have you seen the gates of death, does the morning come at your bidding, do you know the way of the lightning, do you cause the east wind to scatter over the earth? with all your wisdom, surely, you can answer. job, "canst thou bind the cluster of pleiades, or loose the bands of orion?" can you thunder, job? can you send forth the lightning, can you draw out old leviathan with a fish hook? gird up your loins like a man and answer me. very meekly job replies, "lord, i have heard of you before with the hearing of the ears, but now that i see you with my eyes, i abhor myself in dust and ashes." he frankly admits that he has spoken concerning things too wonderful for him. that job has talked like a fool, god concedes. yet he assures job that in his main contention, he is right. suffering is not a proof of guilt. then turning to job's miserable comforters, god informs them that he is angry because of all the falsehoods they have spoken. go, therefore, and take seven bullocks and seven rams and offer a sacrifice, and my servant job shall pray for you. and look sharp, "that i deal not with you after your folly; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant job hath." after all this, how pitiful it was to see my old friend, the minister, building up a weird religion on hit-or-miss passages from job. we all know that the wicked must suffer sooner or later, but the lesson of job is that the innocent may suffer also. from this beautiful dramatic poem we learn that when the cause of suffering lies too deep for our knowledge, we should trust the goodness of him who is all-wise. the false belief, argued so vehemently by job's comforters, still persisted in the days of jesus; because they asked him, "who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" and jesus vindicated the position of job by saying, "neither did this man nor his parents sin." the greater pity is, that this false belief still persists to crush the hearts of many innocent sufferers. a saintly parishioner of mine once said to me while wringing her hands: "oh, what awful thing can i have done, that god has brought this affliction upon me?" i told her that she had done nothing, that she was a dorcas among us, and that god loved her as we all did. and thus i comforted her from the teachings of job, and from the words of jesus. for three months, until she went home, she lay on a bed of pain in peace and trust. chapter x losing the bible to find it (_continued_) the method of finding god's word in the scriptures illustrated. 1. the psalms for richness of spiritual content, for loftiness of expression, and for intimacy of communion with god, no other book in the world equals the psalms. all devout souls have found the fullest expression of their inmost being in these inspired hymns. like all true poetry the psalms deal with the timeless. eternal truths and deathless passions flow through these beautiful, rhythmic lines like a majestic river. the world is infinitely richer for the psalms. and though they often reveal mistaken ideas in astronomy, yet religiously and poetically the psalms contain the finest possible conceptions of the material universe. even the imprecatory utterances are not wholly immoral, nor altogether contrary to the teachings of jesus; for when they were deserved, he said things dreadfully severe. but when a psalmist goes so far as to say of his enemy, "neither let there be any to have pity on his fatherless children," or "happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock," he clearly manifests an evil spirit; a spirit that is at once contrary to his own religion, and utterly condemned by jesus. however, when we consider the ruthless exploitation to which israel was so long exposed, it is most remarkable that the psalms contain so little of this evil note. whoever approaches the psalms in the spirit of the master will find them fat with spiritual meat. notwithstanding all, it is an indisputable fact that the best christian hymns are superior to the poorest hebrew psalms. take for example dr. gladden's hymn: "o master, let me walk with thee in lowly paths of service free; tell me thy secret, help me bear the strain of toil, the fret of care. "help me the slow of heart to move by some clear, winning word of love; teach me the wayward feet to stay, and guide them in the homeward way. "teach me thy patience; still with thee in closer, dearer company, in work that keeps faith sweet and strong, in trust that triumphs over wrong, "in hope that sends a shining ray far down the future's broadening way, in peace that only thou canst give, with thee, o master, let me live." now, if any one should say that this hymn is inferior to the poorest psalm, he would simply reveal a biased mind. and yet, a hundred dr. gladdens could not have produced the book of psalms. the psalms were not made to order but, like his hymn, grew out of peculiar experiences. the hebrew psalms were lived out, and suffered out, through the life of a people that had looked with straining eyes from many a mount pisgah, and had lifted a pitiful cry from many a valley of hinnom. such experiences get to the heart of things; they offer the great prophetic opportunity for the noble souls through whom god determines the destiny of a people. what oratorical genius could _invent_ a gettysburg speech? the necessary conditions for such a pronouncement were four years of national anguish, a soil watered by the blood of her noblest sons, and a president bowed down with grief. then, and only then, could a mr. lincoln rise in the midst of our hallowed dead and, all unconsciously, speak words immortal. in the long ago, our western prairies lifted by mighty volcanic forces were shattered, and twisted, and left with great frowning peaks and deep yawning chasms. as a result, great pockets of gold were deposited in their bosom for the enrichment of the world. in like manner, israel passed through great national upheavals that resulted in many a precious deposit. and among these deposits were the psalms that have never ceased to enrich human experience. what the earth's crust is to the student of nature's forces, that the scriptures are to the student of spiritual forces. 2. the prophets in general if we now turn to the books of the prophets, we shall find a new type of scripture. these spiritual giants were preëminently men of their own times, with a message for all times. before the first of the prophets now under consideration appeared, israel had already passed through many centuries of deep and varied experience. first the northern and then the southern kingdom became grossly idolatrous and wretchedly corrupt. their ideals had degenerated into a mere cult, and their social institutions into a rigid system of oppression. through dishonesty, oppression, and irreligion, the national life had so weakened that its destruction was imminent from inward decay and outward attack. israel was clearly missing her destiny by forsaking god, oppressing the poor, and by trampling underfoot her most sacred ideals. she was inviting the judgments of god by truly meriting them. out of this deepening gloom, the lightning of god's wrath and the thunder of his purpose awakened certain sensitive souls to be prophets and seers in israel. the realization of the nation's crime and danger transformed these prophets into the most fearless reformers the world had ever seen. as couriers with an important message from god, they went in hot haste to a rebellious and foolish people. because of the real and immediate danger these preachers were exceedingly intense. to save the day, they strove valiantly. if they were to be successful in their mission, both vision and oratorical gift were necessary qualifications. their keen knowledge of israel's _present_ made her future inevitable unless she repented of her sins. the prophets were not sent to proclaim any new religious truths in particular, but to be preachers and reformers of the highest order. now, how different all this is from what i used to think. i once supposed that a prophecy was a pure miracle, a case in which god told the prophet, without any insight on the prophet's part, just what the future would be. it did not occur to me that the prophet had the slightest means of knowing the future which he predicted, except as god miraculously informed him. i also thought that god told the prophets what should be, so that, when it came to pass, it would prove the existence of god and the truth of revealed religion. to my understanding, prophecy was divine fortune-telling, designed to convince religious sceptics of a later day, rather than preaching, designed to save the sinners of that day. i did not realize that the predictions were concerning events inevitable, for the most part, to any one not blinded by sin or ignorance. nor did i realize that most of their thrilling prophecies were made with the hope of bringing the people to repentance,--in which happy event the predictions would not come true. a hebrew prophet rarely used an if. that was understood. he always hoped that his predictions of evil would not come true, because of the _emphatic_ manner in which he declared they would. all orientals understood this, and it would greatly enhance the worth of scriptures if we understood it equally well. too often, however, the evil prophecies did come to pass, because sinful israel refused to hear. and for the same reason predictions of good often failed. like true preachers and reformers, the prophets dealt largely in warnings and encouragements; hoping, thereby, to lead the people back to him who loved them with an ever-lasting love. "do you think this war is a fulfillment of bible prophecy?" yes, this war and every other war is a fulfillment of bible prophecies. any prophecy that is true to fundamental principles, and true to human nature, goes right on being fulfilled over and over again. the dark prophecies recorded in the scriptures will never cease being fulfilled until men no longer sin against god and one another. and when men cease sinning against god and their neighbors, the bible prophecies of _good_ will be repeatedly fulfilled throughout all the expanding growth of society. but the fanatical uses made of bible prophecy in our day, by some well-meaning people, are enough to make angels weep. the great prophets had their hearts wide open toward the god they adored, toward the nation they loved, and toward the times they feared. they were tremendously inspired of god, and regarded their lives of no account if only they could bring israel back to god and save her from her enemies without, and her foes within. they were statesmen, seers, and lovers of god and men. their souls burned with an unquenchable fire. they were the greatest preachers that the world has ever seen. to learn the historical setting is to enhance the value of their sermons many fold. and to study the prophet's method of impressing truth upon the oriental mind is a marvelous lesson in the art of persuasion. in their effort to save israel, the prophets partly succeeded and partly failed. but their messages will live forever, and in this they succeeded beyond all precedent. they were firebrands to punish sin, and torches to enlighten the world. their messages were simple: god is infinitely great and good. he loves you with a boundless passion, and pities you with an infinite compassion. but you have trampled on his mercies, you have spurned his approaches, you have jilted him as a lover, and you show only contempt for his word. you tread down his poor, you rob widows and orphans, you take bribes, you pervert justice, you wallow in vice, you pamper yourselves with stolen delicacies, you mingle freely with the heathen, you copy their vices, you worship their vile gods, and make the land a stench. as a result, israel languisheth: her poor cry for bread, her young men fall into the vices of their fathers, law and order are forgotten, and a loathsome decay is eating the very heart out of the nation. your enemies are quick to see your nakedness and your weakness. already, they are planning to move against you. and jehovah is so weary and discouraged with you that he has about decided to use your mighty enemies as a scourge. he loves you so much that he must save you, at least a remnant of you, even if he has to use your cruel enemies to bring you back to your senses. anyone who looks can see what is about to happen. if he listens he can hear the tramping of horses' feet and the rumbling of chariot wheels. in true oriental imagery, these majestic prophets appealed to israel's fear and pride and honor. there was no human passion overlooked, and no fundamental fact forgotten. they scolded, and wooed. they promised abundant good, or abundant evil. their fund of _illustrations_ was inexhaustible and, for the most part, exceedingly effective with the people of their day; and many of their illustrations are still unsurpassed for beauty and power. nevertheless, they sometimes allowed their imagination to run riot while devising, or adapting imagery that would attract the attention, and arouse the hopes and the fears of their hearers. a notable instance is that of the captive ezekiel, when he tries to portray the glory and majesty of jehovah by means of a monstrous flying machine. while ezekiel's motive was good, his method was crude. he pictured a great cloud flashing fire as it rolled out of the north with a stormy wind. in the fiery cloud were living creatures, and each one had four faces and four wings. they also had calves' feet that sparkled like brass. besides having human hands under their wings these strange objects had a man's face, a lion's face, an eagle's face, and the face of an ox. their general appearance was that of burning coals and flaming torches. connected, somehow, with the cloud and these monstrous creatures were wheels resembling precious stones, and wheels within wheels. and the rims of the wheels were covered with eyes. the movement of this startling apparition was direct, and very terrible; the noise of its wings was like great waters and the voice of the almighty. above this flying wonder was a canopy, and above the canopy a throne, from whence there proceeded a voice. then he saw, as it were, glowing metal and the appearance of a rainbow. this appalling chariot of jehovah, and the awful majesty of god, threw ezekiel upon his face. then jehovah said unto ezekiel, "son of man, stand upon thy feet and i will speak with thee." now, we may be sure that the majesty of jehovah is not less, but infinitely greater than this flying wonder. his glory, however, is decidedly different from this vision. reverence and awe for the almighty are sorely needed in every generation, and the effort to inspire them is a most worthy aim. there is no denying but this illustration is an awful picture; one that would thoroughly stupefy a child. but what should we think of a minister to-day who began his sermon with a similar description of the majesty and glory of god? however useful such imagery may have been to exiles in babylonia more than two thousand years ago, it would be positively harmful to a modern congregation. though this vision of ezekiel is crude and very extreme, even for an ancient prophet of israel, yet we have people to-day who invest these wheels, and eyes, and heads with symbolic meanings to bolster up a monstrous religion that is contrary to pretty much everything that jesus taught. out of the books of ezekiel, daniel, and revelation, some well meaning but untaught souls can invent fifty-seven varieties of religion. but they can learn neither the lesson nor the danger of an undisciplined imagination. 3. jonah as i am simply giving a bird's-eye view of the scriptures, and the method of approaching them, possibly a few words should be said concerning jonah. as a great missionary book for a people who were very unmissionary in spirit, jonah is unique. it breathes the spirit of christian missions in this twentieth century. the friends of the bible have unwittingly made this great book a jest and a byword by their wretched interpretation of it. even as a little boy, i used to feel ashamed of certain portions of jonah when read at family prayers. for, as i understood it, there was something about the story uncanny and unreal. i knew that some people scoffed at the fish story. but that did not trouble me because i believed in miracles, and was much pleased that god did not let poor jonah drown. it was the unnaturalness of jonah himself that troubled me. and when it came to his experience with the gourd, i almost lost faith. when jonah felt so angry and sorry that he wanted to die because a worm bit the gourd, my common sense revolted completely. i meditated over this incident a long time, and finally concluded that no little boy was ever such a fool as that. i had felt faint in the hot sun many times myself and had seen chinch bugs eat up whole fields of wheat, and yet i did not want to die. that a big man, and prophet of god, could give way to such hysterical feelings over a withering gourd was more than i could believe. this incident was a much greater shock to my faith than the fish story. though i felt very wicked for doubting the bible, yet i was heartily glad that a certain sceptical neighbor was not present to hear it, for i knew he would make fun of such a story. what a pity it is that a little boy should be compelled to experience such feelings about the bible at family prayers, when a little rational explanation would make this book charming to him beyond expression. though the book of jonah is written in a curious oriental style that no man of to-day would wish to imitate, yet its spirit, purpose, and subject matter would be very difficult to surpass. as a parable, it is true to the general history of israel and to the spirit of christian missions. it contains the vision of a missionary statesman, and was meant to sting israel to the quick for her bigotry and hardness of heart. very briefly stated, it is something like this: the whining and almost contemptible prophet jonah is israel itself. jonah is a caricature of israel, and that is what made him seem unreal to me. israel wanted the heathen killed, and not converted. and though she did not dare to disobey god outright, yet she gave god the slip at the first corner and embarked on the sea of politics. for a long time israel had been as anxious to get into politics and form international relations as she had been determined not to be a missionary nation to her despised neighbors. so in this parable, israel had not been long on the sea of politics when a great storm arose,--it is ever so. and, as usual in politics, someone is thrown overboard. the great fish that swallowed jonah was assyria. therefore it is not strange that israel offered a long and beautiful prayer in that kind of a fish's belly. proud israel, god's darling, in exile for her rebellion against jehovah, could do no otherwise than offer up a prayer. "out of the belly of sheol cried i, and thou heardest my voice. for thou didst cast me into the depth, in the heart of the seas, and the flood was round about me; all thy waves and thy billows passed over me. and i said i am cast out before thine eyes; yet i will look again toward thy holy temple. the waters compassed me about, even to the soul; the weeds were wrapped about my head. "and jehovah spake unto the fish, (assyria) and it vomited out jonah upon the dry land." and israel returned from captivity. israel still showed an aversion for missionary work after her exile, but when god said "go" a second time, israel went. that is, she went in the parable. it is clear, from the sarcasm of the story, that jonah enjoyed his message when he began crying, "yet forty days, and nineveh shall be overthrown." the parable reveals the faith of the author. he wished to convey the idea that the wicked heathen would repent more quickly than israel if they had a herald to proclaim god's truth. of course, a prophecy of destruction would not come true if the heathen repented. so god decided not to do what he said he would. "but it displeased jonah exceedingly, and he was angry." when jonah, the typical israelite, saw that his preaching had converted the heathen he was so mad that he wanted to die. i knew how kind-hearted you were toward repentant sinners, and that is the reason i tried to run off the first time. now, god, just kill me; "for it is better for me to die than to live." is this history? yes, it is history in stinging sarcasm. how the israelites must have writhed under such a portrayal of their faithless and godless hearts. but the author knew that it would take more than this to break their stubborn wills. so he proceeds with a few more sledge-hammer blows. "and jehovah said, doest thou well to be angry?" now this gave jonah a little hope that god might kill his despised neighbors even if they had bitterly repented and turned to the lord for forgiveness. accordingly, jonah went out of the city and sat on the east side where he could see and gloat over the destruction of his converts, in case the lord did intend to destroy them after all. in the meantime, jonah made himself just as comfortable as possible by constructing a booth where he could sit in the shade. and our satirist causes god to add a little touch of comfort by causing a gourd "to come up over" his darling, "jonah, that it might be a shade over his head, to deliver him from his evil case." now, the contemptible jonah had no business being there in the sun; he should have been at home helping his wife, if he had nothing else to do. but better still, he should have been in nineveh rejoicing with the converts who had been redeemed from destruction by his preaching. note the fine sarcasm of our author, "so jonah was exceedingly glad of the gourd." however, when the gourd was smitten by a worm, and the sultry wind blew, and the sun shone hot upon his head, our mean little jonah again asked god to kill him. now jonah, "doest thou well to be angry for the gourd?" "yes, i do well to be angry even unto death." were ever such words of irony spoken! o israel, you are smitten with grief because of your poor little gourds, but don't you think you might have a little pity for all those innocent people who were so untaught morally that they did not know their right hand from their left? it would be well for us to remember that we, as well as ancient israel, fret and fume over a lot of little nothings. little griefs and little deprivations vex us sorely. but while our brothers and sisters over much of the earth go naked and starved and diseased, we feel no pity. we are very tender-hearted over little things, we are deeply moved over some fictitious story; but for the appalling tragedies of dark continents and exploited peoples, our hearts are flint. obviously, israel understood only too well the biting sarcasm and bitter irony of jonah's ringing satire. if the author of this parable could know that a generation has since risen, with so little historical and literary acumen as to believe that jonah is literal history, i think his body would turn over in its grave. if he knew that he had set people to wrangling over the question of whether a fish could swallow a man, instead of sending them out as missionaries to all the ninevehs of the earth, he would feel sorry that he ever wrote the book. when intelligently understood, there is no other literature extant that makes such a strong moral and religious appeal for social justice and political righteousness as the prophets. the writings of the great prophets of israel constitute a practical _sociology_, founded on the fatherhood of god and the brotherhood of man; a sociology so enriched by a wealth of historical materials as to make it a treasure-house for all workers in social betterment. to save the ordinary bible reader from confusion, i have purposely avoided all questions of origin and composite character, along with many other interesting and useful facts concerning the scriptures. this simple approach to the scriptures is for the purpose of helping the average person to find the soul of the bible. for it is the soul of the bible, and not its incidental features, that enriches the soul of the reader. 4. the new testament in general in the new, as well as in the old testament, the letter kills while the spirit makes alive. as the historical and literary methods of study have imparted a new beauty and a new significance to the messages of the old testament, the same methods will, in like manner, affect the messages of the new testament. the personal christ is the _soul_ of the new testament. in jesus, righteousness is more than a decalogue or a catalogue to be followed; it is a character to be possessed. in jesus, god is more than a divinity to be obeyed; the infinite will is an indwelling spirit,--the soul of man's soul. while the old testament never recognizes god as dwelling in man, the new testament takes the god of israel and the righteousness of israel and places them in human life; not as a theory, but as personal experience. this is the old righteousness and the old religion made new. when we say that jesus is the soul of the new testament, we have no reference to perplexing questions about how he came or how he went. we mean that the god-filled jesus is the soul of all the new testament teachings. the pure, strong son of god is the lodestone of the gospels and the epistles. it is he that draws honest souls into divine fellowship with the father and his family. to see the character of jesus in its most lovely aspects, and to feel his love that heals and transforms, is to receive the very best that the new testament has to give. the perplexing questions of psychology, of tradition, of manuscripts, and of miracles are interesting enough for those who are equipped to study them; but all these are much less than the one essential thing. to know him, and to feel the power that he can exercise over all that are attached to him in love and service, is life eternal. granting that the miracles are true, yet it is infinitely more difficult to be certain of the truth of a miracle than it is to be certain of the truth of the christian religion. the christian religion may be tested at first hand. we can taste and see that the lord is good. by keeping company with jesus, and walking in his foot-steps, we are able to decide for ourselves whether we care for him and his way of living. though one were in utter doubt concerning everything else, if he saw in jesus something so much to be desired that he was willing to forsake all and follow him, he would find himself in loving fellowship with the father. "whosoever will, let him come." and, "whosoever cometh unto me, i will in no wise cast out." though in doubt about every question of scholarship, the one who personally tests the life and teachings of jesus from day to day is able to answer, "one thing i know, whereas i was blind, now i see." to find one's self sitting at the feet of jesus, clothed and in his right mind, after living among the tombs as one mad for wealth or pleasure or popularity, is the last word in religion. having thus blazed the straight path to god, let me urge it upon my readers that they take up the broader and deeper study of the new testament literature as they have opportunity. for, in so doing they will broaden and deepen their lives, and better fit themselves to live in society as those who helpfully and intelligently serve. but some may say, "how are we to know that our religion is true unless we have some ancient, miraculous proof!" my answer is that in nothing does god so much delight, as in making himself known to those who intelligently receive him in pure hearts. when god is _here_, even if it were possible, we do not need to prove his existence; we simply need to get acquainted with him. miracles may have been necessary in times past; if so, they served their purpose when they were needed. since it is harder to verify an ancient miracle than it is to verify the presence of god in our own hearts, we cling to the greater certainty without being too dogmatic concerning the wonders reported in a primitive age. if one believes in miracles, no one can prove that he is wrong. if he is so constituted that he cannot believe in them, god will not turn him away if he follows the master with his whole heart. if any one desires a richer assurance of god and his forgiveness, let him be a more intelligent and a better christian; let him make a larger investment of himself in the service of god. i have nothing to say against miracles; but i should like to testify that it has been possible to lead many to christ by getting them to become his disciples first, and then letting them have plenty of time to settle the question of miracles as best they were able. though i bring an indictment against myself, i must say, what we most need is a ministry with apostolic faith and fervor. we need st. pauls and st. johns. we need leaders who can make god real and sin hateful. 5. the book of revelation seeing that so many good christians are perplexed by the apocalypses, we shall close this chapter with a brief study of the book of revelation. the mystery that once shrouded the book of revelation is gone. as professor porter says, "the historical method has, it is not too much to say, broken the seals. to the historical student these apocalypses have become, in their general character and chief messages, among the best instead of quite the least understood books of the canon. and their importance has grown with their understanding." the book of revelation throws more light on the past than on the future. it has to do largely with a crisis in the early christian church, and not with the end of the world and the "constitution of the unseen universe." the probable date of the book is about ninety-three a. d. the great christian leaders were gone, the heathen elements were entering the church with their traditions and rites, and the roman government was setting up emperor worship to strengthen the loyalty of diverse populations. the mandate that all should enter the temples of the emperor and worship him as divine was particularly hard on jews and christians who refused to worship any but the one true god. the persecutions that followed a refusal to worship the emperor, with all the other devitalizing influences mentioned, threatened the very existence of the christian church. it was to meet this crisis that the book of revelation was written. and this accounts for the poetical and visionary style adopted by the author. strong language was needed; something that would quicken the imagination and revive the fainting hearts of those who were growing cold and indifferent. dynamite was needed. no gentle utterance would suffice. the writer realizes the awful conflict that is about to ensue between the gentle lamb and his humble followers on the one side, and the great dragon, rome, and his vile cohorts on the other. somehow, the christians must be convinced that the lamb will finally triumph over the beast, or all is lost. after the sweet, simple letters of admonition and praise to the churches, in which he pictures christ among the candlesticks, the task of reassuring the persecuted followers of jesus must somehow be achieved. so he goes to his task as a fireman goes to the work of saving a building that is on fire. ordinary means will utterly fail. he first looks to the heavens, and then to the most striking imagery of the old testament, and never refuses a striking figure from any source that promises to serve his purpose. he gathers from far and near anything that will startle and encourage. as the winds drive the clouds until their blackness terrifies, so he gives free rein to his own imagination while marshaling his material. he commands the heavenly trumpeters, and brings forth appalling horsemen riding in the heavens. he sees one-third of the sun, moon, and stars, smitten after the blast of a heavenly trumpet. he sees an angel open a pit from which belches forth smoke that darkens the whole heavens. out of the smoke come forth locusts that look like horses prepared for war. they have golden crowns on their heads, and men's faces, and women's hair, and lion's teeth, and breastplates of iron. their wings sound like chariots and many horses rushing to war. and they have scorpions' tails with stings, to sting the men that have not the seal of god on their foreheads. he assures the poor sufferers that sealed mysteries, and distresses, and woes await them; but that christ shall be able to solve all mysteries, and that he will command all powers in heaven and earth to fight on their side until the old dragon, whose earthly embodiment is rome, shall be cast into the sulphurous pit and sealed. finally, in the most beautiful and poetical fashion he declares that the battle shall be won, the clash of arms and the blare of trumpets shall cease, heaven and earth shall be cleared of their fierce combatants, and in that happy and peaceful hour the reward of the faithful shall appear. heaven shall descend on a new earth that is redeemed. the lamb and his bride, the faithful church, shall again be united. and this new heaven on earth shall be inexpressibly beautiful; the architecture shall be symmetrical, and richly adorned. the gates of the city shall be pearls, and the streets gold. the city shall not, as the old jerusalem, be built of common stone; even the foundations shall be adorned with jasper, and sapphire, and chalcedony, and emerald, and sardonyx, and sardius, and chrysolite, and beryl, and topaz, and chrysoprase, the jacinth, and amethyst. there shall be a river, and trees bearing fruit for food and leaves for healing. all these things the writer assures them shall soon come to pass. in the great day of victory throngs of people shall be there, arrayed in white; all, both the living and the dead, who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb, shall be present. they shall be invited to the marriage of the lamb, and to the wonderful feast that will follow. we are justified in believing that this poetical and highly imaginative portrayal of the conflict was very effective with the humble, illiterate, and sorely persecuted people who constituted the christian church at that time. they revived from their coldness, they turned their backs upon the insidious temptations and allurements of the heathen world, and went in armies to the martyr's death. rome was conquered, but not in the way the author expected. rome was conquered by being made christian, at least nominally and politically. the histories that record the conflict between the christians and rome are not less blood-curdling than the book of revelation. the conflict was frightful, only it was in terms of blood, and fire, and dungeon. if the ingenious and infernal methods of torture, invented by rome, present a picture difficult to read, what must the reality have been to bear? we should never cease to thank god that these humble christians were nerved for the conflict. the modern world owes these martyrs a debt of gratitude as high as the heavens and as deep as the seas. when we consider the people, the times, and the crisis, the book of revelation was a means well suited to a noble end. who can look upon such a scene, and witness such heroism, and read such desperate utterances rising out of the conflict as are recorded by the author of revelation without wishing to be a better man, and a more loyal follower of the one who still stands among the candlesticks,--his churches. sabatier has wisely said, "apocalypses do not reveal to us the secrets of the divine providence, but do reveal the optimistic believing nature of the soul." during the recent war, many portions of our country were burnt over with the fanaticism that has sprung from a false and unhistorical interpretation of revelation and other apocalyptic writings. the following extract from professor porter's book, "daniel and revelation," is of special interest: "the more theoretical or theological messages of the apocalypses it is evidently impossible for us to accept in any literal way as a message for our day. that which they claimed to do, namely, to unveil the heavenly world and the future age, they really did not do. we cannot accept their descriptions of heaven, of god's throne, or of the angels, their names and functions, as a revelation of hidden realities. they are at most figurative and imaginative representations or symbols of faith in god and a spiritual realm. we are interested in these things only, on the one side, for the imperishable faith and hope behind them, and on the other for their place in the history of human speculation and fancy.... although we cannot receive their theoretical message, yet their practical message for their own time is a true message for all like times, and in a measure for all times alike. religious faith in times of a dominating, aggressive, or insinuating worldliness needs to maintain itself by the assurance of the real dominion of the unseen world over the world of sense, and by the hope of some approaching manifestation of god, some open demonstration of the rule of justice and goodness. the apocalyptical temper is needed when religion is assailed and in danger; and in all times the religious life needs to maintain its purity and strength by some sort of protest against the world, some defiance of ruling ideals and customs, some faith in realities above those of sense, and in truths contrary to appearances. the greater apocalypses were inspired by a living faith in the ideal and an eager expectation of its coming into reality; and faith in ideals which the world contradicts is too rare and precious a thing to be despised because its form is strange." by william rotella angelic wisdom concerning the divine love and the divine wisdom by emanuel swedenborg standard edition swedenborg foundation incorporated new york -------established 1850 first published in latin, amsterdam, 1763 first english translation published in u.s.a., 1794 55th printing, 1988 isbn 0-87785-056-9 library of congress catalog card number 76-46144 manufactured in the united states of america translator's note the previous translation of this work has been carefully revised. in this revision the translator has had the valuable assistance of suggestions by the rev. l.h. tafel and others. the new renderings of _existere_ and _fugere_ are suggestions adopted by the editorial committee and accepted by the translator, but for which he does not wish to be held solely responsible. 1. part first. love is the life of man. man knows that there is such a thing as love, but he does not know what love is. he knows that there is such a thing as love from common speech, as when it is said, he loves me, a king loves his subjects, and subjects love their king, a husband loves his wife, a mother her children, and conversely; also, this or that one loves his country, his fellow citizens, his neighbor; and likewise of things abstracted from person, as when it is said, one loves this or that thing. but although the word love is so universally used, hardly anybody knows what love is. and because one is unable, when he reflects upon it, to form to himself any idea of thought about it, he says either that it is not anything, or that it is merely something flowing in from sight, hearing, touch, or interaction with others, and thus affecting him. he is wholly unaware that love is his very life; not only the general life of his whole body, and the general life of all his thoughts, but also the life of all their particulars. this a man of discernment can perceive when it is said: if you remove the affection which is from love, can you think anything, or do anything? do not thought, speech, and action, grow cold in the measure in which the affection which is from love grows cold? and do they not grow warm in the measure in which this affection grows warm? but this a man of discernment perceives simply by observing that such is the case, and not from any knowledge that love is the life of man. 2. what the life of man is, no one knows unless he knows that it is love. if this is not known, one person may believe that man's life is nothing but perceiving with the senses and acting, and another that it is merely thinking; and yet thought is the first effect of life, and sensation and action are the second effect of life. thought is here said to be the first effect of life, yet there is thought which is interior and more interior, also exterior and more exterior. what is actually the first effect of life is inmost thought, which is the perception of ends. but of all this hereafter, when the degrees of life are considered. 3. some idea of love, as being the life of man, may be had from the sun's heat in the world. this heat is well known to be the common life, as it were, of all the vegetations of the earth. for by virtue of heat, coming forth in springtime, plants of every kind rise from the ground, deck themselves with leaves, then with blossoms, and finally with fruits, and thus, in a sense, live. but when, in the time of autumn and winter, heat withdraws, the plants are stripped of these signs of their life, and they wither. so it is with love in man; for heat and love mutually correspond. therefore love also is warm. 4. god alone, consequently the lord, is love itself, because he is life itself and angels and men are recipients of life. this will be fully shown in treatises on divine providence and on life; it is sufficient here to say that the lord, who is the god of the universe, is uncreate and infinite, whereas man and angel are created and finite. and because the lord is uncreate and infinite, he is being [esse] itself, which is called "jehovah," and life itself, or life in itself. from the uncreate, the infinite, being itself and life itself, no one can be created immediately, because the divine is one and indivisible; but their creation must be out of things created and finited, and so formed that the divine can be in them. because men and angels are such, they are recipients of life. consequently, if any man suffers himself to be so far misled as to think that he is not a recipient of life but is life, he cannot be withheld from the thought that he is god. a man's feeling as if he were life, and therefore believing himself to be so, arises from fallacy; for the principal cause is not perceived in the instrumental cause otherwise than as one with it. that the lord is life in himself, he himself teaches in john: as the father hath life in himself, so also hath he given to the son to have life in himself (5:26) he declares also that he is life itself (john 11:25; 14:6). now since life and love are one (as is apparent from what has been said above, n. 1, 2), it follows that the lord, because he is life itself, is love itself. 5. but that this may reach the understanding, it must needs be known positively that the lord, because he is love in its very essence, that is, divine love, appears before the angels in heaven as a sun, and that from that sun heat and light go forth; the heat which goes forth therefrom being in its essence love, and the light which goes forth therefrom being in its essence wisdom; and that so far as the angels are recipients of that spiritual heat and of that spiritual light, they are loves and wisdoms; not loves and wisdoms from themselves, but from the lord. that spiritual heat and that spiritual light not only flow into angels and affect them, but they also flow into men and affect them just to the extent that they become recipients; and they become recipients in the measure of their love to the lord and love towards the neighbor. that sun itself, that is, the divine love, by its heat and its light, cannot create any one immediately from itself; for one so created would be love in its essence, which love is the lord himself; but it can create from substances and matters so formed as to be capable of receiving the very heat and the very light; comparatively as the sun of the world cannot by its heat and light produce germinations on the earth immediately, but only out of earthy matters in which it can be present by its heat and light, and cause vegetation. in the spiritual world the divine love of the lord appears as a sun, and from it proceed the spiritual heat and the spiritual light from which the angels derive love and wisdom, as may be seen in the work on heaven and hell (n. 116-140). 6. since, then, man is not life, but is a recipient of life, it follows that the conception of a man from his father is not a conception of life, but only a conception of the first and purest form capable of receiving life; and to this, as to a nucleus or starting-point in the womb, are successively added substances and matters in forms adapted to the reception of life, in their order and degree. 7. the divine is not in space. that the divine, that is, god, is not in space, although omnipresent and with every man in the world, and with every angel in heaven, and with every spirit under heaven, cannot be comprehended by a merely natural idea, but it can by a spiritual idea. it cannot be comprehended by a natural idea, because in the natural idea there is space; since it is formed out of such things as are in the world, and in each and all of these, as seen by the eye, there is space. in the world, everything great and small is of space; everything long, broad, and high is of space; in short, every measure, figure and form is of space. this is why it has been said that it cannot be comprehended by a merely natural idea that the divine is not in space, when it is said that the divine is everywhere. still, by natural thought, a man may comprehend this, if only he admit into it something of spiritual light. for this reason something shall first be said about spiritual idea, and thought therefrom. spiritual idea derives nothing from space, but it derives its all from state. state is predicated of love, of life, of wisdom, of affections, of joys therefrom; in general, of good and of truth. an idea of these things which is truly spiritual has nothing in common with space; it is higher and looks down upon the ideas of space which are under it as heaven looks down upon the earth. but since angels and spirits see with eyes, just as men in the world do, and since objects cannot be seen except in space, therefore in the spiritual world where angels and spirits are, there appear to be spaces like the spaces on earth; yet they are not spaces, but appearances; since they are not fixed and constant, as spaces are on earth; for they can be lengthened or shortened; they can be changed or varied. thus because they cannot be determined in that world by measure, they cannot be comprehended there by any natural idea, but only by a spiritual idea. the spiritual idea of distances of space is the same as of distances of good or distances of truth, which are affinities and likenesses according to states of goodness and truth. 8. from this it may be seen that man is unable, by a merely natural idea, to comprehend that the divine is everywhere, and yet not in space; but that angels and spirits comprehend this clearly; consequently that a man also may, provided he admits into his thought something of spiritual light; and this for the reason that it is not his body that thinks, but his spirit, thus not his natural, but his spiritual. 9. but many fail to comprehend this because of their love of the natural, which makes them unwilling to raise the thoughts of their understanding above the natural into spiritual light; and those who are unwilling to do this can think only from space, even concerning god; and to think according to space concerning god is to think concerning the expanse of nature. this has to be premised, because without a knowledge and some perception that the divine is not in space, nothing can be understood about the divine life, which is love and wisdom, of which subjects this volume treats; and hence little, if anything, about divine providence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, infinity and eternity, which will be treated of in succession. 10. it has been said that in the spiritual world, just as in the natural world, there appear to be spaces, consequently also distances, but that these are appearances according to spiritual affinities which are of love and wisdom, or of good and truth. from this it is that the lord, although everywhere in the heavens with angels, nevertheless appears high above them as a sun. furthermore, since reception of love and wisdom causes affinity with the lord, those heavens in which the angels are, from reception, in closer affinity with him, appear nearer to him than those in which the affinity is more remote. from this it is also that the heavens, of which there are three, are distinct from each other, likewise the societies of each heaven; and further, that the hells under them are remote according to their rejection of love and wisdom. the same is true of men, in whom and with whom the lord is present throughout the whole earth; and this solely for the reason that the lord is not in space. 11. god is very man. in all the heavens there is no other idea of god than that he is a man. this is because heaven as a whole and in part is in form like a man, and because it is the divine which is with the angels that constitutes heaven and inasmuch as thought proceeds according to the form of heaven, it is impossible for the angels to think of god in any other way. from this it is that all those in the world who are conjoined with heaven think of god in the same way when they think interiorly in themselves, that is, in their spirit. from this fact that god is a man, all angels and all spirits, in their complete form, are men. this results from the form of heaven, which is like itself in its greatest and in its least parts. that heaven as a whole and in part is in form like a man may be seen in the work on heaven and hell (n. 59-87); and that thoughts proceed according to the form of heaven (n. 203, 204). it is known from genesis (1:26, 27), that men were created after the image and likeness of god. god also appeared as a man to abraham and to others. the ancients, from the wise even to the simple, thought of god no otherwise than as being a man; and when at length they began to worship a plurality of gods, as at athens and rome, they worshiped them all as men. what is here said may be illustrated by the following extract from a small treatise already published: the gentiles, especially the africans, who acknowledge and worship one god, the creator of the universe, have concerning god the idea that he is a man, and declare that no one can have any other idea of god. when they learn that there are many who cherish an idea of god as something cloud-like in the midst of things, they ask where such persons are; and on being told that they are among christians, they declare it to be impossible. they are informed, however, that this idea arises from the fact that god in the word is called "a spirit," and of a spirit they have no other idea than of a bit of cloud, not knowing that every spirit and every angel is a man. an examination, nevertheless, was made, whether the spiritual idea of such persons was like their natural idea, and it was found not to be so with those who acknowledge the lord interiorly as god of heaven and earth. i heard a certain elder from the christians say that no one can have an idea of a human divine; and i saw him taken about to various gentile nations, and successively to such as were more and more interior, and from them to their heavens, and finally to the christian heaven; and everywhere their interior perception concerning god was communicated to him, and he observed that they had no other idea of god than that he is a man, which is the same as the idea of a human divine (c.l.j. n. 74). 12. the common people in christendom have an idea that god is a man, because god in the athanasian doctrine of the trinity is called a "person." but those who are more learned than the common people pronounce god to be invisible; and this for the reason that they cannot comprehend how god, as a man, could have created heaven and earth, and then fill the universe with his presence, and many things besides, which cannot enter the understanding so long as the truth that the divine is not in space is ignored. those, however, who go to the lord alone think of a human divine, thus of god as a man. 13. how important it is to have a correct idea of god can be known from the truth that the idea of god constitutes the inmost of thought with all who have religion, for all things of religion and all things of worship look to god. and since god, universally and in particular, is in all things of religion and of worship, without a proper idea of god no communication with the heavens is possible. from this it is that in the spiritual world every nation has its place allotted in accordance with its idea of god as a man; for in this idea, and in no other, is the idea of the lord. that man's state of life after death is according to the idea of god in which he has become confirmed, is manifest from the opposite of this, namely, that the denial of god, and, in the christian world, the denial of the divinity of the lord, constitutes hell. 14. in god-man esse and existere* are one distinctly** where there is esse [being] there is existere [taking form]; one is not possible apart from the other. for esse is by means of existere, and not apart from it. this the rational mind comprehends when it thinks whether there can possibly be any esse [being] which does not exist [take form], and whether there can possibly be existere except from esse. and since one is possible with the other, and not apart from the other, it follows that they are one, but one distinctly. they are one distinctly, like love and wisdom; in fact, love is esse, and wisdom is existere; for there can be no love except in wisdom, nor can there be any wisdom except from love; consequently when love is in wisdom, then it exists. these two are one in such a way that they may be distinguished in thought but not in operation, and because they may be distinguished in thought though not in operation, it is said that they are one distinctly.*** esse and existere in god-man are also one distinctly like soul and body. there can be no soul apart from its body, nor body apart from its soul. the divine soul of god-man is what is meant by divine esse, and the divine body is what is meant by divine existere. that a soul can exist apart from a body, and can think and be wise, is an error springing from fallacies; for every man's soul is in a spiritual body after it has cast off the material coverings which it carried about in the world. * to be and to exist. swedenborg seems to use this word "exist" nearly in the classical sense of springing or standing forth, becoming manifest, taking form. the distinction between esse and existere is essentially the same as between substance and form. ** for the meaning of this phrase. "distincte unum," see below in this paragraph, also n. 17, 22, 34, 223, and dp 4. *** it should be noticed that in latin, distinctly is the adverb of the verb distinguish. if translated distinguishably, this would appear. 15. esse is not esse unless it exists, because until then it is not in a form, and if not in a form it has no quality; and what has no quality is not anything. that which exists from esse, for the reason that it is from esse, makes one with it. from this there is a uniting of the two into one; and from this each is the others mutually and interchangeably, and each is all in all things of the other as in itself. 16. from this it can be seen that god is a man, and consequently he is god-existing; not existing from himself but in himself. he who has existence in himself is god from whom all things are. 17. in god-man infinite things are one distinctly. that god is infinite is well known, for he is called the infinite; and he is called the infinite because he is infinite. he is infinite not from this alone, that he is very esse and existere in itself, but because in him there are infinite things. an infinite without infinite things in it, is infinite in name only. the infinite things in him cannot be called infinitely many, nor infinitely all, because of the natural idea of many and of all; for the natural idea of infinitely many is limited, and the natural idea of infinitely all, though not limited, is derived from limited things in the universe. therefore man, because his ideas are natural, is unable by any refinement or approximation, to come into a perception of the infinite things in god; and an angel, while he is able, because he is in spiritual ideas, to rise by refinement and approximation above the degree of man, is still unable to attain to that perception. 18. that in god there are infinite things, any one may convince himself who believes that god is a man; for, being a man, he has a body and every thing pertaining to it, that is, a face, breast, abdomen, loins and feet; for without these he would not be a man. and having these, he also has eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and tongue; also the parts within man, as the heart and lungs, and their dependencies, all of which, taken together, make man to be a man. in a created man these parts are many, and regarded in their details of structure are numberless; but in god-man they are infinite, nothing whatever is lacking, and from this he has infinite perfection. this comparison holds between the uncreated man who is god and created man, because god is a man; and he himself says that the man of this world was created after his image and into his likeness (gen. 1:26, 27). 19. that in god there are infinite things, is still more evident to the angels from the heavens in which they dwell. the whole heaven, consisting of myriads of myriads of angels, in its universal form is like a man. so is each society of heaven, be it larger or smaller. from this, too, an angel is a man, for an angel is a heaven in least form. (this is shown in the work heaven and hell, n. 51-86.) heaven as a whole, in part, and in the individual, is in that form by virtue of the divine which angels receive; for in the measure in which an angel receives from the divine is he in complete form a man. from this it is that angels are said to be in god, and god in them; also, that god is their all. how many things there are in heaven cannot be told; and because the divine is what makes heaven, and consequently these unspeakably many things are from the divine, it is clearly evident that there are infinite things in very man, who is god. 20. from the created universe a like conclusion may be drawn when it is regarded from uses and their correspondences. but before this can be understood some preliminary illustrations must be given. 21. because in god-man there are infinite things which appear in heaven, in angel, and in man, as in a mirror; and because god-man is not in space (as was shown above, n. 7-10), it can, to some extent, be seen and comprehended how god can be omnipresent, omniscient, and all-providing; and how, as man, he could create all things, and as man can hold the things created by himself in their order to eternity. 22. that in god-man infinite things are one distinctly, can also be seen, as in a mirror, from man. in man there are many and numberless things, as said above; but still man feels them all as one. from sensation he knows nothing of his brains, of his heart and lungs, of his liver, spleen, and pancreas; or of the numberless things in his eyes, ears, tongue, stomach, generative organs, and the remaining parts; and because from sensation he has no knowledge of these things, he is to himself as a one. the reason is that all these are in such a form that not one can be lacking; for it is a form recipient of life from god-man (as was shown above, n. 4-6). from the order and connection of all things in such a form there comes the feeling, and from that the idea, as if they were not many and numberless, but were one. from this it may be concluded that the many and numberless things which make in man a seeming one, a very man who is god, are one distinctly, yea, most distinctly. 23. there is one god-man, from whom all things come. all things of human wisdom unite, and as it were center in this, that there is one god, the creator of the universe: consequently a man who has reason, from the general nature of his understanding, does not and cannot think otherwise. say to any man of sound reason that there are two creators of the universe, and you will be sensible of his repugnance, and this, perhaps, from the mere sound of the phrase in his ear; from which it appears that all things of human reason unite and center in this, that god is one. there are two reasons for this. first, the very capacity to think rationally, viewed in itself, is not man's, but is god's in man; upon this capacity human reason in its general nature depends, and this general nature of reason causes man to see as from himself that god is one. secondly, by means of that capacity man either is in the light of heaven, or he derives the generals of his thought therefrom; and it is a universal of the light of heaven that god is one. it is otherwise when man by that capacity has perverted the lower parts of his understanding; such a man indeed is endowed with that capacity, but by the twist given to these lower parts, he turns it contrariwise, and thereby his reason becomes unsound. 24. every man, even if unconsciously, thinks of a body of men as of one man; therefore he instantly perceives what is meant when it is said that a king is the head, and the subjects are the body, also that this or that person has such a place in the general body, that is, in the kingdom. as it is with the body politic, so is it with the body spiritual. the body spiritual is the church; its head is god-man; and from this it is plain how the church thus viewed as a man would appear if instead of one god, the creator and sustainer of the universe, several were thought of. the church thus viewed would appear as one body with several heads; thus not as a man, but as a monster. if it be said that these heads have one essence, and that thus together they make one head, the only conception possible is either that of one head with several faces or of several heads with one face; thus making the church, viewed as a whole, appear deformed. but in truth, the one god is the head, and the church is the body, which acts under the command of the head, and not from itself; as is also the case in man; and from this it is that there can be only one king in a kingdom, for several kings would rend it asunder, but one is able to preserve its unity. 25. so would it be with the church scattered throughout the whole globe, which is called a communion, because it is as one body under one head. it is known that the head rules the body under it at will; for understanding and will have their seat in the head; and in conformity to the understanding and will the body is directed, even to the extent that the body is nothing but obedience. as the body can do nothing except from the understanding and will in the head, so the man of the church can do nothing except from god. the body seems to act of itself, as if the hands and feet in acting are moved of themselves; or the mouth and tongue in speaking vibrate of themselves, when, in fact, they do not in the slightest degree act of themselves, but only from an affection of the will and the consequent thought of the understanding in the head. suppose, now, one body to have several heads and each head to be free to act from its own understanding and its own will, could such a body continue to exist? for among several heads singleness of purpose, such as results from one head would be impossible. as in the church, so in the heavens; heaven consists of myriads of myriads of angels, and unless these all and each looked to one god, they would fall away from one another and heaven would be broken up. consequently, if an angel of heaven but thinks of a plurality of gods he is at once separated; for he is cast out into the outmost boundary of the heavens, and sinks downward. 26. because the whole heaven and all things of heaven have relation to one god, angelic speech is such that by a certain unison flowing from the unison of heaven it closes in a single cadence a proof that it is impossible for the angels to think otherwise than of one god; for speech is from thought. 27. who that has sound reason can help seeing that the divine is not divisible? also that a plurality of infinites, of uncreates, of omnipotents, and of gods, is impossible? suppose one destitute of reason were to declare that a plurality of infinites, of uncreates, of omnipotents, and of gods is possible, if only they have one identical essence, and this would make of them one infinite, uncreate, omnipotent, and god, would not the one identical essence be one identity? and one identity is not possible to several. if it should be said that one is from the other, the one who is from the other is not god in himself; nevertheless, god in himself is the god from whom all things are (see above, n. 16). 28. the divine essence itself is love and wisdom sum up all things you know and submit them to careful inspection, and in some elevation of spirit search for the universal of all things, and you cannot conclude otherwise than that it is love and wisdom. for these are the two essentials of all things of man's life; everything of that life, civil, moral, and spiritual, hinges upon these two, and apart from these two is nothing. it is the same with all things of the life of the composite man, which is, as was said above, a society, larger or smaller, a kingdom, an empire, a church, and also the angelic heaven. take away love and wisdom from these, and consider whether they be anything, and you will find that apart from love and wisdom as their origin they are nothing. 29. love together with wisdom in its very essence is in god. this no one can deny; for god loves every one from love in himself, and leads every one from wisdom in himself. the created universe, too, viewed in relation to its order, is so full of wisdom coming forth from love that all things in the aggregate may be said to be wisdom itself. for things limitless are in such order, successively and simultaneously, that taken together they make a one. it is from this, and this alone, that they can be held together and continually preserved. 30. it is because the divine essence itself is love and wisdom that man has two capacities for life; from one of these he has understanding, from the other will. the capacity from which he has understanding derives everything it has from the influx of wisdom from god, and the capacity from which he has will derives everything it has from the influx of love from god. man's not being truly wise and not loving rightly does not take away these capacities, but merely closes them up; and so long as they are closed up, although the understanding is still called understanding and the will is called will, they are not such in essence. if these two capacities, therefore, were to be taken away, all that is human would perish; for the human is to think and to speak from thought, and to will and to act from will. from this it is clear that the divine has its seat in man in these two capacities, the capacity to be wise and the capacity to love (that is, that one may be wise and may love). that in man there is a possibility of loving [and of being wise], even when he is not wise as he might be and does not love as he might, has been made known to me from much experience, and will be abundantly shown elsewhere. 31. it is because the divine essence itself is love and wisdom, that all things in the universe have relation to good and truth; for everything that proceeds from love is called good, and everything that proceeds from wisdom is called truth. but of this more hereafter. 32. it is because the divine essence itself is love and wisdom, that the universe and all things in it, alive and not alive, have unceasing existence from heat and light; for heat corresponds to love, and light corresponds to wisdom; and therefore spiritual heat is love and spiritual light is wisdom. but of this, also, more hereafter. 33. from divine love and from divine wisdom, which make the very essence that is god, all affections and thoughts with man have their rise-affections from divine love, and thoughts from divine wisdom; and each and all things of man are nothing but affection and thought; these two are like fountains of all things of man's life. all the enjoyments and pleasantnesses of his life are from these-enjoyments from the affection of his love, and pleasantnesses from the thought therefrom. now since man was created to be a recipient, and is a recipient in the degree in which he loves god and from love to god is wise, in other words, in the degree in which he is affected by those things which are from god and thinks from that affection, it follows that the divine essence, which is the creator, is divine love and divine wisdom. 34. divine love is of divine wisdom, and divine wisdom is of divine love. in god-man divine esse [being] and divine existere [taking form] are one distinctly (as may be seen above, n. 14-16). and because divine esse is divine love, and divine existere is divine wisdom, these are likewise one distinctly. they are said to be one distinctly, because love and wisdom are two distinct things, yet so united that love is of wisdom, and wisdom is of love, for in wisdom love is, and in love wisdom exists; and since wisdom derives its existere from love (as was said above, n. 15), therefore divine wisdom also is esse. from this it follows that love and wisdom taken together are the divine esse, but taken distinctly love is called divine esse, and wisdom divine existere. such is the angelic idea of divine love and of divine wisdom. 35. since there is such a union of love and wisdom and of wisdom and love in god-man, there is one divine essence. for the divine essence is divine love because it is of divine wisdom and is divine wisdom, because it is of divine love. and since there is such a union of these, the divine life also is one. life is the divine essence. divine love and divine wisdom are a one because the union is reciprocal, and reciprocal union causes oneness. of reciprocal union, however, more will be said elsewhere. 36. there is also a union of love and wisdom in every divine work; from which it has perpetuity, yea, its everlasting duration. if there were more of divine love than of divine wisdom, or more of divine wisdom than of divine love, in any created work, it could have continued existence only in the measure in which the two were equally in it, anything in excess passing off. 37. the divine providence in the reforming, regenerating and saving of men, partakes equally of divine love and of divine wisdom. from more of divine love than of divine wisdom or from more of divine wisdom than of divine love, man cannot be reformed, regenerated and saved. divine love wills to save all, but it cam save only by means of divine wisdom; to divine wisdom belong all the laws through which salvation is effected; and these laws love cannot transcend, because divine love and divine wisdom are one and act in unison. 38. in the word, divine love and divine wisdom are meant by "righteousness" and "judgment," divine love by "righteousness," and divine wisdom by "judgment;" for this reason "righteousness" and "judgment" are predicated in the word of god; as in david: righteousness and judgment are the support of thy throne (ps. 89:14). jehovah shall bring forth righteousness as the light, and judgment as the noonday (ps. 37:6). in hosea: i will betroth thee unto me for ever, in righteousness, and in judgment (2:18). in jeremiah: i will raise unto david a righteous branch, who shall reign as king and shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth (23:5). in isaiah: he shall sit upon the throne of david, and upon his kingdom, to establish it in judgment and in righteousness (9:7). jehovah shall be exalted, because he hath filled the earth with judgment and righteousness (33:5). in david: when i shall have learned the judgments of thy righteousness. seven times a day do i praise thee, because of the judgments of thy righteousness (ps. 119:7, 164). the same is meant by "life" and "light" in john: in him was life, and the life was the light of men (1:4). by "life" in this passage is meant the lord's divine love, and by "light" his divine wisdom. the same also is meant by "life" and "spirit" in john: jesus said, the words which i speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life (6:63). 39. in man love and wisdom appear as two separate things, yet in themselves they are one distinctly, because with man wisdom is such as the love is, and love is such as the wisdom is. the wisdom that does not make one with its love appears to be wisdom, but it is not; and the love that does not make one with its wisdom appears to be the love of wisdom, but it is not; for the one must derive its essence and its life reciprocally from the other. with man love and wisdom appear as two separate things, because with him the capacity for understanding may be elevated into the light of heaven, but not the capacity for loving, except so far as he acts according to his understanding. any apparent wisdom, therefore, which does not make one with the love of wisdom, sinks back into the love which does make one with it; and this may be a love of unwisdom, yea, of insanity. thus a man may know from wisdom that he ought to do this or that, and yet he does not do it, because he does not love it. but so far as a man does from love what wisdom teaches, he is an image of god. 40. divine love and divine wisdom are substance and are form. the idea of men in general about love and about wisdom is that they are like something hovering and floating in thin air or ether or like what exhales from something of this kind. scarcely any one believes that they are really and actually substance and form. even those who recognize that they are substance and form still think of the love and the wisdom as outside the subject and as issuing from it. for they call substance and form that which they think of as outside the subject and as issuing from it, even though it be something hovering and floating; not knowing that love and wisdom are the subject itself, and that what is perceived outside of it and as hovering and floating is nothing but an appearance of the state of the subject in itself. there are several reasons why this has not hitherto been seen, one of which is, that appearances are the first things out of which the human mind forms its understanding, and these appearances the mind can shake off only by the exploration of the cause; and if the cause lies deeply hidden, the mind can explore it only by keeping the understanding for a long time in spiritual light; and this it cannot do by reason of the natural light which continually withdraws it. the truth is, however, that love and wisdom are the real and actual substance and form that constitute the subject itself. 41. but as this is contrary to appearance, it may seem not to merit belief unless it be proved; and since it can be proved only by such things as man can apprehend by his bodily senses, by these it shall be proved. man has five external senses, called touch, taste, smell, hearing and sight. the subject of touch is the skin by which man is enveloped, the very substance and form of the skin causing it to feel whatever is applied to it. the sense of touch is not in the things applied, but in the substance and form of the skin, which are the subject; the sense itself is nothing but an affecting of the subject by the things applied. it is the same with taste; this sense is only an affecting of the substance and form of the tongue; the tongue is the subject. it is the same with smell; it is well known that odor affects the nostrils, and that it is in the nostrils, and that the nostrils are affected by the odoriferous particles touching them. it is the same with hearing, which seems to be in the place where the sound originates; but the hearing is in the ear, and is an affecting of its substance and form; that the hearing is at a distance from the ear is an appearance. it is the same with sight. when a man sees objects at a distance, the seeing appears to be there; yet the seeing is in the eye, which is the subject, and is likewise an affecting of the subject. distance is solely from the judgment concluding about space from things intermediate, or from the diminution and consequent indistinctness of the object, an image of which is produced interiorly in the eye according to the angle of incidence. from this it is evident that sight does not go out from the eye to the object, but that the image of the object enters the eye and affects its substance and form. thus it is just the same with sight as with hearing; hearing does not go out from the ear to catch the sound, but the sound enters the ear and affects it. from all this it can be seen that the affecting of the substance and form which causes sense is not a something separate from the subject, but only causes a change in it, the subject remaining the subject then as before and afterwards. from this it follows that seeing, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, are not a something volatile flowing from their organs, but are the organs themselves, considered in their substance and form, and that when the organs are affected sense is produced. 42. it is the same with love and wisdom, with this difference only, that the substances and forms which are love and wisdom are not obvious to the eyes as the organs of the external senses are. nevertheless, no one can deny that those things of wisdom and love, which are called thoughts, perceptions, and affections, are substances and forms, and not entities flying and flowing out of nothing, or abstracted from real and actual substance and form, which are subjects. for in the brain are substances and forms innumerable, in which every interior sense which pertains to the understanding and will has its seat. the affections, perceptions, and thoughts there are not exhalations from these substances, but are all actually and really subjects emitting nothing from themselves, but merely undergoing changes according to whatever flows against and affects them. this may be seen from what has been said above about the external senses. of what thus flows against and affects more will be said below. 43. from all this it may now first be seen that divine love and divine wisdom in themselves are substance and form; for they are very esse and existere; and unless they were such esse and existere as they are substance and form, they would be a mere thing of reasoning, which in itself is nothing. 44. divine love and divine wisdom are substance and form in itself, thus the very and the only. that divine love and divine wisdom are substance and form has been proved just above; and that divine esse [being] and existere [taking form] are esse and existere in itself, has also been said above. it cannot be said to be esse and existere from itself, because this involves a beginning, and a beginning from something within in which would be esse and existere in itself. but very esse and existere in itself is from eternity. very esse and existere in itself is also uncreated, and everything created must needs be from an uncreate. what is created is also finite, and the finite can exist only from the infinite. 45. he who by exercise of thought is able to grasp the idea of and to comprehend, esse and existere in itself, can certainly perceive and comprehend that it is the very and the only. that is called the very which alone is; and that is called the only from which every thing else proceeds. now because the very and the only is substance and form, it follows that it is the very and only substance and form. because this very substance and form is divine love and divine wisdom, it follows that it is the very and only love, and the very and only wisdom; consequently, that it is the very and only essence, as well as the very and only life: for life is love and wisdom. 46. from all this it can be seen how sensually (that is, how much from the bodily senses and their blindness in spiritual matters) do those think who maintain that nature is from herself. they think from the eye, and are not able to think from the understanding. thought from the eye closes the understanding, but thought from the understanding opens the eye. such persons cannot think at all of esse and existere in itself, and that it is eternal, uncreate, and infinite; neither can they think at all of life, except as a something fleeting and vanishing into nothingness; nor can they think otherwise of love and wisdom, nor at all that from these are all things of nature. neither can it be seen that from these are all things of nature, unless nature is regarded, not from some of its forms, which are merely objects of sight, but from uses in their succession and order. for uses are from life alone, and their succession and order are from wisdom and love alone; while forms are only containants of uses. consequently, if forms alone are regarded, nothing of life, still less anything of love and wisdom, thus nothing of god, can be seen in nature. 47. divine love and divine wisdom must necessarily have being [esse] and have form [existere] in others created by itself. it is the essential of love not to love self, but to love others, and to be conjoined with others by love. it is the essential of love, moreover, to be loved by others, for thus conjunction is effected. the essence of all love consists in conjunction; this, in fact, is its life, which is called enjoyment, pleasantness, delight, sweetness, bliss, happiness, and felicity. love consists in this, that its own should be another's; to feel the joy of another as joy in oneself, that is loving. but to feel one's own joy in another and not the other's joy in oneself is not loving; for this is loving self, while the former is loving the neighbor. these two kinds of love are diametrically opposed to each other. either, it is true, conjoins; and to love one's own, that is, oneself, in another does not seem to divide; but it does so effectually divide that so far as any one has loved another in this manner, so far he afterwards hates him. for such conjunction is by its own action gradually loosened, and then, in like measure, love is turned to hate. 48. who that is capable of discerning the essential character of love cannot see this? for what is it to love self alone, instead of loving some one outside of self by whom one may be loved in return? is not this separation rather than conjunction? conjunction of love is by reciprocation; and there can be no reciprocation in self alone. if there is thought to be, it is from an imagined reciprocation in others. from this it is clear that divine love must necessarily have being (esse) and have form (existere) in others whom it may love, and by whom it may be loved. for as there is such a need in all love, it must be to the fullest extent, that is, infinitely in love itself. 49. with respect to god: it is impossible for him to love others and to be loved reciprocally by others in whom there is anything of infinity, that is, anything of the essence and life of love in itself, or anything of the divine. for if there were beings having in them anything of infinity, that is, of the essence and life of love in itself, that is, of the divine, it would not be god loved by others, but god loving himself; since the infinite, that is, the divine, is one only, and if this were in others, itself would be in them, and would be the love of self itself; and of that love not the least trace can possibly be in god, since it is wholly opposed to the divine essence. consequently, for this relation to be possible there must be others in whom there is nothing of the divine in itself. that it is possible in beings created from the divine will be seen below. but that it may be possible, there must be infinite wisdom making one with infinite love; that is, there must be the divine love of divine wisdom, and the divine wisdom of divine love (concerning which see above, n. 35-39) 50. upon a perception and knowledge of this mystery depend a perception and knowledge of all things of existence, that is, creation; also of all things of continued existence, that is, preservation by god; in other words, of all the works of god in the created universe; of which the following pages treat. 51. but do not, i entreat you, confuse your ideas with time and with space, for so far as time and space enter into your ideas when you read what follows, you will not understand it; for the divine is not in time and space. this will be seen clearly in the progress of this work, and in particular from what is said of eternity, infinity, and omnipresence. 52. all things in the universe were created from the divine love and the divine wisdom of god-man. so full of divine love and divine wisdom is the universe in greatest and least, and in first and last things, that it may be said to be divine love and divine wisdom in an image. that this is so is clearly evident from the correspondence of all things of the universe with all things of man. there is such correspondence of each and every thing that takes form in the created universe with each and every thing of man, that man may be said to be a sort of universe. there is a correspondence of his affections, and thence of his thoughts, with all things of the animal kingdom; of his will, and thence of his understanding, with all things of the vegetable kingdom; and of his outmost life with all things of the mineral kingdom. that there is such a correspondence is not apparent to any one in the natural world, but it is apparent to every one who gives heed to it in the spiritual world. in that world there are all things that take form in the natural world in its three kingdoms, and they are correspondences of affections and thoughts, that is, of affections from the will and of thoughts from the understanding, also of the outmost things of the life, of those who are in that world, around whom all these things are visible, presenting an appearance like that of the created universe, with the difference that it is in lesser form. from this it is very evident to angels, that the created universe is an image representative of god-man, and that it is his love and wisdom which are presented, in an image, in the universe. not that the created universe is god-man, but that it is from him; for nothing whatever in the created universe is substance and form in itself, or life in itself, or love and wisdom in itself, yea, neither is man a man in himself, but all is from god, who is man, wisdom and love, also form and substance, in itself. that which has being-in-itself is uncreate and infinite; but whatever is from very being, since it contains in it nothing of being-in-itself, is created and finite, and this exhibits an image of him from whom it has being and has form. 53. of things created and finite esse [being] and existere [taking form] can be predicated, likewise substance and form, also life, and even love and wisdom; but these are all created and finite. this can be said of things created and finite, not because they possess anything divine, but because they are in the divine, and the divine is in them. for everything that has been created is, in itself, inanimate and dead, but all things are animated and made alive by this, that the divine is in them, and that they are in the divine. 54. the divine is not in one subject differently from what it is in another, but one created subject differs from another; for no two things can be precisely alike, consequently each thing is a different containant. on this account, the divine as imaged forth presents a variety of appearances. its presence in opposites will be discussed hereafter. 55. all things in the created universe are recipients of the divine love and the divine wisdom of god-man. it is well known that each and all things of the universe were created by god; hence the universe, with each and every thing pertaining to it, is called in the word the work of the hands of jehovah. there are those who maintain that the world, with everything it includes, was created out of nothing, and of that nothing an idea of absolute nothingness is entertained. from absolute nothingness, however, nothing is or can be made. this is an established truth. the universe, therefore, which is god's image, and consequently full of god, could be created only in god from god; for god is esse itself, and from esse must be whatever is. to create what is, from nothing which is not, is an utter contradiction. but still, that which is created in god from god is not continuous from him; for god is esse in itself, and in created things there is not any esse in itself. if there were in created things any esse in itself, this would be continuous from god, and that which is continuous from god is god. the angelic idea of this is, that what is created in god from god, is like that in man which has been derived from his life, but from which the life has been withdrawn, which is of such a nature as to be in accord with his life, and yet it is not his life. the angels confirm this by many things which have existence in their heaven, where they say they are in god, and god is in them, and still that they have, in their esse, nothing of god which is god. many things whereby they prove this will be presented hereafter; let this serve for present information. 56. every created thing, by virtue of this origin, is such in its nature as to be a recipient of god, not by continuity, but by contiguity. by the latter and not the former comes its capacity for conjunction. for having been created in god from god, it is adapted to conjunction; and because it has been so created, it is an analogue, and through such conjunction it is like an image of god in a mirror. 57. from this it is that angels are angels, not from themselves, but by virtue of this conjunction with god-man; and this conjunction is according to the reception of divine good and divine truth, which are god, and which seem to proceed from him, though really they are in him. this reception is according to their application to themselves of the laws of order, which are divine truths, in the exercise of that freedom of thinking and willing according to reason, which they possess from the lord as if it were their own. by this they have a reception, as if from themselves, of divine good and of divine truth, and by this there is a reciprocation of love; for, as was said above, love is impossible unless it is reciprocal. the same is true of men on the earth. from what has been said it can now first be seen that all things of the created universe are recipients of the divine love and the divine wisdom of god-man. 58. it cannot yet be intelligibly explained how all other things of the universe which are unlike angels and men, that is, the things below man in the animal kingdom, and the things below these in the vegetable kingdom, and the things still below these in the mineral kingdom, are also recipients of the divine love and of the divine wisdom of god-man; for many things need to be said first about degrees of life, and degrees of the recipients of life. conjunction with these things is according to their uses; for no good use has any other origin than through a like conjunction with god, but yet different according to degrees. this conjunction in its descent becomes successively such that nothing of freedom is left therein, because nothing of reason, and therefore nothing of the appearance of life; but still they are recipients. because they are recipients, they are also re-agents; and forasmuch as they are re-agents, they are containants. conjunction with uses which are not good will be discussed when the origin of evil has been made known. 59. from the above it can be seen that the divine is in each and every thing of the created universe, and consequently that the created universe is the work of the hands of jehovah, as is said in the word; that is, the work of divine love and divine wisdom, for these are meant by the hands of jehovah. but though the divine is in each and all things of the created universe there is in their esse nothing of the divine in itself; for the created universe is not god, but is from god; and since it is from god, there is in it an image of him like the image of a man in a mirror, wherein indeed the man appears, but still there is nothing of the man in it. 60. i heard several about me in the spiritual world talking together, who said that they were quite willing to acknowledge that the divine is in each and every thing of the universe, because they behold therein the wonderful works of god, and these are the more wonderful the more interiorly they are examined. and yet, when they were told that the divine is actually in each and every thing of the universe, they were displeased; which is a proof that although they assert this they do not believe it. they were therefore asked whether this cannot be seen simply from the marvelous power which is in every seed, of producing its own vegetable form in like order, even to new seeds; also because in every seed an idea of the infinite and eternal is presented; since there is in seeds an endeavor to multiply themselves and to fructify infinitely and eternally? is not this evident also in every living creature, even the smallest? in that there are in it organs of sense, also brains, a heart, lungs, and other parts; with arteries, veins, fibers, muscles, and the activities proceeding therefrom; besides the surpassing marvels of animal nature, about which whole volumes have been written. all these wonderful things are from god; but the forms with which they are clothed are from earthy matters, out of which come plants, and in their order, men. therefore it is said of man, that he was created out of the ground, and that he is dust of the earth, and that the breath of lives was breathed into him (genesis 2:7). from which it is plain that the divine is not man's own, but is adjoined to him. 61. all created things have relation in a kind of image to man. this can be seen from each and all things of the animal kingdom, from each and all things of the vegetable kingdom, and from each and all things of the mineral kingdom. a relation to man in each and all things of the animal kingdom is evident from the following. animals of every kind have limbs by which they move, organs by which they feel, and viscera by which these are exercised; these they have in common with man. they have also appetites and affections similar to man's natural appetites and affections; and they have inborn knowledges corresponding to their affections, in some of which there appears a resemblance to what is spiritual, which is more or less evident in beasts of the earth, and birds of the air, and in bees, silk-worms, ants, etc. from this it is that merely natural men consider the living creatures of this kingdom to be like themselves, except in the matter of speech. a relation to man arising out of each and all things of the vegetable kingdom is evident from this: they spring forth from seed, and thereafter proceed step by step through their periods of growth; they have something akin to marriage, followed by prolification; their vegetative soul is use, and they are forms thereof; besides many other particulars which have relation to man. these also have been described by various authors. a relation to man deducible from each and every thing of the mineral kingdom is seen only in an endeavor to produce forms which exhibit such a relation (which forms, as said above, are each and all things of the vegetable kingdom), and in an endeavor to perform uses thereby. for when first a seed falls into the bosom of the earth, she cherishes it, and out of herself provides it with nourishment from every source, that it may shoot up and present itself in a form representative of man. that such an endeavor exists also in its solid parts is evident from corals at the bottom of the seas and from flowers in mines, where they originate from minerals, also from metals. this endeavor towards vegetating, and performing uses thereby, is the outmost derivation from the divine in created things. 62. as there is an endeavor of the minerals of the earth towards vegetation, so there is an endeavor of the plants towards vivification: this accounts for insects of various kinds corresponding to the odors emanating from plants. this does not arise from the heat of this world's sun, but from life operating through that heat according to the state of its recipients (as will be seen in what follows). 63. that there is a relation of all things of the created universe to man may be known from the foregoing statements, yet it can be seen only obscurely; whereas in the spiritual world this is seen clearly. in that world, also, there are all things of the three kingdoms, and in the midst of them the angel; he sees them about him, and also knows that they are representations of himself; yea, when the inmost of his understanding is opened he recognizes himself in them, and sees his image in them, hardly otherwise than as in a mirror. 64. from these and from many other concurring facts which there is not time to adduce now, it may be known with certainty that god is a man; and that the created universe is an image of him; for there is a general relation of all things to him, as well as a particular relation of all things to man. 65. the uses of all created things ascend by degrees from last things to man, and through man to god the creator, from whom they are. last things, as was said above, are each and all things of the mineral kingdom, which are materials of various kinds, of a stony, saline, oily, mineral, or metallic nature, covered over with soil formed of vegetable and animal matters reduced to the finest dust. in these lie concealed both the end and the beginning of all uses which are from life. the end of all uses is the endeavor to produce uses, and the beginning is the acting force from that endeavor. these pertain to the mineral kingdom. middle things are each and all things of the vegetable kingdom, such as grasses and herbs of every kind, plants and shrubs of every kind, and trees of every kind. the uses of these are for the service of each and all things of the animal kingdom, both imperfect and perfect. these they nourish, delight, and vivify; nourishing the bellies of animals with their vegetable substances, delighting the animal senses with taste, fragrance, and beauty, and vivifying their affections. the endeavor towards this is in these also from life. first things are each and all things of the animal kingdom. those are lowest therein which are called worms and insects, the middle are birds and beasts, and the highest, men; for in each kingdom there are lowest, middle and highest things, the lowest for the use of the middle, and the middle for the use of the highest. thus the uses of all created things ascend in order from outmost things to man, who is first in order. 66. in the natural world there are three degrees of ascent, and in the spiritual world there are three degrees of ascent. all animals are recipients of life. the more perfect are recipients of the life and the three degrees of the natural world, the less perfect of the life of two degrees of that world, and the imperfect of one of its degrees. but man alone is a recipient of the life both of the three degrees of the natural world and of the three degrees of the spiritual world. from this it is that man can be elevated above nature, while the animal cannot. man can think analytically and rationally of the civil and moral things that are within nature, also of the spiritual and celestial things that are above nature, yea, he can be so elevated into wisdom as even to see god. but the six degrees by which the uses of all created things ascend in their order even to god the creator, will be treated of in their proper place. from this summary, however, it can be seen that there is an ascent of all created things to the first, who alone is life, and that the uses of all things are the very recipients of life; and from this are the forms of uses. 67. it shall also be stated briefly how man ascends, that is, is elevated, from the lowest degree to the first. he is born into the lowest degree of the natural world; then, by means of knowledges, he is elevated into the second degree; and as he perfects his understanding by knowledges he is elevated into the third degree, and then becomes rational. the three degrees of ascent in the spiritual world are in man above the three natural degrees, and do not appear until he has put off the earthly body. when this takes place the first spiritual degree is open to him, afterwards the second, and finally the third; but this only with those who become angels of the third heaven; these are they that see god. those become angels of the second heaven and of the last heaven in whom the second degree and the last degree can be opened. each spiritual degree in man is opened according to his reception of divine love and divine wisdom from the lord. those who receive something thereof come into the first or lowest spiritual degree those who receive more into the second or middle spiritual degree, those who receive much into the third or highest degree. but those who receive nothing thereof remain in the natural degrees, and derive from the spiritual degrees nothing more than an ability to think and thence to speak, and to will and thence to act, but not with intelligence. 68. of the elevation of the interiors of man, which belong to his mind, this also should be known. in everything created by god there is reaction. in life alone there is action; reaction is caused by the action of life. because reaction takes place when any created thing is acted upon, it appears as if it belonged to what is created. thus in man it appears as if the reaction were his, because he has no other feeling than that life is his, when yet man is only a recipient of life. from this cause it is that man, by reason of his hereditary evil, reacts against god. but so far as man believes that all his life is from god, and that all good of life is from the action of god, and all evil of life from the reaction of man, so far his reaction comes to be from [god's] action, and man acts with god as if from himself. the equilibrium of all things is from action and simultaneous reaction, and in equilibrium everything must be. these things have been said lest man should believe that he himself ascends toward god from himself, and not from the lord. 69. the divine, apart from space, fills all spaces of the universe. there are two things proper to nature space and time. from these man in the natural world forms the ideas of his thought, and thereby his understanding. if he remains in these ideas, and does not raise his mind above them, he is in no wise able to perceive things spiritual and divine, for these he involves in ideas drawn from space and time; and so far as that is done the light [lumen] of his understanding becomes merely natural. to think from this lumen in reasoning about spiritual and divine things, is like thinking from the thick darkness of night about those things that appear only in the light of day. from this comes naturalism. but he who knows how to raise his mind above ideas of thought drawn from space and time, passes from thick darkness into light, and has discernment in things spiritual and divine, and finally sees the things which are in and from what is spiritual and divine; and then from that light he dispels the thick darkness of the natural lumen, and banishes its fallacies from the middle to the sides. every man who has understanding is able to transcend in thought these properties of nature, and actually does so; and he then affirms and sees that the divine, because omnipresent, is not in space. he is also able to affirm and to see the things that have been adduced above. but if he denies the divine omnipresence, and ascribes all things to nature, then he has no wish to be elevated, though he can be. 70. all who die and become angels put off the two abovementioned properties of nature, namely, space and time; for they then enter into spiritual light, in which objects of thought are truths, and objects of sight are like those in the natural world, but are correspondent to their thoughts. the objects of their thought which, as just said, are truths, derive nothing at all from space and time; and though the objects of their sight appear as if in space and in time, still the angels do not think from space and time. the reason is, that spaces and times there are not fixed, as in the natural world, but are changeable according to the states of their life. in the ideas of their thought, therefore, instead of space and time there are states of life, instead of spaces such things as have reference to states of love, and instead of times such things as have reference to states of wisdom. from this it is that spiritual thought, and spiritual speech therefrom, differ so much from natural thought and natural speech therefrom, as to have nothing in common except as regards the interiors of things, which are all spiritual. of this difference more will be said elsewhere. now, because the thoughts of angels derive nothing from space and time, but everything from states of life, when it is said that the divine fills spaces angels evidently cannot comprehend it, for they do not know what spaces are; but when, apart from any idea of space, it is said that the divine fills all things, they clearly comprehend it. 71. to make it clear that the merely natural man thinks of spiritual and divine things from space, and the spiritual man apart from space, let the following serve for illustration. the merely natural man thinks by means of ideas which he has acquired from objects of sight, in all of which there is figure partaking of length, breadth, and height, and of shape determined by these, either angular or circular. these [conceptions] are manifestly present in the ideas of his thought concerning things visible on earth; they are also in the ideas of his thought concerning those not visible, such as civil and moral affairs. this he is unconscious of; but they are nevertheless there, as continuations. with a spiritual man it is different, especially with an angel of heaven, whose thought has nothing in common with figure and form that derives anything from spiritual length, breadth, and height, but only with figure and form derived from the state of a thing resulting from the state of its life. consequently, instead of length of space he thinks of the good of a thing from good of life; instead of breadth of space, of the truth of a thing from truth of life; and instead of height, of the degrees of these. thus he thinks from the correspondence there is between things spiritual and things natural. from this correspondence it is that in the word "length" signifies the good of a thing, "breadth" the truth of a thing, and "height" the degrees of these. from this it is evident that an angel of heaven, when he thinks of the divine omnipresence, can by no means think otherwise than that the divine, apart from space, fills all things. and that which an angel thinks is truth, because the light which enlightens his understanding is divine wisdom. 72. this is the basis of thought concerning god; for without it, what is to be said of the creation of the universe by god-man, of his providence, omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, even if understood, cannot be kept in mind; since the merely natural man, even while he has these things in his understanding, sinks back into his life's love, which is that of his will; and that love dissipates these truths, and immerses his thought in space, where his lumen, which he calls rational, abides, not knowing that so far as he denies these things, he is irrational. that this is so, may be confirmed by the idea entertained of this truth, that god is a man. read with attention, i pray you, what has been said above (n. 11-13) and what follows after, and your understanding will accept it. but when you let your thought down into the natural lumen which derives from space, will not these things be seen as paradoxes? and if you let it down far, will you not reject them? this is why it is said that the divine fills all spaces of the universe, and why it is not said that god-man fills them. for if this were said, the merely natural lumen would not assent. but to the proposition that the divine fills all space, it does assent, because this agrees with the mode of speech of the theologians, that god is omnipresent, and hears and knows all things. (on this subject, more may be seen above, n. 7-10.). 73. the divine is in all time, apart from time. as the divine, apart from space, is in all space, so also, apart from time, is it in all time. for nothing which is proper to nature can be predicated of the divine, and space and time are proper to nature. space in nature is measurable, and so is time. this is measured by days, weeks, months, years, and centuries; days are measured by hours; weeks and months by days; years by the four seasons; and centuries by years. nature derives this measurement from the apparent revolution and annual motion of the sun of the world. but in the spiritual world it is different. the progressions of life in that world appear in like manner to be in time, for those there live with one another as men in the world live with one another; and this is not possible without the appearance of time. but time there is not divided into periods as in the world, for their sun is constantly in the east and is never moved away; for it is the lord's divine love that appears to them as a sun. wherefore they have no days, weeks, months, years, centuries, but in place of these there are states of life, by which a distinction is made which cannot be called, however, a distinction into periods, but into states. consequently, the angels do not know what time is, and when it is mentioned they perceive in place of it state; and when state determines time, time is only an appearance. for joyfulness of state makes time seem short, and joylessness of state makes time seem long; from which it is evident that time in the spiritual world is nothing but quality of state. it is from this that in the word, "hours," "days," "weeks," "months," and "years," signify states and progressions of state in series and in the aggregate; and when times are predicated of the church, by its "morning" is meant its first state, by "mid-day" its fullness by "evening" its decline, and by "night" its end. the four seasons of the year "spring," "summer," "autumn," and "winter," have a like meaning. 74. from the above it can be seen that time makes one with thought from affection; for from that is the quality of man's state. and with progressions of time, in the spiritual world, distances in progress through space coincide; as may be shown from many things. for instance, in the spiritual world ways are actually shortened or are lengthened in accordance with the longings that are of thought from affection. from this, also, comes the expression, "spaces of time." moreover, in cases where thought does not join itself to its proper affection in man, as in sleep, the lapse of time is not noticed. 75. now as times which are proper to nature in its world are in the spiritual world pure states, which appear progressive because angels and spirits are finite, it may be seen that in god they are not progressive because he is infinite, and infinite things in him are one (as has been shown above, n. 17-22). from this it follows that the divine in all time is apart from time. 76. he who has no knowledge of god apart from time and is unable from any perception to think of him, is thus utterly unable to conceive of eternity in any other way than as an eternity of time; in which case, in thinking of god from eternity he must needs become bewildered; for he thinks with regard to a beginning, and beginning has exclusive reference to time. his bewilderment arises from the idea that god had existence from himself, from which he rushes headlong into an origin of nature from herself; and from this idea he can be extricated only by a spiritual or angelic idea of eternity, which is an idea apart from time; and when time is separated, the eternal and the divine are the same, and the divine is the divine in itself, not from itself. the angels declare that while they can conceive of god from eternity, they can in no way conceive of nature from eternity, still less of nature from herself and not at all of nature as nature in herself. for that which is in itself is the very esse, from which all things are; esse in itself is very life, which is the divine love of divine wisdom and the divine wisdom of divine love. for the angels this is the eternal, an eternal as removed from time as the uncreated is from the created, or the infinite from the finite, between which, in fact, there is no ratio. 77. the divine in things greatest and least is the same. this follows from the two preceding articles, that the divine apart from space is in all space, and apart from time is in all time. moreover, there are spaces greater and greatest, and lesser and least; and since spaces and times, as said above, make one, it is the same with times. in these the divine is the same, because the divine is not varying and changeable, as everything is which belongs to nature, but is unvarying and unchangeable, consequently the same everywhere and always. 78. it seems as if the divine were not the same in one person as in another; as if, for instance, it were different in the wise and in the simple, or in an old man and in a child. but this is a fallacy arising from appearance; the man is different, but the divine in him is not different. man is a recipient, and the recipient or receptacle is what varies. a wise man is a recipient of divine love and divine wisdom more adequately, and therefore more fully, than a simple man; and an old man who is also wise, more than a little child or boy; yet the divine is the same in the one as in the other. it is in like manner a fallacy arising from appearance, that the divine is different with angels of heaven from what it is with men on the earth, because the angels of heaven are in wisdom ineffable, while men are not; but the seeming difference is not in the lord but in the subjects, according to the quality of their reception of the divine. 79. that the divine is the same in things greatest and least, may be shown by means of heaven and by means of an angel there. the divine in the whole heaven and the divine in an angel is the same; therefore even the whole heaven may appear as one angel. so is it with the church, and with a man of the church. the greatest form receptive of the divine is the whole heaven together with the whole church; the least is an angel of heaven and a man of the church. sometimes an entire society of heaven has appeared to me as one angel-man; and it was told that it may appear like a man as large as a giant, or like a man as small as an infant; and this, because the divine in things greatest and least is the same. 80. the divine is also the same in the greatest and in the least of all created things that are not alive; for it is in all the good of their use. these, moreover, are not alive for the reason that they are not forms of life but forms of uses; and the form varies according to the excellence of the use. but how the divine is in these things will be stated in what follows, where creation is treated of. 81. put away space, and deny the possibility of a vacuum, and then think of divine love and of divine wisdom as being essence itself, space having been put away and a vacuum denied. then think according to space; and you will perceive that the divine, in the greatest and in the least things of space, is the same; for in essence abstracted from space there is neither great nor small, but only the same. 82. something shall now be said about vacuum. i once heard angels talking with newton about vacuum, and saying that they could not tolerate the idea of a vacuum as being nothing, for the reason that in their world which is spiritual, and which is within or above the spaces and times of the natural world, they equally feel, think, are affected, love, will, breathe, yea, speak and act, which would be utterly impossible in a vacuum which is nothing, since nothing is nothing, and of nothing not anything can be affirmed. newton said that he now knew that the divine, which is being itself, fills all things, and that to him the idea of nothing as applied to vacuum is horrible, because that idea is destructive of all things; and he exhorts those who talk with him about vacuum to guard against the idea of nothing, comparing it to a swoon, because in nothing no real activity of mind is possible. 83. part second. divine love and divine wisdom appear in the spiritual world as a sun. there are two worlds, the spiritual and the natural. the spiritual world does not draw anything from the natural, nor the natural world from the spiritual. the two are totally distinct, and communicate only by correspondences, the nature of which has been abundantly shown elsewhere. to illustrate this by an example: heat in the natural world corresponds to the good of charity in the spiritual world, and light in the natural world corresponds to the truth of faith in the spiritual world; and who does not see that heat and the good of charity, and that light and the truth of faith, are wholly distinct? at first sight they appear as distinct as two entirely different things. they so appear when one inquires what the good of charity has in common with heat, or the truth of faith with light; when in fact, spiritual heat is that good, and spiritual light is that truth. although these things are in themselves so distinct, they make one by correspondence. they make one in this way: when man reads, in the word, of heat and light, the spirits and angels who are with the man perceive charity instead of heat, and faith instead of light. this example is adduced, in order that it may be known that the two worlds, the spiritual and the natural, are so distinct as to have nothing in common with each other; yet are so created as to have communication, yea, conjunction by means of correspondences. 84. since these two worlds are so distinct, it can be seen very clearly that the spiritual world is under another sun than the natural world. for in the spiritual world, must as in the natural, there is heat and light; but the heat there, as well as the light, is spiritual; and spiritual heat is the good of charity, and spiritual light is the truth of faith. now since heat and light can originate only in a sun, it is evident that the spiritual world has a different sun from the natural world; and further, that the sun of the spiritual world in its essence is such that spiritual heat and light can come forth from it; whereas the sun of the natural world in its essence is such that natural heat can come forth from it. everything spiritual has relation to good and truth, and can spring from no other source than divine love and divine wisdom; for all good is of love and all truth is of wisdom; that they have no other origin any discerning man can see. 85. that there is any other sun than that of the natural world has hitherto been unknown. the reason is, that the spiritual of man has so far passed over into his natural, that he does not know what the spiritual is, and thus does not know that there is a spiritual world, the abode of spirits and angels, other than and different from the natural world. since the spiritual world has lain so deeply hidden from the knowledge of those who are in the natural world, it has pleased the lord to open the sight of my spirit, that i might see the things which are in that world, just as i see those in the natural world, and might afterwards describe that world; which has been done in the work heaven and hell, in one chapter of which the sun of the spiritual world is treated of. for that sun has been seen by me; and it appeared of the same size as the sun of the natural world; also fiery like it, but more glowing. it has also been made known to me that the whole angelic heaven is under that sun; and that angels of the third heaven see it constantly, angels of the second heaven very often, and angels of the first or outmost heaven sometimes. that all their heat and all their light, as well as all things that are manifest in that world, are from that sun will be seen in what follows. 86. that sun is not the lord himself, but is from the lord. it is the divine love and the divine wisdom proceeding from him that appear as a sun in that world. and because love and wisdom in the lord are one (as shown in part i.), that sun is said to be divine love; for divine wisdom is of divine love, consequently is love. 87. since love and fire mutually correspond, that sun appears before the eyes of the angels as fiery; for angels cannot see love with their eyes, but they see in the place of love what corresponds to it. for angels, equally with men, have an internal and an external; it is their internal that thinks and is wise, and that wills and loves; it is their external that feels, sees, speaks and acts. all their externals are correspondences of internals; but the correspondences are spiritual, not natural. moreover, divine love is felt as fire by spiritual beings. for this reason "fire," when mentioned in the word, signifies love. in the israelitish church, "holy fire" signified love; and this is why, in prayers to god, it is customary to ask that "heavenly fire," that is divine love, "may kindle the heart." 88. with such a difference between the spiritual and the natural (as shown above, n. 83), nothing from the sun of the natural world, that is, nothing of its heat and light, nor anything pertaining to any earthly object, can pass over into the spiritual world. to the spiritual world the light of the natural world is thick darkness, and its heat is death. nevertheless, the heat of the world can be vivified by the influx of heavenly heat, and the light of the world can be illumined by the influx of heavenly light. influx is effected by correspondences; and it cannot be effected by continuity. 89. out of the sun that takes form [existit] from the divine love and the divine wisdom, heat and light go forth. in the spiritual world where angels and spirits are there are heat and light, just as in the natural world where men are; moreover in like manner as heat, the heat is felt and the light is seen as light. still the heat and light of the spiritual world and of the natural world are (as said above) so entirely different as to have nothing in common. they differ one from the other as what is alive differs from what is dead. the heat of the spiritual world in itself is alive; so is the light; but the heat of the natural world in itself is dead; so is its light. for the heat and light of the spiritual world go forth from a sun that is pure love, while the heat and light of the natural world go forth from a sun that is pure fire; and love is alive, and the divine love is life itself; while fire is dead, and solar fire is death itself, and may be so called because it has nothing whatever of life in it. 90. since angels are spiritual they can live in no other than spiritual heat and light, while men can live in no other than natural heat and light; for what is spiritual accords with what is spiritual, and what is natural with what is natural. if an angel were to derive the least particle from natural heat and light he would perish; for it is totally discordant with his life. as to the interiors of the mind every man is a spirit. when he dies he withdraws entirely from the world of nature, leaving behind him all its belongings, and enters a world where there is nothing of nature. in that world he lives so separated from nature that there is no communication whatever by continuity, that is, as between what is purer and grosser, but only like that between what is prior and posterior; and between such no communication is possible except by correspondences. from this it can be seen that spiritual heat is not a purer natural heat, or spiritual light a purer natural light, but that they are altogether of a different essence; for spiritual heat and light derive their essence from a sun which is pure love, and this is life itself; while natural heat and light derive their essence from a sun which is pure fire, in which (as said above) there is absolutely nothing of life. 91. such being the difference between the heat and light of the two worlds, it is very evident why those who are in the one world cannot see those who are in the other world. for the eyes of man, who sees from natural light, are of the substance of his world, and the eyes of an angel are of the substance of his world; thus in both cases they are formed for the proper reception of their own light. from all this it can be seen from how much ignorance those think who, because they cannot see angels and spirits with their eyes, are unwilling to believe them to be men. 92. hitherto it has not been known that angels and spirits are in a totally different light and different heat from men. it has not been known even that another light and another heat are possible. for man in his thought has not penetrated beyond the interior or purer things of nature. and for this reason many have placed the abodes of angels and spirits in the ether, and some in the stars thus within nature, and not above or outside of it. but, in truth, angels and spirits are entirely above or outside of nature, and are in their own world, which is under another sun. and since in that world spaces are appearances (as was shown above), angels and spirits cannot be said to be in the ether or in the stars; in fact, they are present with man, conjoined to the affection and thought of his spirit; since man is a spirit, and because of that thinks and wills; consequently the spiritual world is wherever man is, and in no wise away from him. in a word, every man as regards the interiors of his mind is in that world, in the midst of spirits and angels there; and he thinks from its light, and loves from its heat. 93. the sun of the spiritual world is not god, but is a proceeding from the divine love and divine wisdom of god-man; so also are the heat and light from that sun. by that sun which is before the eyes of the angels, and from which they have heat and light, is not meant the lord himself, but the first proceeding from him, which is the highest [degree] of spiritual heat. the highest [degree] of spiritual heat is spiritual fire, which is divine love and divine wisdom in their first correspondence. on this account that sun appears fiery, and to the angels is fiery, but not to men. fire which is fire to men is not spiritual, but natural; and between the two fires there is a difference like the difference between what is alive and what is dead. therefore the spiritual sun by its heat vivifies spiritual beings and renews spiritual objects. the natural sun does the same for natural beings and natural objects; yet not from itself, but by means of an influx of spiritual heat, to which it renders aid as a kind of substitute. 94. this spiritual fire, in which also there is light in its origin, becomes spiritual heat and light, which decrease in their going forth. this decrease is effected by degrees, which will be treated of in what follows. the ancients represented this by circles glowing with fire and resplendent with light around the head of god, as is common also at the present day in paintings representing god as a man. 95. that love begets heat, and wisdom light, is manifest from actual experience. when man loves he grows warm, and when he thinks from wisdom he sees things as it were in light. and from this it is evident that the first proceeding of love is heat, and that the first proceeding of wisdom is light. that they are also correspondences is obvious; for heat takes place [existit] not in love itself, but from love in the will, and thence in the body; and light takes place not in wisdom, but in the thought of the understanding, and thence in the speech. consequently love and wisdom are the essence and life of heat and light. heat and light are what proceed, and because they are what proceed, they are also correspondences. 96. that spiritual light is altogether distinct from natural light, any one may know if he observes the thoughts of his mind. for when the mind thinks, it sees its objects in light, and they who think spiritually see truths, and this at midnight just as well as in the daytime. for this reason light is predicated of the understanding, and the understanding is said to see; thus one sometimes declares of something which another says that he sees (that is, understands) that it is so. the understanding, because it is spiritual, cannot thus see by natural light, for natural light does not inhere in man, but withdraws with the sun. from this it is obvious that the understanding enjoys a light different from that of the eye, and that this light is from a different origin. 97. let every one beware of thinking that the sun of the spiritual world is god himself. god himself is a man. the first proceeding from his love and wisdom is that fiery spiritual [substance] which appears before the angels as a sun. when, therefore, the lord manifests himself to the angels in person, he manifests himself as a man; and this sometimes in the sun, sometimes outside of it. 98. it is from this correspondence that in the lord the lord is called not only a "sun" but also "fire" and "light." and by the "sun" is meant himself as to divine love and divine wisdom together; by "fire" himself in respect to divine love, and by "light" himself in respect to divine wisdom. 99. spiritual heat and light in proceeding from the lord as a sun, make one, just as his divine love and divine wisdom make one. how divine love and divine wisdom in the lord make one has been explained in part i.; in like manner heat and light make one, because they proceed from these, and the things which proceed make one by virtue of their correspondence, heat, corresponding to love, and light to wisdom. from this it follows that as divine love is divine esse [being] and divine wisdom is divine existere [taking form] (as shown above, n. 14-16), so spiritual heat is thy divine proceeding from divine esse, and spiritual light is the divine proceeding from divine existere. and as by that union divine love is of divine wisdom, and divine wisdom is of divine love (as shown above, n. 35-39), so spiritual heat is of spiritual light, and spiritual light is of spiritual heat and because there is such a union it follows that heat and light, in proceeding from the lord as a sun, are one. it will be seen, however, in what follows, that they are not received as one by angels and men. 100. the heat and light that proceed from the lord as a sun are what in an eminent sense are called the spiritual, and they are called the spiritual in the singular number, because they are one; when, therefore, the spiritual is mentioned in the following pages, it is meant both these together. from that spiritual it is that the whole of that world is called spiritual. through that spiritual, all things of that world derive their origin, and also their name. that heat and that light are called the spiritual, because god is called spirit, and god as spirit is the spiritual going forth. god, by virtue of his own very essence, is called jehovah; but by means of that going forth he vivifies and enlightens angels of heaven and men of the church. consequently, vivification and enlightenment are said to be effected by the spirit of jehovah. 101. that heat and light, that is, the spiritual going forth from the lord as a sun, make one, may be illustrated by the heat and light that go forth from the sun of the natural world. these two also make one in their going out from that sun. that they do not make one on earth is owing not to the sun, but to the earth. for the earth revolves daily round its axis, and has a yearly motion following the ecliptic, which gives the appearance that heat and light do not make one. for in the middle of summer there is more of heat than of light, and in the middle of winter more of light than of heat. in the spiritual world it is the same, except that there is in that world no daily or yearly motion of the earth; but the angels turn themselves, some more, some less, to the lord; those who turn themselves more, receive more from heat and less from light, and those who turn themselves less to the lord receive more from light and less from heat. from this it is that the heavens, which consist of angels, are divided into two kingdoms, one called celestial, the other spiritual. the celestial angels receive more from heat, and the spiritual angels more from light. moreover, the lands they inhabit vary in appearance according to their reception of heat and light. if this change of state of the angels is substituted for the motion of the earth, the correspondence is complete. 102. in what follows it will be seen, also, that all spiritual things that originate through the heat and light of their sun, make one in like manner when regarded in themselves, but when regarded as proceeding from the affections of the angels do not make one. when heat and light make one in the heavens, it is with the angels as if it were spring; but when they do not make one, it is either like summer or like winter not like the winter in the frigid zones, but like the winter in the warmer zone. thus reception of love and wisdom in equal measure is the very angelic state, and therefore an angel is an angel of heaven according to the union in him of love and wisdom. it is the same with the man of the church, when love and wisdom, that is, charity and faith, make one in him. 103. the sun of the spiritual world appears at a middle altitude, far off from the angels, like the sun of the natural world from men. most people take with them out of the world an idea of god, as being above the head, on high, and an idea of the lord, as living in heaven among the angels. they take with them this idea of god because, in the word, god is called the "most high," and is said to "dwell on high;" therefore in prayer and worship men raise their eyes and hands upwards, not knowing that by "the most high" is signified the inmost. they take with them the idea of the lord as being in heaven among the angels, because men think of him as they think of another man, some thinking of him as they think of an angel, not knowing that the lord is the very and only god who rules the universe, who if he were among the angels in heaven, could not have the universe under his gaze and under his care and government. and unless he shone as a sun before those who are in the spiritual world, angels could have no light; for angels are spiritual, and therefore no other than spiritual light is in accord with their essence. that there is light in the heavens, immensely exceeding the light on earth, will be seen below where degrees are discussed. 104. as regards the sun, therefore, from which angels have light and heat, it appears above the lands on which the angels dwell, at an elevation of about forty-five degrees, which is the middle altitude; it also appears far off from the angels like the sun of the world from men. the sun appears constantly at that altitude and at that distance, and does not move from its place. hence it is that angels have no times divided into days and years, nor any progression of the day from morning, through midday to evening and into night; nor any progression of the year from spring, through summer to autumn, into winter; but there is perpetual light and perpetual spring; consequently, with the angels, as was said above, in place of times there are states. 105. the sun of the spiritual world appears at a middle altitude chiefly for the following reasons: first, the heat and light which proceed from that sun are thus at their medium intensity, consequently are equally proportioned and thus properly attempered. for if the sun were to appear above the middle altitude more heat than light would be perceived, if below it more light than heat; as is the case on earth when the sun is above or below the middle of the sky; when above, the heat increases beyond the light, when below, the light increases beyond the heat; for light remains the same in summer and in winter, but heat increases and diminishes according to the degree of the sun's altitude. secondly, the sun of the spiritual world appears in a middle altitude above the angelic heaven, because there is thus a perpetual spring in all the angelic heavens, whereby the angels are in a state of peace; for this state corresponds to springtime on earth. thirdly, angels are thus enabled to turn their faces constantly to the lord, and behold him with their eyes. for at every turn of their bodies, the angels have the east, thus the lord, before their faces. this is peculiar to that world, and would not be the case if the sun of that world were to appear above or below the middle altitude, and least of all if it were to appear overhead in the zenith. 106. if the sun of the spiritual world did not appear far off from the angels, like the sun of the natural world from men, the whole angelic heaven, and hell under it, and our terraqueous globe under these, would not be under the view, the care, the omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and providence of the lord; comparatively as the sun of our world, if it were not at such a distance from the earth as it appears, could not be present and powerful in all lands by its heat and light, and therefore could not render its aid, as a kind of substitute, to the sun of the spiritual world. 107. it is very necessary to be known that there are two suns, one spiritual, the other natural; a spiritual sun for those who are in the spiritual world, and a natural sun for those who are in the natural world. unless this is known, nothing can be properly understood about creation and about man, which are the subjects here to be treated of. effects may, it is true, be observed, but unless at the same time the causes of effects are seen, effects can only appear as it were in the darkness of night. 108. the distance between the sun and the angels in the spiritual world is an appearance according to reception by them of divine love and divine wisdom. all fallacies which prevail with the evil and the simple arise from appearances which have been confirmed. so long as appearances remain appearances, they are apparent truths, according to which every one may think and speak; but when they are accepted as real truths, which is done when they are confirmed, then apparent truths become falsities and fallacies. for example: it is an appearance that the sun is borne around the earth daily, and follows yearly the path of the ecliptic. so long as this appearance is not confirmed it is an apparent truth, according to which any one may think and speak; for he may say that the sun rises and sets and thereby causes morning, midday, evening, and night; also that the sun is now in such or such a degree of the ecliptic or of its altitude, and thereby causes spring, summer, autumn, and winter. but when this appearance is confirmed as the real truth, then the confirmer thinks and utters a falsity springing from a fallacy. it is the same with innumerable other appearances, not only in natural, civil, and moral, but also in spiritual affairs. 109. it is the same with the distance of the sun of the spiritual world, which sun is the first proceeding of the lord's divine love and divine wisdom. the truth is that there is no distance, but that the distance is an appearance according to the reception of divine love and wisdom by the angels in their degree. that distances, in the spiritual world, are appearances may be seen from what has been shown above (as in n. 7-9, that the divine is not in space; and in n. 69-72, that the divine, apart from space, fills all spaces). if there are no spaces, there are no distances, or, what is the same, if spaces are appearances, distances also are appearances, for distances are of space. 110. the sun of the spiritual world appears at a distance from the angels, because they receive divine love and divine wisdom in the measure of heat and light that is adequate to their states. for an angel, because created and finite, cannot receive the lord in the first degree of heat and light, such as is in the sun; if he did he would be entirely consumed. the lord, therefore, is received by angels in a degree of heat and light corresponding to their love and wisdom. the following may serve for illustration. an angel of the lowest heaven cannot ascend to the angels of the third heaven; for if he ascends and enters their heaven, he falls into a kind of swoon, and his life as it were, strives with death; the reason is that he has a less degree of love and wisdom, and the heat of his love and the light of his wisdom are in the same degree as his love and wisdom. what, then, would be the result if an angel were even to ascend toward the sun, and come into its fire? on account of the differences of reception of the lord by the angels, the heavens also appear separate from one another. the highest heaven, which is called the third, appears above the second, and the second above the first; not that the heavens are apart, but they appear to be apart, for the lord is present equally with those who are in the lowest heaven and with those who are in the third heaven. that which causes the appearance of distance is not in the lord but in the subjects, that is, the angels. 111. that this is so can hardly be comprehended by a natural idea, because in such there is space, but by a spiritual idea, such as angels have, it can be comprehended, because in such there is no space. yet even by a natural idea this much can be comprehended, that love and wisdom (or what is the same, the lord, who is divine love and divine wisdom) cannot advance through spaces, but is present with each one according to reception. that the lord is present with all, he teaches in matthew (28:20), and that he makes his abode with those who love him, in john (14:23). 112. as this has been proved by means of the heavens and the angels, it may seem a matter of too exalted wisdom; but the same is true of men. men, as to the interiors of their minds, are warmed and illuminated by that same sun. they are warmed by its heat and illuminated by its light in the measure in which they receive love and wisdom from the lord. the difference between angels and men is that angels are under the spiritual sun only, but men are not only under that sun, but also under the sun of this world; for men's bodies can begin and continue to exist only under both suns; but not so the bodies of angels, which are spiritual. 113. angels are in the lord, and the lord in them; and because angels are recipients, the lord alone is heaven. heaven is called "the dwelling-place of god," also "the throne of god," and from this it is believed that god is there as is a king in his kingdom. but god (that is, the lord) is in the sun above the heavens, and by his presence in heat and light, is in the heavens (as is shown in the last two paragraphs). but although the lord is present in heaven in that manner, still he is there as he is in himself. for (as shown just above, n. 108-112) the distance between the sun and heaven is not distance, but appearance of distance; and since that distance is only an appearance it follows that the lord himself is in heaven, for he is in the love and wisdom of the angels of heaven; and since he is in the love and wisdom of all angels, and the angel constitute heaven, he is in the whole heaven. 114. the lord not only is in heaven, but also is heaven itself; for love and wisdom are what make the angel, and these two are the lord's in the angels; from which it follows that the lord is heaven. for angels are not angels from what is their own; what is their own is altogether like what is man's own, which is evil. an angel's own is such because all angels were once men, and this own clings to the angels from their birth. it is only put aside, and so far as it is put aside the angels receive love and wisdom, that is, the lord, in themselves. any one, if he will only elevate his understanding a little, can see that the lord can dwell in angels, only in what is his, that is, in what is his very own, which is love and wisdom, and not at all in the selfhood of angels, which is evil. from this it is, that so far as evil is put away so far the lord is in them, and so far they are angels. the very angelic of heaven is love divine and wisdom divine. this divine is called the angelic when it is in angels. from this, again, it is evident that angels are angels from the lord, and not from themselves; consequently, the same is true of heaven. 115. but how the lord is in an angel and an angel in the lord cannot be comprehended, unless the nature of their conjunction is known. conjunction is of the lord with the angel and of the angel with the lord; conjunction, therefore, is reciprocal. on the part of the angel it is as follows. the angel, in like manner as man, has no other perception than that he is in love and wisdom from himself, consequently that love and wisdom are, as it were, his or his own. unless he so perceived there would be no conjunction, thus the lord would not be in him, nor he in the lord. nor can it be possible for the lord to be in any angel or man, unless the one in whom the lord is, with love and wisdom, has a perception and sense as if they were his. by this means the lord is not only received, but also, when received, is retained, and likewise loved in return. and by this, also, the angel is made wise and continues wise. who can wish to love the lord and his neighbor, and who can wish to be wise, without a sense and perception that what he loves, learns, and imbibes is, as it were, his own? who otherwise can retain it in himself? if this were not so, the inflowing love and wisdom would have no abiding-place, for it would flow through and not affect; thus an angel would not be an angel, nor would man be a man; he would be merely like something inanimate. from all this it can be seen that there must be an ability to reciprocate that there may be conjunction. 116. it shall now be explained how it comes that an angel perceives and feels as his, and thus receives and retains that which yet is not his; for, as was said above, an angel is not an angel from what is his, but from those things which he has from the lord. the essence of the matter is this:every angel has freedom and rationality; these two he has to the end that he may be capable of receiving love and wisdom from the lord. yet neither of these, freedom nor rationality, is his, they are the lord's in him. but since the two are intimately conjoined to his life, so intimately that they may be said to be joined into it, they appear to be his own. it is from them that he is able to think and will, and to speak and act; and what he thinks, wills, speaks, and does from them, appears as if it were from himself. this gives him the ability to reciprocate, and by means of this conjunction is possible. yet so far as an angel believes that love and wisdom are really in him, and thus lays claim to them for himself as if they were his, so far the angelic is not in him, and therefore he has no conjunction with the lord; for he is not in truth, and as truth makes one with the light of heaven, so far he cannot be in heaven; for he thereby denies that he lives from the lord, and believes that he lives from himself, and that he therefore possesses divine essence. in these two, freedom and rationality, the life which is called angelic and human consists. from all this it can be seen that for the sake of conjunction with the lord, the angel has the ability to reciprocate, but that this ability, in itself considered, is not his but the lord's. from this it is, that if he abuses his ability to reciprocate, by which he perceives and feels as his what is the lord's, which is done by appropriating it to himself he falls from the angelic state. that conjunction is reciprocal, the lord himself teaches (john 14:20-24; 154-6); also that the conjunction of the lord with man and of man with the lord, is in those things of the lord that are called his words (john 15:7). 117. some are of the opinion that adam was in such liberty or freedom of choice as to be able to love god and be wise from himself, and that this freedom of choice was lost in his posterity. but this is an error; for man is not life, but is a recipient of life (see above, n. 4-6, 54-60); and he who is a recipient of life cannot love and be wise from anything of his own; consequently, when adam willed to be wise and to love from what was his own he fell from wisdom and love, and was cast out of paradise. 118. what has just been said of an angel is likewise true of heaven, which consists of angels, since the divine in greatest and least things is the same (as was shown above n. 77-82). what is said of an angel and of heaven is likewise true of man and the church, for the angel of heaven and the man of the church act as one through conjunction; in fact, a man of the church is an angel, in respect to the interiors which are of his mind. by a man of the church is meant a man in whom the church is. 119. in the spiritual world the east is where the lord appears as a sun, and from that the other quarters are determined. the sun of the spiritual world and its essence, also its heat and light, and the presence of the lord thereby, have been treated of; a description is now to be given of the quarters in the spiritual world. that sun and that world are treated of, because god and love and wisdom are treated of; and to treat of those subjects except from their very origin would be to proceed from effects, not from causes. yet from effects nothing but effects can be learned; when effects alone are considered no cause is brought to light; but causes reveal effects. to know effects from causes is to be wise; but to search for causes from effects is not to be wise, because fallacies then present themselves, which the investigator calls causes, and this is to turn wisdom into foolishness. causes are things prior, and effects are things posterior; and things prior cannot be seen from things posterior, but things posterior can be seen from things prior. this is order. for this reason the spiritual world is here first treated of, for all causes are there; and afterwards the natural world, where all things that appear are effects. 120. the quarters in the spiritual world shall now be spoken of. there are quarters there in like manner as in the natural world, but like that world itself, they are spiritual; while the quarters in the natural world, like that world itself, are natural; the difference between them therefore is so great that they have nothing in common. in each world there are four quarters, which are called east, west, south, and north. in the natural world, these four quarters are constant, determined by the sun on the meridian; opposite this is north, on one side is east, on the other, west. these quarters are determined by the meridian of each place; for the sun's station on the meridian at each point is always the same, and is therefore fixed. in the spiritual world it is different. the quarters there are determined by the sun of that world, which appears constantly in its own place, and where it appears is the east; consequently the determination of the quarters in that world is not from the south, as in the natural world, but from the east, opposite to this is west, on one side is south, and on the other, north. but that these quarters are not determined by the sun, but by the inhabitants of that world, who are angels and spirits, will be seen in what follows. 121. as these quarters, by virtue of their origin, which is the lord as a sun, are spiritual, so the dwelling-places of angels and spirits, all of which are according to these quarters, are also spiritual. they are spiritual, because angels and spirits have their places of abode according to their reception of love and wisdom from the lord. those in a higher degree of love dwell in the east; those in a lower degree of love in the west; those in a higher degree of wisdom, in the south; and those in a lower degree of wisdom, in the north. from this it is that, in the word, by "the east," in the highest sense, is meant the lord, and in a relative sense love to him; by the "west," a diminishing love to him; by the "south" wisdom in light; and by the "north" wisdom in shade; or similar things relatively to the state of those who are treated of. 122. since the east is the point from which all quarters in the spiritual world are determined, and by the east, in the highest sense, is meant the lord, and also divine love, it is evident that the source from which all things are, is the lord and love to him, and that one is remote from the lord in the measure in which he is not in that love, and dwells either in the west, or in the south, or in the north, at distances corresponding to the reception of love. 123. since the lord as a sun is constantly in the east, the ancients, with whom all things of worship were representative of spiritual things, turned their faces to the east in their devotions; and that they might do the like in all worship, they turned their temples also in that direction. from this it is that, at the present day, churches are built in like manner. 124. the quarters in the spiritual world are not from the lord as a sun, but from the angels according to reception. it has been stated that the angels dwell separate from each other; some in the eastern quarter, some in the western, some in the southern, and some in the northern; and that those who dwell in the eastern quarter are in a higher degree of love; those in the western, in a lower degree of love; those in the southern, in the light of wisdom; and those in the northern, in the shade of wisdom. this diversity of dwelling-places appears as though it were from the lord as a sun, when, in fact it is from the angels. the lord is not in a greater and lesser degree of love and wisdom, that is, as a sun he is not in a greater or lesser degree of heat and light with one than with another, for he is everywhere the same. but he is not received by one in the same degree as by another; and this makes them appear to themselves to be more or less distant from one another, and also variously as regards the quarters. from this it follows that quarters in the spiritual world are nothing else than various receptions of love and wisdom, and thence of heat and light from the lord as a sun. that this is so is plain from what was shown above (n. 108-112), that in the spiritual world distances are appearances. 125. as the quarters are various receptions of love and wisdom by angels, the variety from which that appearance springs shall now be explained. the lord is in the angel, and the angel in the lord (as was shown in a preceding article). but on account of the appearance that the lord as a sun is outside of the angel, there is also the appearance that the lord sees him from the sun, and that he sees the lord in the sun. this is almost like the appearance of an image in a mirror. speaking, therefore, according to that appearance, it may be said that the lord sees and looks at each one face to face, but that angels, on their part, do not thus behold the lord. those who are in love to the lord from the lord see him directly in front; these, therefore, are in the east and the west; but those who are more in wisdom see the lord obliquely to the right, and those who are less in wisdom obliquely to the left; therefore the former are in the south, and the latter in the north. the view of these is oblique because love and wisdom (as has been said before), although they proceed from the lord as one, are not received as one by angels; and the wisdom which is in excess of the love, while it appears as wisdom, is not wisdom, because in the overplus of wisdom there is no life from love. from all this it is evident whence comes the diversity of reception according to which angels appear to dwell according to quarters in the spiritual world. 126. that this variety of reception of love and wisdom is what gives rise to the quarters in the spiritual world can be seen from the fact that an angel changes his quarter according to the increase or decrease of love with him; from which it is evident that the quarter is not from the lord as a sun, but from the angel according to reception. it is the same with man as regards his spirit. in respect to his spirit, he is in some quarter of the spiritual world, whatever quarter of the natural world he may be in, for quarters in the spiritual world, as has been said above, have nothing in common with quarters in the natural world. man is in the latter as regards his body, but in the former as regards his spirit. 127. in order that love and wisdom may make one in an angel or in a man, there are pairs in all the things of his body. the eyes, ears, and nostrils are pairs; the hands, loins, and feet are pairs; the brain is divided into two hemispheres, the heart into two chambers, the lungs into two lobes, and in like manner the other parts. thus in angel and man there is right and left; and all their right parts have relation to the love from which wisdom comes; and all the left parts, to the wisdom which is from love; or, what is the same, all the right parts have relation to the good from which truth comes; and all the left parts, to the truth that is from good. angel and man have these pairs in order that love and wisdom, or good and truth, may act as one, and as one, may have regard to the lord. but of this more in what follows. 128. from all this it can be seen in what fallacy and consequent falsity those are, who suppose that the lord bestows heaven arbitrarily, or arbitrarily grants one to become wise and loving more than another, when, in truth, the lord is just as desirous that one may become wise and be saved as another. for he provides means for all; and every one becomes wise and is saved in the measure in which he accepts these means, and lives in accordance with them. for the lord is the same with one as with another; but the recipients, who are angels and men, are unlike by reason of unlike reception and life. that this is so can be seen from what has just been said of spiritual quarters, and of the dwelling-places of the angels in accordance with them; namely, that this diversity is not from the lord but from the recipients. 129. angels turn their faces constantly to the lord as a sun, and thus have the south to the right, the north to the left, and the west behind them. all that is here said of angels, and of their turning to the lord as a sun, is to be understood also of man, as regards his spirit. for man in respect to his mind is a spirit, and if he be in love and wisdom, is an angel; consequently, after death, when he has put off his externals, which he had derived from the natural world, he becomes a spirit or an angel. and because angels turn their faces constantly toward the sun in the east, thus toward the lord, it is said also of any man who is in love and wisdom from the lord, that "he sees god," that "he looks to god," that "he has god before his eyes," by which is meant that he lives as an angel does. such things are spoken of in the world, because they actually take place [existunt] both in heaven and in the spirit of man. who does not look before himself to god when he prays, to whatever quarter his face may be turned? 130. angels turn their faces constantly to the lord as a sun, because they are in the lord, and the lord in them; and the lord interiorly leads their affections and thoughts, and turns them constantly to himself; consequently they cannot do otherwise than look towards the east where the lord appears as a sun; from which it is evident that angels do not turn themselves to the lord, but the lord turns them to himself. for when angels think interiorly of the lord, they do not think of him otherwise than as being in themselves. real interior thought does not cause distance, but exterior thought, which acts as one with the sight of the eyes; and for the reason that exterior thought, but not interior, is in space; and when not in space, as in the spiritual world, it is still in an appearance of space. but these things can be little understood by the man who thinks about god from space. for god is everywhere, yet not in space. thus he is both within and without an angel; consequently an angel can see god, that is, the lord, both within himself and without himself; within himself when he thinks from love and wisdom, without himself when he thinks about love and wisdom. but these things will be treated of in detail in treatises on the lord's omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. let every man guard himself against falling into the detestable false doctrine that god has infused himself into men, and that he is in them, and no longer in himself; for god is everywhere, as well within man as without, for apart from space he is in all space (as was shown above, n. 7-10, 69-72); whereas if he were in man, he would be not only divisible, but also shut up in space; yea, man then might even think himself to be god. this heresy is so abominable, that in the spiritual world it stinks like carrion. 131. the turning of angels to the lord is such that at every turn of their bodies they look toward the lord as a sun in front of them. an angel may turn himself round and round, and thereby see the various things that are about him, still the lord as a sun appears constantly before his face. this may seem wonderful, yet it is the truth. it has also been granted me to see the lord thus as a sun. i see him now before my face; and for several years i have so seen him, to whatever quarter of the world i have turned. 132. since the lord as a sun, consequently the east, is before the faces of all angels of heaven, it follows that to their right is the south; to their left the north; and behind them the west; and this, too, at every turn of the body. for, as was said before, all quarters in the spiritual world are determined from the east; therefore those who have the east before their eyes are in these very quarters, yea, are themselves what determine the quarters; for (as was shown above, n. 124-128) the quarters are not from the lord as a sun, but from the angels according to reception. 133. now since heaven is made up of angels, and angels are of such a nature, it follows that all heaven turns itself to the lord, and that, by means of this turning, heaven is ruled by the lord as one man, as in his sight it is one man. that heaven is as one man in the sight of the lord may be seen in the work heaven and hell (n. 59-87). also from this are the quarters of heaven. 134. since the quarters are thus inscribed as it were on the angel, as well as on the whole heaven, an angel, unlike man in the world, knows his own home and his own dwelling-place wherever he goes. man does not know his home and dwelling-place from the spiritual quarter in himself, because he thinks from space, thus from the quarters of the natural world, which have nothing in common with the quarters of the spiritual world. but birds and beasts have such knowledge, for it is implanted in them to know of themselves their homes and dwelling-places, as is evident from abundant observation; a proof that such is the case in the spiritual world; for all things that have form [existunt] in the natural world are effects, and all things that have form in the spiritual world are the causes of these effects. there does not take place [existit] a natural that does not derive its cause from a spiritual. 135. all interior things of the angels, both of mind and body, are turned to the lord as a sun. angels have understanding and will, and they have a face and body. they have also the interior things of the understanding and will, and of the face and body. the interiors of the understanding and will are such as pertain to their interior affection and thought; the interiors of the face are the brains; and the interiors of the body are the viscera, chief among which are the heart and lungs. in a word, angels have each and all things that men on earth have; it is from these things that angels are men. external form, apart from these internal things, does not make them men, but external form together with, yea, from, internals for otherwise they would be only images of man, in which there would be no life, because inwardly there would be no form of life. 136. it is well known that the will and understanding rule the body at pleasure, for what the understanding thinks, the mouth speaks, and what the will wills, the body does. from this it is plain that the body is a form corresponding to the understanding and will. and because form also is predicated of understanding and will, it is plain that the form of the body corresponds to the form of the understanding and will. but this is not the place to describe the nature of these respective forms. in each form there are things innumerable; and these, in each of them, act as one, because they mutually correspond. it is from this that the mind (that is, the will and understanding) rules the body at its pleasure, thus as entirely as it rules its own self. from all this it follows that the interiors of the mind act as a one with the interiors of the body, and the exteriors of the mind with the exteriors of the body. the interiors of the mind, likewise the interiors of the body, will be considered further on, when degrees of life have been treated of. 137. since the interiors of the mind make one with the interiors of the body, it follows that when the interiors of the mind turn themselves to the lord as a sun, those of the body turn themselves in like manner; and because the exteriors of both, of mind as well as body, depend upon their interiors, they also do the same. for what the external does, it does from internals, the general deriving all it has from the particulars from which it is. from this it is evident that as an angel turns his face and body to the lord as a sun, all the interiors of his mind and body are turned in the same direction. it is the same with man, if he has the lord constantly before his eyes, which is the case if he is in love and wisdom. he then looks to the lord not only with eyes and face, but also with all the mind and all the heart, that is, with all things of the will and understanding, together with all things of the body. 138. this turning to the lord is an actual turning, a kind of elevation; for there is an uplifting into the heat and light of heaven, which takes place by the opening of the interiors; when these are opened, love and wisdom flow into the interiors of the mind, and the heat and light of heaven into the interiors of the body. from this comes the uplifting, like a rising out of a cloud into clear air, or out of air into ether. moreover, love and wisdom, with their heat and light, are the lord with man; and he, as was said before, turns man to himself. it is the reverse with those who are not in love and wisdom, and still more with those who are opposed to love and wisdom. their interiors, both of mind and body, are closed; and when closed, the exteriors re-act against the lord, for such is their inherent nature. consequently, such persons turn themselves backward from the lord; and turning oneself backward is turning to hell. 139. this actual turning to the lord is from love together with wisdom; not from love alone, nor from wisdom alone; for love alone is like esse [being] without its existere [taking form] since love has its form in wisdom; and wisdom without love is like existere without its esse, since wisdom has its form from love. love is indeed possible without wisdom; but such love is man's, and not the lord's. wisdom alone is possible without love; but such wisdom, although from the lord, has not the lord in it; for it is like the light of winter, which is from the sun; still the sun's essence, which is heat, is not in it. 140. every spirit, whatever his quality, turns in like manner to his ruling love. it shall first be explained what a spirit is, and what an angel is. every man after death comes, in the first place, into the world of spirits, which is midway between heaven and hell, and there passes through his own times, that is, his own states, and becomes prepared, according to his life, either for heaven or for hell. so long as one stays in that world he is called a spirit. he who has been raised out of that world into heaven is called an angel; but he who has been cast down into hell is called either a satan or a devil. so long as these continue in the world of spirits, he who is preparing for heaven is called an angelic spirit; and he who is preparing for hell, an infernal spirit; meanwhile the angelic spirit is conjoined with heaven, and the infernal spirit with hell. all spirits in the world of spirits are adjoined to men; because men, in respect to the interiors of their minds, are in like manner between heaven and hell, and through these spirits they communicate with heaven or with hell according to their life. it is to be observed that the world of spirits is one thing, and the spiritual world another; the world of spirits is that which has just been spoken of; but the spiritual world includes that world, and heaven and hell. 141. since the subject now under consideration is the turning of angels and spirits to their own loves by reason of these loves, something shall be said also about loves. the whole heaven is divided into societies according to all the differences of loves; in like manner hell, and in like manner the world of spirits. but heaven is divided into societies according to the differences of heavenly loves; hell into societies according to the differences of infernal loves; and the world of spirits, according to the differences of loves both heavenly and infernal. there are two loves which are the heads of all the rest, that is, to which all other loves are referable; the love which is the head of all heavenly loves, or to which they all relate, is love to the lord; and the love which is the head of all infernal loves, or to which they all relate, is the love of rule springing from the love of self. these two loves are diametrically opposed to each other. 142. since these two loves, love to the lord and love of rule springing from love of self, are wholly opposed to each other, and since all who are in love to the lord turn to the lord as a sun (as was shown in the preceding article), it can be seen that all who are in the love of rule springing from love of self, turn their backs to the lord. they thus face in opposite directions, because those who are in love to the lord love nothing more than to be led by the lord, and will that the lord alone shall rule; while those who are in the love of rule springing from love of self, love nothing more than to be led by themselves, and will that themselves alone may rule. this is called a love of rule springing from love of self, because there is a love of rule springing from a love of performing uses, which is a spiritual love, because it makes one with love towards the neighbor. still this cannot be called a love of rule, but a love of performing duties. 143. every spirit, of whatever quality, turns to his own ruling love, because love is the life of every one (as was shown in part i., n. 1-3); and life turns its receptacles, called members, organs, and viscera, thus the whole man, to that society which is in a love similar to itself, thus where its own love is. 144. since the love of rule springing from love of self is wholly opposed to love to the lord, the spirits who are in that love of rule turn the face backwards from the lord, and therefore look with their eyes to the western quarters of the spiritual world; and being thus bodily in a reversed position, they have the east behind them, the north at their right, and the south at their left. they have the east behind them because they hate the lord; they have the north at their right, because they love fallacies and falsities therefrom; and they have the south at their left, because they despise the light of wisdom. they may turn themselves round and round, and yet all things which they see about them appear similar to their love. all such are sensual-natural; and some are of such a nature as to imagine that they alone live, looking upon others as images. they believe themselves to be wise above all others, though in truth they are insane. 145. in the spiritual world ways are seen, laid out like ways in the natural world; some leading to heaven, and some to hell; but the ways leading to hell are not visible to those going to heaven, nor are the ways leading to heaven visible to those going to hell. there are countless ways of this kind; for there are ways which lead to every society of heaven and to every society of hell. each spirit enters the way which leads to the society of his own love, nor does he see the ways leading in other directions. thus it is that each spirit, as he turns himself to his ruling love, goes forward in it. 146. divine love and divine wisdom proceeding from the lord as a sun and producing heat and light in heaven, are the proceeding divine, which is the holy spirit. in the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the lord it has been shown, that god is one in person and essence in whom there is a trinity, and that that god is the lord; also, that the trinity in him is called father, son, and holy spirit; and that the divine from which, (creative divine) is called the father; the human divine, the son; and the proceeding divine, the holy spirit. this is called the "proceeding divine," but no one knows why it is called proceeding. this is not known, because until now it has been unknown that the lord appears before the angels as a sun, from which sun proceeds heat which in its essence is divine love, and also light which in its essence is divine wisdom. so long as these things were unknown, it could not be known that the proceeding divine is not a divine by itself; consequently the athanasian doctrine of the trinity declares that there is one person of the father, another of the son, and another of the holy spirit. now, however, when it is known that the lord appears as a sun, a correct idea may be had of the proceeding divine, which is called the holy spirit, that it is one with the lord, but proceeds from him, as heat and light from a sun. for the same reason angels are in divine heat and divine light just so far as they are in love and wisdom. without knowing that the lord appears as a sun in the spiritual world, and that his divine thus proceeds, it can in no way be known what is meant by "proceeding," whether it means simply communicating those things which are the father's and the son's, or simply enlightening and teaching. but inasmuch as it has been known that god is one, and that he is omnipresent, it is not in accord with enlightened reason to recognize the proceeding divine as a divine per se, and to call it god, and thus divide god. 147. it has been shown above that god is not in space, and that he is thereby omnipresent; also that the divine is the same everywhere, but that there is an apparent variety of it in angels and men from variety of reception. now since the proceeding divine from the lord as a sun is in light and heat, and light and heat flow first into universal recipients, which in the world are called atmospheres, and these are the recipients of clouds, it can be seen that according as the interiors pertaining to the understanding of man or angel are veiled by such clouds, is he a receptacle of the proceeding divine. by clouds are meant spiritual clouds, which are thoughts. these, if from truths, are in accordance, but if from falsities, are at variance with divine wisdom; consequently, in the spiritual world thoughts from truths, when presented to the sight, appear as shining white clouds, but thoughts from falsities as black clouds. from all this it can be seen that the proceeding divine is indeed in every man, but is variously veiled by each. 148. as the divine itself is present in angel and man by spiritual heat and light, those who are in the truths of divine wisdom and in the goods of divine love, when affected by these, and when from affection they think from them and about them, are said to grow warm with god; and this sometimes becomes so evident as to be perceived and felt, as when a preacher speaks from zeal. these same are also said to be enlightened by god, because the lord, by his proceeding divine, not only kindles the will with spiritual heat, but also enlightens the understanding with spiritual light. 149. from the following passages in the word it is plain that the holy spirit is the same as the lord, and is truth itself, from which man has enlightenment: jesus said, when the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth; he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall have heard, that shall he speak (john 16:13). he shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you (john 16:14, 15). that he will be with the disciples and in them (john 14:17; 15:26). jesus said, the words that i speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life (john 6:63). from these passages it is evident that the truth itself which proceeds from the lord, is called the holy spirit; and because it is in light, it enlightens. 150. enlightenment, which is attributed to the holy spirit, is indeed in man from the lord, yet it is effected by spirits and angels as media. but the nature of that mediation cannot yet be described; only it may be said that angels and spirits can in no way enlighten man from themselves, because they, in like manner as man, are enlightened by the lord; and as they are enlightened in like manner, it follows that all enlightenment is from the lord alone. it is effected by angels or spirits as media, because the man when he is enlightened is placed in the midst of such angels and spirits as, more than others, receive enlightenment from the lord alone. 151. the lord created the universe and all things of it by means of the sun which is the first proceeding of divine love and divine wisdom. by "the lord" is meant god from eternity, that is, jehovah: who is called father and creator, because he is one with him, as has been shown in the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the lord; consequently in the following pages, where also creation is treated of, he is called the lord. 152. that all things in the universe were created by divine love and divine wisdom was fully shown in part i., (particularly in n. 52, 53); here now it is to be shown that this was done by means of the sun, which is the first proceeding of divine love and divine wisdom. no one who is capable of seeing effects from causes, and afterwards by causes effects in their order and sequence, can deny that the sun is the first of creation, for all the things that are in its world have perpetual existence from it; and because they have perpetual existence from it, their existence was derived from it. the one involves and is proof of the other; for all things are under the sun's view, since it is determined that they should be, and to hold under its view is to determine perpetually; therefore it is said that subsistence is perpetual existence. if, moreover, any thing were to be withdrawn entirely from the sun's influx through the atmospheres, it would instantly be dissipated; for the atmospheres, which are purer and purer, and are rendered active in power by the sun, hold all things in connection. since, then, the perpetual existence of the universe, and of every thing pertaining to it, is from the sun, it is plain that the sun is the first of creation, from which [is all else]. the sun is spoken of as creating, but this means the lord, by means of the sun; for the sun also was created by the lord. 153. there are two suns through which all things were created by the lord, the sun of the spiritual world and the sun of the natural world. all things were created by the lord through the sun of the spiritual world, but not through the sun of the natural world, since the latter is far below the former; it is in middle distance; above it is the spiritual world and below it is the natural world. this sun of the natural world was created to render aid, as a kind of substitute; this aid will be spoken of in what follows. 154. the universe and all things thereof were created by the lord, the sun of the spiritual world serving as a medium, because that sun is the first proceeding of divine love and divine wisdom, and from divine love and divine wisdom all things are (as was pointed out above, n. 52-82). in every thing created, greatest as well as least, there are these three, end, cause and effect. a created thing in which these three are not, is impossible. in what is greatest, that is, in the universe, these three exist in the following order; in the sun, which is the first proceeding of divine love and divine wisdom, is the end of all things; in the spiritual world are the causes of all things; in the natural world are the effects of all things. how these three are in things first and in things last shall be shown in what follows. since, then, no created thing is possible in which these three are not, it follows that the universe and all things of it were created by the lord through the sun, wherein is the end of all things. 155. creation itself cannot be brought within man's comprehension unless space and time are removed from thought; but if these are removed, it can be comprehended. removing these if you can, or as much as you can, and keeping the mind in ideas abstracted from space and time, you will perceive that there is no difference between the maximum of space and the minimum of space; and then you cannot but have a similar idea of the creation of the universe as of the creation of the particulars therein; you will also perceive that diversity in created things springs from this, that there are infinite things in god-man, consequently things without limit in the sun which is the first proceeding from him; these countless things take form, as in an image, in the created universe. from this it is that no one thing can anywhere be precisely the same as another. from this comes that variety of all things which is presented to sight, in the natural world, together with space, but in the spiritual world with appearance of space; and it is a variety both of generals and of particulars. these are the things that have been pointed out in parti., where it is shown that in god-man infinite things are one distinctly (n. 17-22); that all things in the universe were created by divine love and divine wisdom, (n. 52, 53); that all things in the created universe are recipients of the divine love and of the divine wisdom of god-man (n. 54-60); that the divine is not in space (n. 7-10); that the divine apart from space fills all spaces (n. 66 72); that the divine is the same in things greatest and least (n. 77-82). 156. the creation of the universe, and of all things of it, cannot be said to have been wrought from space to space, or from time to time, thus progressively and successively, but from eternity and from infinity; not from eternity of time, because there is no such thing, but from eternity not of time, for this is the same with the divine; nor from infinity of space, because again there is no such thing, but from infinity not of space, which also is the same with the divine. these things, i know, transcend the ideas of thoughts that are in natural light, but they do not transcend the ideas of thoughts that are in spiritual light, for in these there is nothing of space and time. neither do they wholly transcend ideas that are in natural light; for when it is said that infinity of space is not possible, this is affirmed by every one from reason. it is the same with eternity, for this is infinity of time. if you say "to eternity," it is comprehensible from time; but "from eternity" is not comprehensible, unless time is removed. 157. the sun of the natural world is pure fire, consequently dead; nature also is dead, because it derives its origin from that sun. creation itself cannot be ascribed in the least to the sun of the natural world, but must be wholly ascribed to the sun of the spiritual world; because the sun of the natural world is altogether dead; but the sun of the spiritual world is living; for it is the first proceeding of divine love and divine wisdom; and what is dead does not act at all from itself, but is acted upon; consequently to ascribe to it anything of creation would be like ascribing the work of an artificer to the tool which is moved by his hands. the sun of the natural world is pure fire from which everything of life has been withdrawn; but the sun of the spiritual world is fire in which is divine life. the angelic idea of the fire of the sun of the natural world, and of the fire of the sun of the spiritual world, is this; that in the fire of the sun of the spiritual world the divine life is within, but in the fire of the sun of the natural world it is without. from this it can be seen that the actuating power of the natural sun is not from itself, but from a living force proceeding from the sun of the spiritual world; consequently if the living force of that sun were withdrawn or taken away, the natural sun would have no vital power. for this reason the worship of the sun is the lowest of all the forms of god-worship, for it is wholly dead, as the sun itself is, and therefore in the word it is called "abomination." 158. as the sun of the natural world is pure fire, and therefore dead, the heat proceeding from it is also dead, likewise the light proceeding from it is dead; so also are the atmospheres, which are called ether and air, and which receive in their bosom and carry down the heat and light of that sun; and as these are dead so are each and all things of the earth which are beneath the atmospheres, and are called soils, yet these, one and all, are encompassed by what is spiritual, proceeding and flowing forth from the sun of the spiritual world. unless they had been so encompassed, the soils could not have been stirred into activity, and have produced forms of uses, which are plants, nor forms of life, which are animals; nor could have supplied the materials by which man begins and continues to exist. 159. now since nature begins from that sun, and all that springs forth and continues to exist from it is called natural, it follows that nature, with each and every thing pertaining thereto, is dead. it appears in man and animal as if alive, because of the life which accompanies and actuates it. 160. since these lowest things of nature which form the lands are dead, and are not changeable and varying according to states of affections and thoughts, as in the spiritual world, but unchangeable and fixed, therefore in nature there are spaces and spatial distances. there are such things, because creation has there terminated, and abides at rest. from this it is evident that spaces are a property of nature; and because in nature spaces are not appearances of spaces according to states of life, as they are in the spiritual world, these also may be called dead. 161. since times in like manner are settled and constant, they also are a property of nature; for the length of a day is constantly twenty-four hours, and the length of a year is constantly three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter. the very states of light and shade, and of heat and cold, which cause these periods to vary, are also regular in their return. the states which recur daily are morning, noon, evening, and night; those recurring yearly are spring, summer, autumn, and winter. moreover, the annual states modify regularly the daily states. all these states are likewise dead because they are not states of life, as in the spiritual world; for in the spiritual world there is continuous light and there is continuous heat, the light corresponding to the state of wisdom, and the heat to the state of love with the angels; consequently the states of these are living. 162. from all this the folly of those who ascribe all things to nature can be seen. those who have confirmed themselves in favor of nature have brought such a state on themselves that they are no longer willing to raise the mind above nature; consequently their minds are shut above and opened below. man thus becomes sensual-natural, that is, spiritually dead; and because he then thinks only from such things as he has imbibed from his bodily senses, or through the senses from the world, he at heart even denies god. then because conjunction with heaven is broken, conjunction with hell takes place, the capacity to think and will alone remaining; the capacity to think, from rationality, and the capacity to will, from freedom; these two capacities every man has from the lord, nor are they taken away. these two capacities devils have equally with angels; but devils devote them to insane thinking and evil doing, and angels to becoming wise and doing good. 163. without a double sun, one living and the other dead, no creation is possible. the universe in general is divided into two worlds, the spiritual and the natural. in the spiritual world are angels and spirits, in the natural world men. in external appearance these two worlds are entirely alike, so alike that they cannot be distinguished; but as to internal appearance they are entirely unlike. the men themselves in the spiritual world, who (as was said above) are called angels and spirits, are spiritual, and, being spiritual, they think spiritually and speak spiritually. but the men of the natural world are natural, and therefore think naturally and speak naturally; and spiritual thought and speech have nothing in common with natural thought and speech. from this it is plain that these two worlds, the spiritual and the natural, are entirely distinct from each other, so that they can in no respect be together. 164. now as these two worlds are so distinct, it is necessary that there should be two suns, one from which all spiritual things are, and another from which all natural things are. and as all spiritual things in their origin are living, and all natural things from their origin are dead, and these origins are suns, it follows that the one sun is living and the other dead; also, that the dead sun itself was created by the lord through the living sun. 165. a dead sun was created to this end, that in outmosts all things may be fixed, settled, and constant, and thus there may be forms of existence which shall be permanent and durable. in this and in no other way is creation founded. the terraqueous globe, in which, upon which, and about which, things exist, is a kind of base and support; for it is the outmost work [ultimum opus], in which all things terminate, and upon which they rest. it is also a kind of matrix, out of which effects, which are ends of creation, are produced, as will be shown in what follows. 166. that all things were created by the lord through the living sun, and nothing through the dead sun, can be seen from this, that what is living disposes what is dead in obedience to itself, and forms it for uses, which are its ends; but not the reverse. only a person bereft of reason and who is ignorant of what life is, can think that all things are from nature, and that life even comes from nature. nature cannot dispense life to anything, since nature in itself is wholly inert. for what is dead to act upon what is living, or for dead force to act upon living force, or, what is the same, for the natural to act upon the spiritual, is entirely contrary to order, therefore so to think is contrary to the light of sound reason. what is dead, that is, the natural, may indeed in many ways be perverted or changed by external accidents, but it cannot act upon life; on the contrary life acts into it, according to the induced change of form. it is the same with physical influx into the spiritual operations of the soul; this, it is known, does not occur, for it is not possible. 167. the end of creation has form [existat] in outmosts, which end is that all things may return to the creator and that there may be conjunction. in the first place, something shall be said about ends. there are three things that follow in order, called first end, middle end, and last end; they are also called end, cause, and effect. these three must be together in every thing, that it may be anything. for a first end without a middle end, and at the same time a last end, is impossible; or, what is the same, an end alone, without a cause and an effect is impossible. equally impossible is a cause alone without an end from which and an effect in which it is, or an effect alone, that is, an effect without its cause and end. that this is so may be comprehended if it be observed that an end without an effect, that is, separated from an effect, is a thing without existence, and therefore a mere term. for in order that an end may actually be an end it must be terminated, and it is terminated in its effect, wherein it is first called an end because it is an end. it appears as if the agent or the efficient exists by itself; but this so appears from its being in the effect; but if separated from the effect it would instantly vanish. from all this it is evident that these three, end, cause, and effect, must be in every thing to make it anything. 168. it must be known further, that the end is everything in the cause, and also everything in the effect; from this it is that end, cause, and effect, are called first end, middle end, and last end. but that the end may be everything in the cause, there must be something from the end [in the cause] wherein the end shall be; and that the end may be everything in the effect, there must be something from the end through the cause [in the effect] wherein the end shall be. for the end cannot be in itself alone, but it must be in something having existence from it, in which it can dwell as to all that is its own, and by acting, come into effect, until it has permanent existence. that in which it has permanent existence is the last end, which is called effect. 169. these three, namely, end, cause, and effect, are in the created universe, both in its greatest and least parts. they are in the greatest and least parts of the created universe, because they are in god the creator, who is the lord from eternity. but since he is infinite, and in the infinite in finite things are one distinctly (as was shown above, n. 17-22), therefore also these three in him, and in his infinites, are one distinctly. from this it is that the universe which was created from his esse, and which, regarded as to uses, is his image, possesses these three in each and all of its parts. 170. the universal end, that is, the end of all things of creation, is that there may be an eternal conjunction of the creator with the created universe; and this is not possible unless there are subjects wherein his divine can be as in itself, thus in which it can dwell and abide. in order that these subjects may be dwelling-places and mansions of him, they must be recipients of his love and wisdom as of themselves; such, therefore, as will elevate themselves to the creator as of themselves, and conjoin themselves with him. without this ability to reciprocate no conjunction is possible. these subjects are men, who are able as of themselves to elevate and conjoin themselves. that men are such subjects, and that they are recipients of the divine as of themselves, has been pointed out above many times. by means of this conjunction, the lord is present in every work created by him; for everything has been created for man as its end; consequently the uses of all created things ascend by degrees from outmosts to man, and through man to god the creator from whom [are all things] (as was shown above, n. 65-68). 171. to this last end creation progresses continually, through these three, namely, end, cause, and effect, because these three are in the lord the creator (as was said just above); and the divine apart from space is in all space (n. 69-72); and is the same in things greatest and least (77 82); from which it is evident that the created universe, in its general progression to its last end, is relatively the middle end. for out of the earth forms of uses are continually raised by the lord the creator, in their order up to man, who as to his body is also from the earth. thereafter, man is elevated by the reception of love and wisdom from the lord; and for this reception of love and wisdom, all means are provided; and he has been so made as to be able to receive, if he will. from what has now been said it can be seen, though as yet only in a general manner, that the end of creation takes form [existat] in outmost things; which end is, that all things may return to the creator, and that there may be conjunction. 172. that these three, end, cause, and effect, are in each and every thing created, can also be seen from this, that all effects, which are called last ends, become anew first ends in uninterrupted succession from the first, who is the lord the creator, even to the last end, which is the conjunction of man with him. that all last ends become anew first ends is plain from this, that there can be nothing so inert and dead as to have no efficient power in it. even out of sand there is such an exhalation as gives aid in producing, and therefore in effecting something. 173. part third. in the spiritual world there are atmospheres, waters and lands, just as in the natural world; only the former are spiritual, while the latter are natural. it has been said in the preceding pages, and shown in the work heaven and hell, that the spiritual world is like the natural world, with the difference only that each and every thing of the spiritual world is spiritual, and each and every thing of the natural world is natural. as these two worlds are alike, there are in both, atmospheres, waters, and lands, which are the generals through and from which each and all things take their form [existunt] with infinite variety. 174. as regards the atmospheres, which are called ethers and airs, they are alike in both worlds, the spiritual and the natural, with the difference only that they are spiritual in the spiritual world, and natural in the natural world. the former are spiritual, because they have their form from the sun which is the first proceeding of the divine love and divine wisdom of the lord, and from him receive within them the divine fire which is love, and the divine light which is wisdom, and carry these down to the heavens where the angels dwell, and cause the presence of that sun there in things greatest and least. the spiritual atmospheres are divided substances, that is, least forms, originating from the sun. as these each singly receive the sun, its fire, distributed among so many substances, that is, so many forms, and as it were enveloped by them, and tempered by these envelopments, becomes heat, adapted finally to the love of angels in heaven and of spirits under heaven. the same is true of the light of that sun. in this the natural atmospheres are like spiritual atmospheres, that they also are divided substances or least forms originating from the sun of the natural world; these also each singly receive the sun and store up its fire in themselves, and temper it, and carry it down as heat to the earth, where men dwell. the same is true of natural light. 175. the difference between spiritual and natural atmospheres is that spiritual atmospheres are receptacles of divine fire and divine light, thus of love and wisdom, for they contain these interiorly within them; while natural atmospheres are receptacles, not of divine fire and divine light, but of the fire and light of their own sun, which in itself is dead, as was shown above; consequently there is nothing interiorly in them from the sun of the spiritual world, although they are environed by spiritual atmospheres from that sun. that this is the difference between spiritual and natural atmospheres has been learned from the wisdom of angels. 176. that there are atmospheres in the spiritual, just as in the natural world, can be seen from this, that angels and spirits breathe, and also speak and hear just as men do in the natural world; and respiration, speech, and hearing are all effected by means of a lowest atmosphere, which is called air; it can be seen also from this, that angels and spirits, like men in the natural world, have sight, and sight is possible only by means of an atmosphere purer than air; also from this, that angels and spirits, like men in the natural world, think and are moved by affection, and thought and affection are not possible except by means of still purer atmospheres; and finally from this, that all parts of the bodies of angels and spirits, external as well as internal, are held together in connection by atmospheres, the external by air and the internal by ethers. without the surrounding pressure and action of these atmospheres the interior and exterior forms of the body would evidently dissolve away. since angels are spiritual, and each and all things of their bodies are held together in connection, form, and order by means of atmospheres, it follows that these atmospheres are spiritual; they are spiritual, because they arise from the spiritual sun which is the first proceeding of the lord's divine love and divine wisdom. 177. that there are also waters and lands in the spiritual as well as in the natural world, with the difference that these waters and lands are spiritual, has been said above and has been shown in the work heaven and hell; and because these are spiritual, they are moved and modified by the heat and light of the spiritual sun, the atmospheres therefrom serving as mediums, just as the waters and lands in the natural world are moved and modified by the heat and light of the sun of their world, its atmospheres serving as mediums. 178. atmospheres, waters, and lands are here specified, because these three are generals, through and from which each and all things have their form [existunt] in infinite variety. the atmospheres are the active forces, the waters are the mediate forces, and the lands are the passive forces, from which all effects have existence. these three forces are such in their series solely by virtue of life that proceeds from the lord as a sun, and that makes them active. 179. there are degrees of love and wisdom, consequently degrees of heat and light also degrees, of atmospheres. the things which follow cannot be comprehended unless it be known that there are degrees, also what they are, and what their nature is, because in every created thing, thus in every form, there are degrees. this part of angelic wisdom will therefore treat of degrees. that there are degrees of love and wisdom can be clearly seen from the fact that there are angels of the three heavens. the angels of the third heaven so far excel the angels of the second heaven in love and wisdom, and these, the angels of the lowest heaven, that they cannot be together. the degrees of love and wisdom distinguish and separate them. it is from this that angels of the lower heavens cannot ascend to angels of higher heavens, or if allowed to ascend, they do not see the higher angels or anything that is about them. they do not see them because the love and wisdom of the higher angels is of a higher degree, transcending the perception of the lower angels. for each angel is his own love and his own wisdom; and love together with wisdom in its form is a man, because god, who is love itself and wisdom itself, is a man. it has sometimes been permitted me to see angels of the lowest heaven who have ascended to the angels of the third heaven; and when they had made their way thither, i have heard them complaining that they did not see any one, and all the while they were in the midst of the higher angels. afterwards they were instructed that those angels were invisible to them because their love and wisdom were imperceptible to them, and that love and wisdom are what make an angel appear as a man. 180. that there must be degrees of love and wisdom is still more evident when the love and wisdom of angels are compared with the love and wisdom of men. it is well known that the wisdom of angels, when thus compared, is ineffable; also it will be seen in what follows that to men who are in natural love, this wisdom is incomprehensible. it appears ineffable and incomprehensible because it is of a higher degree. 181. since there are degrees of love and wisdom, there are also degrees of heat and light. by heat and light are meant spiritual heat and light, such as angels in the heavens have, and such as men have as to the interiors of their minds; for men have a heat of love similar to that of the angels, and a similar light of wisdom. in the heavens, such and so much love as the angels have, such and so much is their heat; and the same is true of their light as compared with their wisdom; the reason is, that with them love is in the heat, and wisdom in the light (as was shown above). it is the same with men on earth, with the difference, however, that angels feel that heat and see that light, but men do not, because they are in natural heat and light; and while they are in the natural heat and light spiritual heat is not felt except by a certain enjoyment of love, and spiritual light is not seen except by a perception of truth. now since man, so long as he is in natural heat and light, knows nothing of the spiritual heat and light within him, and since knowledge of these can be obtained only through experience from the spiritual world, the heat and light in which the angels and their heavens are, shall here be especially spoken of. from this and from no other source can enlightenment on this subject be had. 182. but degrees of spiritual heat cannot be described from experience, because love, to which spiritual heat corresponds, does not come thus under ideas of thought; but degrees of spiritual light can be described, because light pertains to thought, and therefore comes under ideas of thought. yet degrees of spiritual heat can be comprehended by their relation to the degrees of light, for the two are in like degree. with respect then to spiritual light in which angels are, it has been granted me to see it with my eyes. with angels of the higher heavens, the light is so glistening white as to be indescribable, even by comparison with the shining whiteness of snow, and so glowing as to be indescribable even by comparison with the beams of this world's sun. in a word, that light exceeds a thousand times the noonday light upon earth. but the light with angels of the lower heavens can be described in a measure by comparisons, although it still exceeds the most intense light of our world. the light of angels of the higher heavens is indescribable, because their light makes one with their wisdom; and because their wisdom, compared to the wisdom of men, is ineffable, thus also is their light. from these few things it can be seen that there must be degrees of light; and because wisdom and love are of like degrees, it follows that there must be like degrees of heat. 183. since atmospheres are the receptacles and containants of heat and light, it follows that there are as many degrees of atmospheres as there are degrees of heat and light; also that there are as many as there are degrees of love and wisdom. that there are several atmospheres, and that these are distinct from each other by means of degrees, has been manifested to me by much experience in the spiritual world; especially from this, that angels of the lower heavens are not able to breathe in the region of higher angels, and appear to themselves to gasp for breath, as living creatures do when they are raised out of air into ether, or out of water into air. moreover, spirits below the heavens appear in a kind of cloud. that there are several atmospheres, and that they are distinct from each other by means of degrees, may be seen above (n. 176). 184. degrees are of a twofold kind, degrees of height and degrees of breadth. a knowledge of degrees is like a key to lay open the causes of things, and to give entrance into them. without this knowledge, scarcely anything of cause can be known; for without it, the objects and subjects of both worlds seem to have but a single meaning, as if there were nothing in them beyond that which meets the eye; when yet compared to the things which lie hidden within, what is thus seen is as one to thousands, yea, to tens of thousands. the interiors which are not open to view can in no way be discovered except through a knowledge of degrees. for things exterior advance to things interior and through these to things inmost, by means of degrees; not by continuous degrees but by discrete degrees. "continuous degrees" is a term applied to the gradual lessenings or decreasings from grosser to finer, or from denser to rarer; or rather, to growths and increasings from finer to grosser, or from rarer to denser; precisely like the gradations of light to shade, or of heat to cold. but discrete degrees are entirely different: they are like things prior, subsequent and final; or like end, cause, and effect. these degrees are called discrete, because the prior is by itself; the subsequent by itself; and the final by itself; and yet taken together they make one. there are atmospheres, from highest to lowest, that is, from the sun to the earth, called ethers and airs that are separated into such degrees; they are like simples, collections of simples, and again collections of these, which taken together are called a composite. such degrees are discrete [or separate], because each has a distinct existence, and these degrees are what are meant by "degrees of height;" but the former degrees are continuous, because they increase continuously and these degrees are what are meant by "degrees of breadth." 185. each and all things that have existence in the spiritual world and in the natural world, have conjoint existence from discrete degrees and from continuous degrees together, that is, from degrees of height and from degrees of breadth. the dimension which consists of discrete degrees is called height, and the dimension that consists of continuous degrees is called breadth; their position relatively to the sight of the eye does not alter the designation. without a knowledge of these degrees nothing can be known of how the three heavens differ from each other; nor can anything be known of the differences of love and wisdom of the angels there; nor of the differences of heat and light in which they are; nor of the differences of atmospheres which environ and contain these. nor without a knowledge of these degrees can anything be known of the differences among the interior powers of the minds of men, thus nothing of their state as regards reformation and regeneration; nor anything of the differences among the exterior powers of the bodies both of angels and men; and nothing whatever can be known of the distinction between spiritual and natural, thus nothing of correspondence. nor, indeed, can anything be known of any difference between the life of men and that of beasts, or between the more perfect and the less perfect animals; neither of the differences among the forms of the vegetable kingdom, nor among the matters of the mineral kingdom. from which it can be seen that they who are ignorant of these degrees are unable to see causes from anything of judgment; they see only effects, and from these judge of causes, which is done for the most part by an induction that is continuous with effects. but causes produce effects not continuously but discretely; for cause is one thing, and effect is another. the difference between the two is like the difference between prior and subsequent, or between that which forms and that which is formed. 186. that it may be still better comprehended what discrete degrees are, what their nature is, and how they differ from continuous degrees, the angelic heavens may serve as an example. there are three heavens, and these are separated by degrees of height; therefore the heavens are one below another, nor do they communicate with each other except by influx, which proceeds from the lord through the heavens in their order to the lowest; and not contrariwise. each heaven by itself, however, is divided not by degrees of height but by degrees of breadth. those who are in the middle, that is, at the center, are in the light of wisdom; but those who are around about, even to the boundaries, are in the shade of wisdom. thus wisdom grows less and less even to ignorance, as light decreases to shade, which takes place continuously. it is the same with men. the interiors belonging to their minds are separated into as many degrees as the angelic heavens; and these degrees are one above another; therefore the interiors of men which belong to their minds are separated by discrete degrees, that is, degrees of height. consequently a man may be in the lowest degree, then in a higher, and also in the highest degree, according to the degree of his wisdom; moreover, when he is in the lowest degree only, the higher degree is shut, but is opened as he receives wisdom from the lord. there are also in a man, as in heaven, continuous degrees, that is degrees of breadth. a man is like the heavens because as regards the interiors of his mind, he is a heaven in least form, in the measure in which he is in love and wisdom from the lord. that man as regards the interiors of his mind is a heaven in least form may be seen in the work heaven and hell (n. 51-58.) 187. from all this it can be seen, that one who knows nothing about discrete degrees, that is, degrees of height, can know nothing about the state of man as regards his reformation and regeneration, which are effected through the reception of love and wisdom of the lord, and then through the opening of the interior degrees of his mind in their order. nor can he know anything about influx from the lord through the heavens nor anything about the order into which he was created. for if anyone thinks about these, not from discrete degrees or degrees of height but from continuous degrees or degrees of breadth, he is not able to perceive anything about them from causes, but only from effects; and to see from effects only is to see from fallacies, from which come errors, one after another; and these may be so multiplied by inductions that at length enormous falsities are called truths. 188. i am not aware that anything has been known hitherto about discrete degrees or degrees of height, only continuous degrees or degrees of breadth have been known; yet nothing of the real truth about cause can become known without a knowledge of degrees of both kinds. these degrees therefore shall be treated of throughout this part; for it is the object of this little work to uncover causes, that effects may-be seen from them, and thus the darkness may be dispelled in which the man of the church is in respect to god and the lord, and in respect to divine things in general which are called spiritual things. this i may mention, that the angels are in grief for the darkness on the earth; saying that they see light hardly anywhere, and that men eagerly lay hold of fallacies and confirm them, thereby multiplying falsities upon falsities; and to confirm fallacies men search out, by means of reasonings from falsities and from truths falsified, such things as cannot be controverted, owing to the darkness in respect to causes and the ignorance respecting truths. the angels lament especially over confirmations respecting faith separate from charity and justification thereby; also over men's ideas about god, angels and spirits, and their ignorance of what love and wisdom are. 189. degrees of height are homogeneous, and one is from the other in succession like end, cause, and effect. as degrees of breadth, that is continuous degrees, are like gradations from light to shade, from heat to cold, from hard to soft, from dense to rare, from thick to thin, and so forth; and as these degrees are known from sensuous and ocular experience, while degrees of height, or discrete degrees, are not, the latter kind shall be treated of especially in this part; for without a knowledge of these degrees, causes cannot be seen. it is known indeed that end, cause, and effect follow in order, like prior, subsequent, and final; also that the end begets the cause, and, through the cause, the effect, that the end may have form; also about these many other things are known; and yet to know these things, and not to see them in their applications to existing things is simply to know abstractions, which remain in the memory only so long as the mind is in analytical ideas from metaphysical thought. from this it is that although end, cause, and effect advance according to discrete degrees, little if anything is known in the world about these degrees. for a mere knowledge of abstractions is like an airy something which flies away; but when abstractions are applied to such things as are in the world, they become like what is seen with the eyes on earth, and remains in the memory. 190. all things which have existence in the world, of which threefold dimension is predicated, that is, which are called compounds, consist of degrees of height, that is, discrete degrees; as examples will make clear. it is known from ocular experience, that every muscle in the human body consists of minute fibers, and these put together into little bundles form larger fibers, called motor fibers, and groups of these form the compound called a muscle. it is the same with nerves; in these from minute fibers larger fibers are compacted, which appear as filaments, and these grouped together compose the nerve. the same is true of the rest of the combinations, bundlings and groupings out of which the organs and viscera are made up; for these are compositions of fibers and vessels variously put together according to like degrees. it is the same also with each and every thing of the vegetable and mineral kingdoms. in woods there are combinations of filaments in threefold order. in metals and stones there are groupings of parts, also in threefold order. from all this the nature of discrete degrees can be seen, namely, that one is from the other, and through the second there is a third which is called the composite; and that each degree is discreted from the others. 191. from these examples a conclusion may be formed respecting those things that are not visible to the eye, for with those it is the same; for example, with the organic substances which are the receptacles and abodes of thoughts and affections in the brains; with atmospheres; with heat and light; and with love and wisdom. for atmospheres are receptacles of heat and light; and heat and light are receptacles of love and wisdom; consequently, as there are degrees of atmospheres, there are also like degrees of heat and light, and of love and wisdom; for the same principle applies to the latter as to the former. 192. that these degrees are homogeneous, that is, of the same character and nature, appears from what has just been said. the motor fibers of muscles, least, larger, and largest, are homogeneous. woody filaments, from the least to the composite formed of these, are homogeneous. so likewise are parts of stones and metals of every kind. the organic substances which are receptacles and abodes of thoughts and affections, from the most simple to their general aggregate which is the brain, are homogeneous. the atmospheres, from pure ether to air, are homogeneous. the degrees of heat and light in series, following the degrees of atmospheres, are homogeneous, therefore the degrees of love and wisdom are also homogeneous. things which are not of the same character and nature are heterogeneous, and do not harmonize with things homogeneous; thus they cannot form discrete degrees with them, but only with their own, which are of the same character and nature and with which they are homogeneous. 193. that these things in their order are like ends, causes, and effects, is evident; for the first, which is the least, effectuates its cause by means of the middle, and its effect by means of the last. 194. it should be known that each degree is made distinct from the others by coverings of its own, and that all the degrees together are made distinct by means of a general covering; also, that this general covering communicates with interiors and inmosts in their order. from this there is conjunction of all and unanimous action. 195. the first degree is the all in everything of the subsequent degrees. this is because the degrees of each subject and of each thing are homogeneous; and they are homogeneous because produced from the first degree. for their formation is such that the first, by bundlings or groupings, in a word, by aggregations of parts, produces the second, and through this the third; and discretes each from the other by a covering drawn around it; from which it is clear that the first degree is chief and singly supreme in the subsequent degrees; consequently that in all things of the subsequent degrees, the first is the all. 196. when it is said that degrees are such in respect to each other, the meaning is that substances are such in their degrees. this manner of speaking by degrees is abstract, that is, universal, which makes the statement applicable to every subject or thing which is in degrees of this kind. 197. this can be applied to all those things which have been enumerated in the preceding chapter, to the muscles, the nerves, the matters and parts of both the vegetable and mineral kingdoms, to the organic substances that are the subjects of thoughts and affections in man, to atmospheres, to heat and light, and to love and wisdom. in all these, the first is singly supreme in the subsequent things; yea, it is the sole thing in them, and because it is the sole thing in them, it is the all in them. that this is so is clear also from these well-known truths; that the end is the all of the cause, and through the cause is the all of the effect; and thus end, cause, and effect are called first, middle, and last end. further, that the cause of the cause is also the cause of the thing caused; and that there is nothing essential in causes except the end, and nothing essential in movement excepting effort [conatus]; also, that the substance that is substance in itself is the sole substance. 198. from all this it can clearly be seen that the divine, which is substance in itself, that is, the one only and sole substance, is the substance from which is each and every thing that has been created; thus that god is the all in all things of the universe, according to what has been shown in part first, as follows. divine love and divine wisdom are substance and form (n. 40-43); divine love and divine wisdom are substance and form in itself, therefore the very and the only (n. 44-46); all things in the universe were created by divine love and divine wisdom (n. 52-60); consequently the created universe is his image (n. 61-65); the lord alone is heaven where angels are (n. 113-118). 199. all perfections increase and ascend along with degrees and according to them. that degrees are of two kinds, degrees of breadth and degrees of height has been shown above (n. 185-188); also that degrees of breadth are like those of light verging to shade, or of wisdom verging to ignorance; but that degrees of height are like end, cause and effect, or like prior, subsequent and final. of these latter degrees it is said that they ascend or descend, for they are of height; but of the former that they increase or decrease for they are of breadth. these two kinds of degrees differ so much that they have nothing in common; they should therefore be perceived as distinct, and by no means be confounded. 200. all perfections increase and ascend along with degrees and according to them, because all predicates follow their subjects, and perfection and imperfection are general predicates; for they are predicated of life, of forces and of forms. perfection of life is perfection of love and wisdom; and because the will and understanding are receptacles of love and wisdom, perfection of life is also perfection of will and understanding, consequently of affections and thoughts; and because spiritual heat is the containant of love, and spiritual light is the containant of wisdom, perfection of these may also be referred to perfection of life. perfection of forces is perfection of all things that are actuated and moved by life, in which, however, there is no life. atmospheres as to their active powers are such forces; the interior and exterior organic substances with man, and with animals of every kind, are such forces; all things in the natural world that are endowed with active powers both immediately and mediately from its sun are such forces. perfection of forms and perfection of forces make one, for as the forces are, such are the forms; with the difference only, that forms are substances but forces are their activities; therefore like degrees of perfection belong to both. forms that are not at the same time forces are also perfect according to degrees. 201. the perfection of life, forces, and forms that increase or decrease according to degrees of breadth, that is, continuous degrees, will not be discussed here, because there is a knowledge of these degrees in the world; but only the perfections of life, forces, and forms that ascend or descend according to degrees of height, that is, discrete degrees; because these degrees are not known in the world. of the mode in which perfections ascend and descend according to these degrees little can be learned from things visible in the natural world, but this can be seen clearly from things visible in the spiritual world. from things visible in the natural world it is merely found that the more interiorly they are looked into the more do wonders present themselves; as, for instance, in the eyes, ears, tongue; in muscles, heart, lungs, liver, pancreas, kidneys, and other viscera; also, in seeds, fruits and flowers; and in metals, minerals and stones. that wonders increase in all these the more interiorly they are looked into is well known; yet it has become little known thereby that the objects are interiorly more perfect according to degrees of height or discrete degrees. this has been concealed by ignorance of these degrees. but since these degrees stand out conspicuously in the spiritual world (for the whole of that world from highest to lowest is distinctly discreted into these degrees), from that world knowledge of these degrees can be drawn; and afterwards conclusions may be drawn therefrom respecting the perfection of forces and forms that are in similar degrees in the natural world. 202. in the spiritual world there are three heavens, arranged according to degrees of height. in the highest heavens are angels superior in every perfection to the angels in the middle heaven; and in the middle heaven are angels superior in every perfection to the angels in the lowest heaven. the degrees of perfections are such, that angels of the lowest heaven cannot attain to the first threshold of the perfections of the angels of the middle heaven, nor these to the first threshold of the perfections of the angels of the highest heaven. this seems incredible, yet it is a truth. the reason is that they are consociated according to discrete, not according to continuous degrees. i have learned from observation that the difference between the affections and thoughts, and consequently the speech, of the angels of the higher and the lower heavens, is such that they have nothing in common; and that communication takes place only through correspondences, which have existence by immediate influx of the lord into all the heavens, and by mediate influx through the highest heaven into the lowest. such being the nature of these differences, they cannot be expressed in natural language, therefore not described; for the thoughts of angels, being spiritual, do not fall into natural ideas. they can be expressed and described only by angels themselves, in their own languages, words, and writings, and not in those that are human. this is why it is said that in the heavens unspeakable things are heard and seen. these differences may be in some measure comprehended when it is known that the thoughts of angels of the highest or third heaven are thoughts of ends; the thoughts of angels of the middle or second heaven thoughts of causes, and the thoughts of angels of the lowest or first heaven thoughts of effects. it must be noted, that it is one thing to think from ends, and another to think about ends; that it is one thing to think from causes, and another to think about causes; and that it is one thing to think from effects, and another to think about effects. angels of the lower heavens think about causes and about ends, but angels of the higher heavens from causes and from ends; and to think from these is a mark of higher wisdom, but to think about these is the mark of lower wisdom. to think from ends is of wisdom, to think from causes is of intelligence, and to think from effects is of knowledge. from all this it is clear that all perfection ascends and descends along with degrees and according to them. 203. since the interior things of man, which are of his will and understanding, are like the heavens in respect to degrees (for man, as to the interiors of his mind, is a heaven in least form), their perfections also are like those of the heavens. but these perfections are not apparent to any one so long as he lives in the world, because he is then in the lowest degree; and from the lowest degree the higher degrees cannot be known; but they are known after death, because man then enters into that degree which corresponds to his love and wisdom, for he then becomes an angel, and thinks and speaks things ineffable to his natural man; for there is then an elevation of all things of his mind, not in a single, but in a threefold ratio. degrees of height are in threefold ratio, but degrees of breadth are in single ratio. but into degrees of height none ascend and are elevated except those who in the world have been in truths, and have applied them to life. 204. it seems as if things prior must be less perfect than things subsequent, that is, things simple than things composite; but things prior out of which things subsequent are formed, that is, things simple out of which things composite are formed, are the more perfect. the reason is that the prior or the simpler are more naked and less covered over with substances and matters devoid of life, and are, as it were, more divine, consequently nearer to the spiritual sun where the lord is; for perfection itself is in the lord, and from him in that sun which is the first proceeding of his divine love and divine wisdom, and from that in those things which come immediately after; and thus in order down to things lowest, which are less perfect as they are farther removed. without such preeminent perfection in things prior and simple, neither man nor any kind of animal could have come into existence from seed, and afterwards continue to exist; nor could the seeds of trees and shrubs vegetate and bear fruit. for the more prior anything prior is, or the more simple anything simple is, the more exempt is it from injury, because it is more perfect. 205. in successive order the first degree makes the highest, and the third the lowest; but in simultaneous order the first degree makes the innermost, and the third the outermost. there is successive order and simultaneous order. the successive order of these degrees is from highest to lowest, or from top to bottom. the angelic heavens are in this order; the third heaven there is the highest, the second is the middle, and the first is the lowest; such is their relative situation. in like successive order are the states of love and wisdom with the angels there, also states of heat and light, and of the spiritual atmospheres. in like order are all the perfections of the forms and forces there. when degrees of height, that is, discrete degrees, are in successive order, they may be compared to a column divided into three stories, through which ascent and descent are made. in the upper rooms are things most perfect and most beautiful; in the middle rooms, things less perfect and beautiful; in the lowest, things still less perfect and beautiful. but simultaneous order, which consists of like degrees, has another appearance. in it, the highest things of successive order, which are (as was said above) the most perfect and most beautiful, are in the inmost, the lower things are in the middle, and the lowest in the circumference. they are as if in a solid body composed of these three degrees: in the middle or center are the finest parts, round about this are parts less fine, and in the extremes which constitute the circumference are the parts composed of these and which are therefore grosser. it is like the column mentioned just above subsiding into a plane, the highest part of which forms the innermost of the plane, the middle forms the middle, and the lowest the outermost. 206. as the highest of successive order becomes the innermost of simultaneous order, and the lowest becomes the outermost, so in the word, "higher" signifies inner, and "lower" signifies outer. "upwards" and "downwards," and "high" and "deep" have a like meaning. 207. in every outmost there are discrete degrees in simultaneous order. the motor fibers in every muscle, the fibers in every nerve, also the fibers and the little vessels in all viscera and organs, are in such an order. innermost in these are the most simple things, which are the most perfect; the outermost is a composite of these. there is a like order of these degrees in every seed and in every fruit, also in every metal and stone; their parts, of which the whole is composed, are of such a nature. the innermost, the middle, and the outermost elements of the parts exist in these degrees, for they are successive compositions, that is, bundlings and massings together from simples that are their first substances or matters. 208. in a word, there are such degrees in every outmost, thus in every effect. for every outmost consists of things prior and these of their firsts. and every effect consists of a cause, and this of an end; and end is the all of cause, and cause is the all of effect (as was shown above); and end makes the inmost, cause the middle, and effect the outmost. the same is true of degrees of love and wisdom, and of heat and light, also of the organic forms of affections and thoughts in man (as will be seen in what follows). the series of these degrees in successive order and in simultaneous order has been treated of also in the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the sacred scripture (n. 38, and elsewhere), where it is shown that there are like degrees in each and all things of the word. 209. the outmost degree is the complex, containant and base of the prior degrees. the doctrine of degrees which is taught in this part, has hitherto been illustrated by various things which exist in both worlds; as by the degrees of the heavens where angels dwell, by the degrees of heat and light with them, and by the degrees of atmospheres, and by various things in the human body, and also in the animal and mineral kingdoms. but this doctrine has a wider range; it extends not only to natural, but also to civil, moral, and spiritual things, and to each and all their details. there are two reasons why the doctrine of degrees extends also to such things. first, in every thing of which anything can be predicated there is the trine which is called end, cause, and effect, and these three are related to one another according to degrees of height. and secondly things civil, moral, and spiritual are not something abstract from substance, but are substances. for as love and wisdom are not abstract things, but substance (as was shown above, n. 40-43), so in like manner are all things that are called civil, moral, and spiritual. these may be thought of abstractly from substances, yet in themselves they are not abstract; as for example, affection and thought, charity and faith, will and understanding; for it is the same with these as with love and wisdom, in that they are not possible outside of subjects which are substances, but are states of subjects, that is, substances. that they are changes of these, presenting variations, will be seen in what follows. by substance is also meant form, for substance is not possible apart from form. 210. from its being possible to think of will and understanding, of affection and thought, and of charity and faith, abstractly from the substances which are their subjects, and from their having been so thought of, it has come to pass, that a correct idea of these things, as being states of substances or forms, has perished. it is altogether as with sensations and actions, which are not things abstract from the organs of sensation and motion. abstracted, that is, separate, from these they are mere figments of reason; for they are like sight apart from an eye, hearing apart from an ear, taste apart from a tongue, and so forth. 211. since all things civil, moral, and spiritual advance through degrees, just as natural things do, not only through continuous but also through discrete degrees; and since the progressions of discrete degrees are like progressions of ends to causes, and of causes to effects, i have chosen to illustrate and confirm the present point, that the outmost degree is the complex, containant, and base of prior degrees, by the things above mentioned, that is, by what pertains to love and wisdom, to will and understanding, to affection and thought, and to charity and faith. 212. that the outmost degree is the complex, containant, and base of prior degrees, is clearly seen from progression of ends and causes to effects. that the effect is the complex, containant, and base of causes and ends can be comprehended by enlightened reason; but it is not so clear that the end with all things thereof, and the cause with all things thereof, are actually in the effect, and that the effect is their full complex. that such is the case can be seen from what has been said above in this part, particularly from this, that one thing is from another in a threefold series, and that the effect is nothing else than the end in its outmost. and since the outmost is the complex, it follows that it is the containant and also the base. 213. as regards love and wisdom:-love is the end, wisdom the instrumental cause, and use is the effect; and use is the complex, containant, and base of wisdom and love; and use is such a complex and such a containant, that all things of love and all things of wisdom are actually in it; it is where they are all simultaneously present. but it should be borne in mind that all things of love and wisdom, which are homogeneous and concordant, are present in use, according to what is said and shown above (in chapter, n. 189-194). 214. affection, thought, and action are also in a series of like degrees, because all affection has relation to love, thought to wisdom, and action to use. charity, faith, and good works are in a series of like degrees, for charity is of affection, faith of thought, and good works of action. will, understanding, and doing are also in a series of like degrees; for will is of love and so of affection, understanding is of wisdom and so of faith, and doing is of use and so of work; as, then, all things of wisdom and love are present in use, so all things of thought and affection are present in action, all things of faith and charity in good works, and so forth; but all are homogeneous, that is, concordant. 215. that the outmost in each series, that is to say, use, action, work, and doing, is the complex and containant of all things prior, has not yet been known. there seems to be nothing more in use, in action, in work, and in doing than such as there is in movement; yet all things prior are actually present in these, and so fully that nothing is lacking. they are contained therein like wine in its cask, or like furniture in a house. they are not apparent, because they are regarded only externally; and regarded externally they are simply activities and motions. it is as when the arms and hands are moved, and man is not conscious that a thousand motor fibers concur in every motion of them, and that to the thousand motor fibers correspond thousands of things of thought and affection, by which the motor fibers are excited. as these act deep within, they are not apparent to any bodily sense. this much is known, that nothing is done in or through the body except from the will through the thought; and because both of these act, it must needs be that each and all things of the will and thought are present in the action. they cannot be separated; consequently from a man's deeds or works others judge of the thought of his will, which is called his intention. it has been made known to me that angels, from a man's deed or work alone, perceive and see every thing of the will and thought of the doer; angels of the third heaven perceiving and seeing from his will the end for which he acts, and angels of the second heaven the cause through which the end operates. it is from this that works and deeds are so often commanded in the word, and that it is said that a man is known by his works. 216. it is according to angelic wisdom that unless the will and understanding, that is, affection and thought, as well as charity and faith, clothe and wrap themselves in works or deeds, whenever possible, they are only like something airy which passes away, or like phantoms in air which perish; and that they first become permanent in man and a part of his life, when he practices and does them. the reason is that the outmost is the complex, containant, and base of things prior. such an airy nothing and such a phantom is faith separated from good works; such also are faith and charity without their exercise, with this difference only, that those who hold to faith and charity know what is good and can will to do it, but not so those who are in faith separated from charity. 217. the degrees of height are in fullness and in power in their outmost degree. in the preceding chapter it is shown that the outmost degree is the complex and containant of prior degrees. from this it follows that prior degrees are in their fullness in their outmost degree, for they are in their effect, and every effect is the fullness of causes. 218. that these ascending and descending degrees, also called prior and subsequent, likewise degrees of height or discrete degrees, are in their power in their outmost degree, may be confirmed by all those things that have been adduced in the preceding chapters as confirmations from objects of sense and perception. here, however, i choose to confirm them only by the conatus, forces and motions in dead and in living subjects. it is known that conatus does nothing of itself, but acts through forces corresponding to it, thereby producing motion; consequently that conatus is the all in forces, and through forces is the all in motion; and since motion is the outmost degree of conatus, through motion conatus exerts its power. conatus, force, and motion are no otherwise conjoined than according to degrees of height, conjunction of which is not by continuity, for they are discrete, but by correspondences. for conatus is not force, nor is force motion, but force is produced by conatus, because force is conatus made active, and through force motion is produced; consequently there is no power in conatus alone, nor in force alone, but in motion, which is their product. that this is so may still seem doubtful, because not illustrated by applications to sensible and perceptible things in nature; nevertheless, such is the progression of conatus, force, and motion into power. 219. but let application of this be made to living conatus, and to living force, and to living motion. living conatus in man, who is a living subject, is his will united to his understanding; living forces in man are the interior constituents of his body, in all of which there are motor fibers interlacing in various ways; and living motion in man is action, which is produced through these forces by the will united to the understanding. for the interior things pertaining to the will and understanding make the first degree; the interior things pertaining to the body make the second degree; and the whole body, which is the complex of these, makes the third degree. that the interior things pertaining to the mind have no power except through forces in the body, also that forces have no power except through the action of the body itself, is well known. these three do not act by what is continuous, but by what is discrete; and to act by what is discrete is to act by correspondences. the interiors of the mind correspond to the interiors of the body, and the interiors of the body correspond to the exteriors, through which actions come forth; consequently the two prior degrees have power through the exteriors of the body. it may seem as if conatus and forces in man have some power even when there is no action, as in sleep and in states of rest, but still at such times the determinations of conatus and forces are directed into the general motor organs of the body, which are the heart and the lungs; but when their action ceases the forces also cease, and, with the forces, the conatus. 220. since the powers of the whole, that is, of the body, are determined chiefly into the arms and hands, which are outmosts, "arms" and "hands," in the word, signify power, and the "right hand" signifies superior power. and such being the evolution and putting forth of degrees into power, the angels that are with man and in correspondence with all things belonging to him, know merely from such action as is effected through the hands, what a man is in respect to his understanding and will, also his charity and faith, thus in respect to the internal life pertaining to his mind and the external life derived therefrom in the body. i have often wondered that the angels have such knowledge from the mere action of the body through the hands; but that it is so has been shown to me repeatedly by living experience, and it has been said that it is from this that inductions into the ministry are performed by the laying on of the hands, and that "touching with the hand" signifies communicating, with other like things. from all this the conclusion is formed, that the all of charity and faith is in works, and that charity and faith without works are like rainbows about the sun, which vanish away and are dispersed by a cloud. on this account "works" and "doing works" are so often mentioned in the word, and it is said that a man's salvation depends upon these; moreover, he that doeth is called a wise man, and he that doeth not is called a foolish man. but it should be remembered that by "works" here are meant uses actually done; for the all of charity and faith is in uses and according to uses. there is this correspondence of works with uses, because the correspondence is spiritual, but it is carried out through substances and matters, which are subjects. 221. two arcana, which are brought within reach of the understanding by what precedes, may here be revealed. the first arcanum is that the word is in its fullness and in its power in the sense of the letter. for there are three senses in the word, according to the three degrees; the celestial sense, the spiritual sense, and the natural sense. since these senses are in the word according to the three degrees of height, and their conjunction is effected by correspondences, the outmost sense, which is the natural and is called the sense of the letter, is not only the complex, containant and base of the corresponding interior senses, but moreover in the outmost sense the word is in its fullness and in its power. this is abundantly shown and proved in the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the sacred scripture (n. 27-35, 36-49, 50-61, 62-69). the second arcanum is that the lord came into the world, and took upon him the human, in order to put himself into the power of subjugating the hells, and of reducing all things to order both in the heavens and on the earth. this human he put on over his former human. this human which he put on in the world was like the human of a man in the world. yet both humans are divine, and therefore infinitely transcend the finite humans of angels and men. and because he fully glorified the natural human even to its outmosts, he rose again with the whole body, differently from any man. through the assumption of this human the lord put on divine omnipotence not only for subjugating the hells, and reducing the heavens to order, but also holding the hells in subjection to eternity, and saving mankind. this power is meant by his "sitting at the right hand of the power and might of god." because the lord, by the assumption of a natural human, made himself divine truth in outmosts, he is called "the word," and it is said that "the word was made flesh;" moreover, divine truth in outmosts is the word in the sense of the letter. this the lord made himself by fulfilling all things of the word concerning himself in moses and the prophets. for while every man is his own good and his own truth, and man is man on no other ground, the lord, by the assumption of a natural human, is divine good itself and divine truth itself, or what is the same, he is divine love itself and divine wisdom itself, both in firsts and in lasts. consequently the lord, since his advent into the world, appears as a sun in the angelic heavens, in stronger radiance and in greater splendor than before his advent. this is an arcanum which is brought within the range of the understanding by the doctrine of degrees. the lord's omnipotence before his advent into the world will be treated of in what follows. 222. there are degrees of both kinds in the greatest and in the least of all created things. that the greatest and the least of all things consist of discrete and continuous degrees, that is, of degrees of height and of breadth, cannot be illustrated by examples from visible objects, because the least things are not visible to the eyes, and the greatest things which are visible seem undistinguished into degrees; consequently this matter does not allow of demonstration otherwise than by universals. and since angels are in wisdom from universals, and from that in knowledge of particulars, it is allowed to bring forward their statements concerning these things. 223. the statements of angels on this subject are as follows: there can be nothing so minute as not to have in it degrees of both kinds; for instance, there can be nothing so minute in any animal, or in any plant, or in any mineral, or in the ether or air, as not to have in it degrees of both kinds, and since ether and air are receptacles of heat and light, and spiritual heat and spiritual light are the receptacles of love and wisdom, there can be nothing of heat and light or of love and wisdom so minute as not to have in it degrees of both kinds. angels also declare that the minutest thing of an affection and the minutest thing of a thought, nay, the minutest thing of an idea of thought, consists of degrees of both kinds, and that a minute thing not consisting of these degrees would be nothing; for it would have no form, thus no quality, nor any state which could be changed and varied, and by this means have existence. angels confirm this by the truth, that infinite things in god the creator, who is the lord from eternity, are one distinctly; and that there are infinite things in his infinites; and that in things infinitely infinite there are degrees of both kinds, which also in him are one distinctly; and because these things are in him, and all things were created by him, and things created repeat in an image the things which are in him, it follows that there cannot be the least finite in which there are not such degrees. these degrees are equally in things least and greatest, because the divine is the same in things greatest and in things least. that in god-man infinite things are one distinctly, see above (n. 17-22); and that the divine is the same in things greatest and in things least (n. 77-82); which positions are further illustrated (n. 155, 169, 171). 224. there cannot be the least thing of love and wisdom, or the least thing of affection and thought, or even the least thing of an idea of thought, in which there are not degrees of both kinds, for the reason that love and wisdom are substance and form (as shown above, n. 50-53), and the same is true of affection and thought; and because there can be no form in which these degrees are not (as was said above), it follows that in these there are like degrees; for to separate love and wisdom, or affection and thought, from substance in form, is to annihilate them, since they are not possible outside of their subjects; for they are states of their subjects perceived by man varyingly, which states present them to view. 225. the greatest things in which there are degrees of both kinds, are the universe in its whole complex, the natural world in its complex, and the spiritual world in its complex; every empire and every kingdom in its complex; also, all civil, moral and spiritual concerns of these in their complex; the whole animal kingdom, the whole vegetable kingdom, and the whole mineral kingdom, each in its complex; all atmospheres of both worlds taken together, also their heats and lights. likewise things less general, as man in his complex; every animal in its complex, every tree and every shrub in its complex; as also every stone and every metal in its complex. the forms of these are alike in this, that they consist of degrees of both kinds; the reason is that the divine, by which they were created, is the same in things greatest and least (as was shown above, n.77-82). the particulars and the veriest particulars of all these are like generals and the largest generals in this, that they are forms of both kinds of degrees. 226. on account of things greatest and least being forms of both kinds of degrees, there is connection between them from first to last; for likeness conjoins them. still, there can be no least thing which is the same as any other; consequently all particulars are distinct from each other, likewise all veriest particulars. in any form or in different forms there can be no least thing the same as any other, for the reason that in greatest forms there are like degrees, and the greatest are made up of leasts. from there being such degrees in things greatest, and perpetual differences in accordance with these degrees, from top to bottom and from center to circumference, it follows that their lesser or least constituents, in which there are like degrees, can no one of them be the same as any other. 227. it is likewise a matter of angelic wisdom that from this similitude between generals and particulars, that is, between things greatest and least in respect to these degrees, comes the perfection of the created universe; for thereby one thing regards another as its like, with which it can be conjoined for every use, and can present every end in effect. 228. but these things may seem paradoxical, because they are not explained by application to visible things; yet things abstract, being universals, are often better comprehended than things applied, for these are of perpetual variety, and variety obscures. 229. some contend that there can be a substance so simple as not to be a form from lesser forms, and out of that substance, through a process of massing, substantiated or composite things arise, and finally substances called material. but there can be no such absolutely simple substances. for what is substance without form? it is that of which nothing can be predicated; and out of mere being of which nothing can be predicated, no process of massing can make anything. that there are things innumerable in the first created substance of all things, which are things most minute and simple, will be seen in what follows, where forms are treated of. 230. in the lord the three degrees of height are infinite and uncreate, but in man the three degrees are finite and created. in the lord the three degrees of height are infinite and uncreate, because the lord is love itself and wisdom itself (as has been already shown); and because the lord is love itself and wisdom itself, he is also use itself. for love has use for its end, and brings forth use by means of wisdom; for without use love and wisdom have no boundary or end, that is, no home of their own, consequently they cannot be said to have being and have form unless there be use in which they may be. these three constitute the three degrees of height in subjects of life. these three are like first end, middle end which is called cause, and last end which is called effect. that end, cause and effect constitute the three degrees of height has been shown above and abundantly proved. 231. that in man there are these three degrees can be seen from the elevation of his mind even to the degrees of love and wisdom in which angels of the second and third heavens are; for all angels were born men; and man, as regards the interiors pertaining to his mind, is a heaven in least form; therefore there are in man, by creation, as many degrees of height as there are heavens. moreover, man is an image and likeness of god; consequently these three degrees have been inscribed on man, because they are in god-man, that is, in the lord. that in the lord these degrees are infinite and uncreate, and in man finite and created, can be seen from what was shown in part first; namely, from this, that the lord is love and wisdom in himself; and that man is a recipient of love and wisdom from the lord; also, that of the lord nothing but what is infinite can be predicated, and of man nothing but what is finite. 232. these three degrees with the angels are called celestial, spiritual, and natural; and for them the celestial degree is the degree of love, the spiritual the degree of wisdom, and the natural the degree of uses. these degrees are so called because the heavens are divided into two kingdoms, one called the celestial, the other the spiritual, to which is added a third kingdom wherein are men in the world, and this is the natural kingdom. moreover, the angels of whom the celestial kingdom consists are in love; the angels, of whom the spiritual kingdom consists are in wisdom; while men in the world are in uses; therefore these kingdoms are conjoined. how it is to be understood that men are in uses will be shown in the next part. 233. it has been told me from heaven, that in the lord from eternity, who is jehovah, before his assumption of a human in the world, the two prior degrees existed actually, and the third degree potentially, as they do also with angels; but that after the assumption of a human in the world, he put on over these the third degree, called the natural, thereby becoming man, like a man in the world; but with the difference, that in the lord this degree, like the prior degrees, is infinite and uncreate, while in angel and in man they are all finite and created. for the divine which, apart from space, had filled all spaces (n. 69-72), penetrated even to the outmosts of nature; yet before the assumption of the human, the divine influx into the natural degree was mediate through the angelic heavens, but after the assumption it was immediate from himself. this is the reason why all churches in the world before his advent were representative of spiritual and celestial things, but after his advent became spiritual-natural and celestial-natural, and representative worship was abolished. this also was the reason why the sun of the angelic heaven, which, as was said above, is the first proceeding of his divine love and divine wisdom, after the assumption of the human shone out with greater effulgence and splendor than before the assumption. and this is what is meant by these words in isaiah: in that day the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days (30:26). this is said of the state of heaven and of the church after the lord's coming into the world. again, in the apocalypse: the countenance of the son of man was as the sun shineth in his strength (1:16); and elsewhere (as in isaiah 60:20; 2 sam. 23:3, 4; matt. 17:1, 2). the mediate enlightenment of men through the angelic heaven, which existed before the coming of the lord, may be compared to the light of the moon, which is the mediate light of the sun; and because after his coming this was made immediate, it is said in isaiah, that the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun (30:26); and in david: in his days shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace until there is no longer any moon (72:7). this also is said of the lord. 234. the reason why the lord from eternity, that is, jehovah, put on this third degree by the assumption of a human in the world, was that he could enter into this degree only by means of a nature like human nature, thus only by means of conception from his divine and by birth from a virgin; for in this way he could put off a nature which, although a receptacle of the divine, is in itself dead, and could put on the divine. this is meant by the lord's two states in the world, which are called the state of exinanition and the state of glorification, which are treated of in the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the lord. 235. of the threefold ascent of the degrees of height this much has been said in general; but these degrees cannot here be discussed in detail, because (as was said in the preceding chapter) there must be these three degrees in things greatest and things least; this only need be said, that there are such degrees in each and all things of love, and therefrom in each and all things of wisdom, and from both of these in each and all things of use. in the lord all these degrees are infinite; in angel and man they are finite. but how there are these three degrees in love, in wisdom, and in uses cannot be described and unfolded except in series. 236. these three degrees of height are in every man from birth, and can be opened successively; and, as they are opened, man is in the lord and the lord in man. that there are three degrees of height in every man, has not until now become known for the reason that these degrees have not been recognized, and so long as they remained unnoticed, none but continuous degrees could be known; and when none but continuous degrees are known, it may be supposed that love and wisdom increase in man only by continuity. but it should be known, that in every man from his birth there are three degrees of height, or discrete degrees, one above or within another; and that each degree of height, or discrete degree, has also degrees of breadth, or continuous degrees, according to which it increases by continuity. for there are degrees of both kinds in things greatest and least of all things (as was shown above, n. 222-229); for no degree of one kind is possible without degrees of the other kind. 237. these three degrees of height are called natural, spiritual, and celestial (as was said above, n. 232). when man is born he comes first into the natural degree, and this grows in him, by continuity, according to his knowledges and the understanding acquired by means of knowledges even to the highest point of understanding, which is called the rational. yet not by this means is the second degree opened, which is called the spiritual. that degree is opened by means of a love of uses in accordance with the things of the understanding, although by a spiritual love of uses, which is love towards the neighbor. this degree may grow in like manner by continuous degrees to its height, and it grows by means of knowledges of truth and good, that is, by spiritual truths. yet even by such truths the third degree which is called the celestial is not opened; for this degree is opened by means of the celestial love of use, which is love to the lord; and love to the lord is nothing else than committing to life the precepts of the word, the sum of which is to flee from evils because they are hellish and devilish, and to do good because it is heavenly and divine. in this manner these three degrees are successively opened in man. 238. so long as man lives in the world he knows nothing of the opening of these degrees within him, because he is then in the natural degree, which is the outmost, and from this he then thinks, wills, speaks, and acts; and the spiritual degree, which is interior, communicates with the natural degree, not by continuity but by correspondences, and communication by correspondences is not sensibly felt. but when man puts off the natural degree, which he does at death, he comes into that degree which has been opened within him in the world; he in whom the spiritual degree has been opened coming into that degree, and he within whom the celestial degree has been opened coming into that degree. he who comes into the spiritual degree after death no longer thinks, wills, speaks, and acts naturally, but spiritually; and he who comes into the celestial degree thinks, wills, speaks, and acts according to that degree. and as there can be communication between the three degrees only by correspondences, the differences of love, wisdom, and use, as regards these degrees are such as to have no common ground by means of anything continuous. from all this it is plain that man has three degrees of height that may be successively opened in him. 239. since there are in man three degrees of love and wisdom, and therefore of use, it follows that there must be in him three degrees, of will, of understanding, and of result therefrom, thus of determination to use; for will is the receptacle of love, understanding the receptacle of wisdom, and result is use from these. from this it is evident that there are in every man a natural, a spiritual, and a celestial will and understanding, potentially by birth and actually when they are opened. in a word the mind of man, which consists of will and understanding, is from creation and therefore from birth, of three degrees, so that man has a natural mind, a spiritual mind, and a celestial mind, and can thereby be elevated into and possess angelic wisdom while he lives in the world; but it is only after death, and then only if he becomes an angel, that he enters into that wisdom, and his speech then becomes ineffable and incomprehensible to the natural man. i knew a man of moderate learning in the world, whom i saw after death and spoke with in heaven, and i clearly perceived that he spoke like an angel, and that the things he said would be inconceivable to the natural man; and for the reason that in the world he had applied the precepts of the word to life and had worshiped the lord, and was therefore raised up by the lord into the third degree of love and wisdom. it is important that this elevation of the human mind should be known about, for upon it depends the understanding of what follows. 240. there are in man from the lord two capacities whereby he is distinguished from beasts. one of these is the ability to understand what is true and what is good; this is called rationality, and is a capacity of his understanding. the other is an ability to do what is true and good; this is called freedom, and is a capacity of his will. for man by virtue of his rationality is able to think whatever he pleases, either with or against god, either with or against the neighbor; he is also able to will and to do what he thinks; but when he sees evil and fears punishment, he is able, by virtue of his freedom, to abstain from doing it. by virtue of these two capacities man is man, and is distinguished from beasts. man has these two capacities from the lord, and they are from him every moment; nor are they taken away, for if they were, man's human would perish. in these two capacities the lord is with every man, good and evil alike; they are the lord's abode in the human race; from this it is that all men live for ever, both the good and evil. but the lord's abode in man is nearer as by the agency of these capacities man opens the higher degrees, for by the opening of these man comes into higher degree of love and wisdom, thus nearer to the lord. from this it can be seen that as these degrees are opened, man is in the lord and the lord in him. 241. it is said above, that the three degrees of height are like end, cause, and effect, and that love, wisdom, and use follow in succession according to these degrees; therefore a few things shall be said here about love as being end, wisdom as being cause, and use as being effect. whoever consults his reason, if it is enlightened, can see that the end of all things of man is his love; for what he loves that he thinks, decides upon, and does, consequently that he has for his end. man can also see from his reason that wisdom is cause; since he, that is, his love, which is his end, searches in his understanding for its means through which to attain its end, thus consulting its wisdom, and these means constitute the instrumental cause. that use is effect is evident without explanation. but one man's love is not the same as another's, neither is one man's wisdom the same as another's; so it is with use. and since these three are homogeneous (as was shown above, n. 189-194), it follows that such as is the love in man, such is the wisdom and such is the use. wisdom is here spoken of, but by it what pertains to man's understanding is meant. 242. spiritual light flows in with man through degrees, but not spiritual heat, except so far as man flees from evils as sins and looks to the lord. it is evident from what has been shown above that from the sun of heaven, which is the first proceeding of divine love and divine wisdom (treated of in part second), light and heat proceed light from its wisdom, and heat from its love; also that light is the receptacle of wisdom, and heat of love; also that so far as man comes into wisdom he comes into that divine light, and so far as he comes into love he comes into that divine heat. from what has been shown above it is also evident that there are three degrees of light and three degrees of heat, that is, three degrees of wisdom and three degrees of love, and that these degrees have been formed in man in order that he may be a receptacle of the divine love and the divine wisdom, thus of the lord. it is now to be shown that spiritual light flows in through these three degrees in man, but not spiritual heat, except so far as man shuns evils as sins and looks to the lord or, what is the same, that man is able to receive wisdom even to the third degree, but not love, unless he flees from evils as sins and looks to the lord; or what is still the same, that man's understanding can be raised into wisdom, but not his will, except so far as he flees from evils as sins. 243. that the understanding can be raised into the light of heaven, that is, into angelic wisdom, while the will cannot be raised into the heat of heaven, that is, into angelic love, unless man flees from evils as sins and looks to the lord, has been made plainly evident to me from experience in the spiritual world. i have frequently seen and perceived that simple spirits, who knew merely that god is and that the lord was born a man, and who knew scarcely anything else, clearly apprehended the arcana of angelic wisdom almost as the angels do; and not these simple ones alone, but many also of the infernal crew. these, while they listened, understood, but not when they thought within themselves; for while they listened, light entered from above, and when they thought within themselves, no light could enter except that which corresponded to their heat or love; consequently when they had listened to and perceived these arcana, as soon as they turned their ears away they remembered nothing, those belonging to the infernal crew even rejecting these things with disgust and utterly denying them, because the fire of their love and its light, being delusive, induced darkness, by which the heavenly light entering from above was extinguished. 244. the same thing happens in the world. a man not altogether stupid, and who has not confirmed himself in falsities from the pride of self-intelligence, hearing others speak on some exalted matter, or reading something of the kind, if he is in any affection of knowing, understands these things and also retains them, and may afterwards confirm them. a bad man as well as a good man may do this. even a bad man, though in heart he denies the divine things pertaining to the church, can still understand them, and also speak of and preach them, and in writing learnedly prove them; but when left to his own thought, from his own infernal love he thinks against them and denies them. from which it is obvious that the understanding can be in spiritual light even when the will is not in spiritual heat; and from this it also follows that the understanding does not lead the will, or that wisdom does not beget love, but only teaches and shows the way, teaching how a man ought to live, and showing the way in which he ought to go. it further follows that the will leads the understanding, and causes it to act as one with itself; also that whatever in the understanding agrees with the love which is in the will, the love calls wisdom. in what follows it will be seen that the will does nothing by itself apart from the understanding, but does all that it does in conjunction with the understanding; moreover, that it is the will that by influx takes the understanding into partnership with itself, and not the reverse. 245. the nature of the influx of light into the three degrees of life in man which belong to his mind, shall now be shown. the forms which are receptacles of heat and light, that is, of love and wisdom in man, and which (as was said) are in threefold order or of three degrees, are transparent from birth, transmitting spiritual light as crystal glass transmits natural light; consequently in respect to wisdom man can be raised even into the third degree. nevertheless these forms are not opened except when spiritual heat conjoins itself to spiritual light, that is, love to wisdom; by such conjunction these transparent forms are opened according to degrees. it is the same with light and heat from the sun of the world in their action on plants on the earth. the light of winter, which is as bright as that of summer, opens nothing in seed or in tree, but when vernal heat conjoins itself to that light then the heat opens them. there is this similarity because spiritual light corresponds to natural light, and spiritual heat to natural heat. 246. this spiritual heat is obtained only by fleeing from evils as sins, and at the same time looking to the lord; for so long as man is in evils he is also in the love of them, for he lusts after them; and the love of evil and the lust, abide in a love contrary to spiritual love and affection; and such love or lust can be removed only by fleeing from evils as sins; and because man cannot flee from evils from himself, but only from the lord. he must look to the lord. so when he flees from evils from the lord, the love of evil and its heat are removed, and the love of good and its heat are introduced in their stead, whereby a higher degree is opened; for the lord flowing in from above opens that degree, and then conjoins love, that is, spiritual heat, to wisdom or spiritual light, from which conjunction man begins to flourish spiritually, like a tree in spring-time. 247. by the influx of spiritual light into all three degrees of the mind man is distinguished from beasts; and, as contrasted with beasts, he can think analytically, and see both natural and spiritual truth; and when he sees them he can acknowledge them, and thus be reformed and regenerated. this capacity to receive spiritual light is what is meant by rationality (referred to above), which every man has from the lord, and which is not taken away from him, for if it were taken away he could not be reformed. from this capacity, called rationality, man, unlike the beasts, is able not only to think but also to speak from thought; and afterwards from his other capacity, called freedom (also referred to above), he is able to do those things that he thinks from his understanding. as these two capacities, rationality and freedom, which are proper to man, have been treated of above (n. 240), no more will be said about them here. 248. unless the higher degree which is the spiritual is opened in man, he becomes natural and sensual. it was shown above that there are three degrees of the human mind, called natural, spiritual, and celestial, and that these degrees may be opened successively in man; also, that the natural degree is first opened; afterwards, if man flees from evil as sins and looks to the lord, the spiritual degree is opened; and lastly, the celestial. since these degrees are opened successively according to man's life, it follows that the two higher degrees may remain unopened, and man then continues in the natural degree, which is the outmost. moreover, it is known in the world that there is a natural and a spiritual man, or an external and an internal man; but it is not known that a natural man becomes spiritual by the opening of some higher degree in him, and that such opening is effected by a spiritual life, which is a life conformed to the divine precepts; and that without a life conformed to these man remains natural. 249. there are three kinds of natural men; the first consists of those who know nothing of the divine precepts; the second, of those who know that there are such precepts, but give no thought to a life according to them; and the third, of those who despise and deny these precepts. in respect to the first class, which consists of those who know nothing of the divine precepts, since they cannot be taught by themselves they must needs remain natural. every man is taught respecting the divine precepts, not by immediate revelations, but by others who know them from religion, on which subject see the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the sacred scriptures (n. 114-118). those of the second class, who know that there are divine precepts but give no thought to a life according to them, also remain natural, and care about no other concerns than those of the world and the body. these after death become mere menials and servants, according to the uses which they are able to perform for those who are spiritual; for the natural man is a menial and servant, and the spiritual man is a master and lord. those of the third class, who despise and deny the divine precepts, not only remain natural, but also become sensual in the measure of their contempt and denial. sensual men are the lowest natural men, who are incapable of thinking above the appearances and fallacies of the bodily senses. after death they are in hell. 250. as it is unknown in the world what the spiritual man is, and what the natural, and as by many he who is merely natural is called spiritual, and conversely, these subjects shall be separately discussed, as follows: (1) what the natural man is, and what the spiritual man. (2) the character of the natural man in whom the spiritual degree is opened. (3) the character of the natural man in whom the spiritual degree is not opened and yet not closed. (4) the character of the natural man in whom the spiritual degree is entirely closed. (5) lastly, the nature of the difference between the life of a man merely natural and the life of a beast. 251. (1) what the natural man is, and what the spiritual man. man is not man from face and body, but from understanding and will; therefore by the natural man and the spiritual man is meant that man's understanding and will are either natural or spiritual. the natural man in respect to his understanding and will is like the natural world, and may be called a world or microcosm; and the spiritual man in respect to his understanding and will is like the spiritual world, and may be called a spiritual world or heaven. from which it is evident that as the natural man is in a kind of image a natural world, so he loves those things which are of the natural world; and that as the spiritual man is in a kind of image a spiritual world, so he loves those things which are of that world, or of heaven. the spiritual man indeed loves the natural world also but not otherwise than as a master loves his servant through whom he performs uses. moreover, according to uses the natural man becomes like the spiritual, which is the case when the natural man feels from the spiritual the delight of use; such a natural man may be called spiritual-natural. the spiritual man loves spiritual truths; he not only loves to know and understand them, but also wills them; while the natural man loves to speak of those truths and also do them. doing truths is performing uses. this subordination is from the conjunction of the spiritual world and the natural world; for whatever appears and is done in the natural world derives its cause from the spiritual world. from all this it can be seen that the spiritual man is altogether distinct from the natural, and that there is no other communication between them than such as there is between cause and effect. 252. (2) the character of the natural man in whom the spiritual degree is opened. this is obvious from what has been said above; to which it may be added, that a natural man is a complete man when the spiritual degree is opened in him, for he is then consociated with angels in heaven and at the same time with men in the world, and in regard to both, lives under the lord's guidance. for the spiritual man imbibes commands from the lord through the word, and executes them through the natural man. the natural man who has the spiritual degree opened does not know that he thinks and acts from his spiritual man, for it seems as if he did this from himself, when yet he does not do it from himself but from the lord. nor does the natural man whose spiritual degree has been opened know that by means of his spiritual man he is in heaven, when yet his spiritual man is in the midst of angels of heaven, and sometimes is even visible to them; but because he draws himself back to his natural man, after a brief stay there he disappears. nor does the natural man in whom the spiritual degree has been opened know that his spiritual mind is being filled by the lord with thousands of arcana of wisdom, and with thousands of delights of love, and that he is to come into these after death, when he becomes an angel. the natural man does not know these things because communication between the natural man and the spiritual man is effected by correspondences; and communication by correspondences is perceived in the understanding only by the fact that truths are seen in light, and is perceived in the will only by the fact that uses are performed from affection. 253. (3) the character of the natural man in whom the spiritual degree is not opened, and yet not closed. the spiritual degree is not opened, and yet not closed, in the case of those who have led somewhat of a life of charity and yet have known little of genuine truth. the reason is, that this degree is opened by conjunction of love and wisdom, or of heat with light; love alone or spiritual heat alone not opening it, nor wisdom alone or spiritual light alone, but both in conjunction. consequently, when genuine truths, out of which wisdom or light arises, are unknown, love is inadequate to open that degree; it only keeps it in the possibility of being opened; this is what is meant by its not being closed. something like this is seen in the vegetable kingdom, in that heat alone does not cause seeds and trees to vegetate, but heat in conjunction with light effects this. it is to be known that all truths are of spiritual light and all goods are of spiritual heat, and that good opens the spiritual degree by means of truths; for good, by means of truths, effects use, and uses are goods of love, which derive their essence from a conjunction of good and truth. the lot, after death, of those in whom the spiritual degree is not opened and yet not closed, is that since they are still natural and not spiritual, they are in the lowest parts of heaven, where they sometimes suffer hard times; or they are in the outskirts in some higher heaven, where they are as it were in the light of evening; for (as was said above) in heaven and in every society there the light decreases from the middle to the outskirts, and those who above others are in divine truths are in the middle, while those who are in few truths are in the outskirts. those are in few truths who from religion know only that there is a god, and that the lord suffered for them, and that charity and faith are essentials of the church, not troubling themselves to know what faith is or what charity is; when yet faith in its essence is truth, and truth is manifold, and charity is all the work of his calling which man does from the lord; he does this from the lord when he flees from evils as sins. it is just as was said above, that the end is the all of the cause, and the effect the all of the end by means of the cause; the end is charity or good, the cause is faith or truth, and effects are good works or uses; from which it is plain that from charity no more can be carried into works than the measure in which charity is conjoined with the truths which are called truths of faith. by means of these truths charity enters into works and qualifies them. 254. (4) the character of the natural man in whom the spiritual degree is entirely closed. the spiritual degree is closed in those who are in evils as to life, and still more in those who from evils are in falsities. it is the same as with the fibril of a nerve, which contracts at the slightest touch of any thing heterogeneous; so every motive fiber of a muscle, yea, the muscle itself, and even the whole body shrinks from the touch of whatever is hard or cold. so also the substances or forms of the spiritual degree in man shrink from evils and their falsities, because these are heterogeneous. for the spiritual degree, being in the form of heaven, admits nothing but goods, and truths that are from good; these are homogeneous to it; but evils, and falsities that are from evil, are heterogeneous to it. this degree is contracted, and by contraction closed, especially in those who in the world are in love of ruling from love of self, because this love is opposed to love to the lord. it is also closed, but not so much, in those who from love of the world are in the insane greed of possessing the goods of others. these loves shut the spiritual degree, because they are the origins of evils. the contraction or closing of this degree is like the twisting back of a spiral in the opposite direction; for which reason, that degree after it is closed, turns back the light of heaven; consequently there is thick darkness there instead of heavenly light, and truth which is in the light of heaven, becomes nauseous. in such persons, not only does the spiritual degree itself become closed, but also the higher region of the natural degree which is called the rational, until at last the lowest region of the natural degree, which is called the sensual, alone stands open; this being nearest to the world and to the outward senses of the body, from which such a man afterwards thinks, speaks, and reasons. the natural man who has become sensual through evils and their falsities, in the spiritual world in the light of heaven does not appear as a man but as a monster, even with nose drawn back (the nose is drawn in because the nose corresponds to the perception of truth); moreover, he cannot bear a ray of heavenly light. such have in their caverns no other light than what resembles the light from live coals or from burning charcoal. from all this it is evident who and of what character are those in whom the spiritual degree is closed. 255. (5) the nature of the difference between the life of a natural man and the life of a beast. this difference will be particularly discussed in what follows, where life will be treated of. here it may be said only that the difference is that man has three degrees of mind, that is, three degrees of understanding and will, which degrees can be opened successively; and as these are transparent, man can be raised as to his understanding into the light of heaven and see truths, not only civil and moral, but also spiritual, and from many truths seen can form conclusions about truths in their order, and thus perfect the understanding to eternity. but beasts do not have the two higher degrees, but only the natural degrees, and these apart from the higher degrees have no capacity to think on any subject, civil, moral, or spiritual. and since the natural degrees of beasts are incapable of being opened, and thereby raised into higher light, they are unable to think in successive order, but only in simultaneous order, which is not thinking, but acting from a knowledge corresponding to their love. and because they are unable to think analytically, and to view a lower thought from any higher thought, they are unable to speak, but are able only to utter sounds in accordance with the knowledge pertaining to their love. yet the sensual man, who is in the lowest sense natural, differs from the beast only in this, that he can fill his memory with knowledges, and think and speak therefrom; this power he gets from a capacity proper to every man, of being able to understand truth if he chooses; it is this capacity that makes the difference. nevertheless many, by abuse of this capacity, have made themselves lower than beasts. 256. the natural degree of the human mind regarded in itself is continuous, but by correspondence with the two higher degrees it appears when it is elevated as if it were discrete. although this is hardly comprehensible, by those who have as yet no knowledge of degrees of height, it must nevertheless be revealed, because it is a part of angelic wisdom; and while the natural man is unable to think about this wisdom in the same way as angels do, nevertheless it can be comprehended by his understanding, when it has been raised into the degree of light in which angels are; for his understanding can be elevated even to that extent, and enlightened according to its elevation. but this enlightenment of the natural mind does not ascend by discrete degrees; but increases in a continuous degree, and as it increases, that mind is enlightened from within by the light of the two higher degrees. how this occurs can be comprehended from a perception of degrees of height, as being one above another, while the natural degree, which is the lowest, is a kind of general covering to the two higher degrees. then, as the natural degree is raised up towards a degree of the higher kind, the higher acts from within upon the outer natural and illuminates it. this illumination is effected, indeed, from within, by the light of the higher degrees, but the natural degree which envelops and surrounds the higher receives it by continuity, thus more lucidly and purely in proportion to its ascent; that is, from within, by the light of the higher degrees, the natural degree is enlightened discretely, but in itself is enlightened continuously. from this it is evident that so long as man lives in the world, and is thereby in the natural degree, he cannot be elevated into very wisdom, such as the angels have, but only into higher light, even up to angels, and can receive enlightenment from their light that flows in from within and illuminates. but these things cannot as yet be more clearly described; they can be better comprehended from effects; for effects present causes in themselves in clear light, and thus illustrate them, when there is some previous knowledge of causes. 257. the effects are these: (1) the natural mind may be raised up to the light of heaven in which angels are, and may perceive naturally, thus not so fully, what the angels perceive spiritually; nevertheless, man's natural mind cannot be raised into angelic light itself. (2) by means of his natural mind, raised to the light of heaven, man can think, yea, speak with angels; but the thought and speech of the angels then flow into the natural thought and speech of the man, and not conversely; so that angels speak with man in a natural language, which is the man's mother tongue. (3) this is effected by a spiritual influx into what is natural, and not by any natural influx into what is spiritual. (4) human wisdom, which so long as man lives in the natural world is natural, can by no means be raised into angelic wisdom, but only into some image of it. the reason is, that elevation of the natural mind is effected by continuity, as from shade to light, or from grosser to purer. still the man in whom the spiritual degree has been opened comes into that wisdom when he dies; and he may also come into it by a suspension of bodily sensations, and then by an influx from above into the spiritual parts of his mind. (5) man's natural mind consists of spiritual substances together with natural substances; thought comes from its spiritual substances, not from its natural substances; these recede when the man dies, while its spiritual substances do not. consequently, after death, when man becomes a spirit or angel, the same mind remains in a form like that which it had in the world. (6) the natural substances of that mind, which recede (as was said) by death, constitute the cutaneous covering of the spiritual body which spirits and angels have. by means of such covering, which is taken from the natural world, their spiritual bodies maintain existence; for the natural is the outmost containant: consequently there is no spirit or angel who was not born a man. these arcana of angelic wisdom are here adduced that the quality of the natural mind in man may be known, which subject is further treated of in what follows. 258. every man is born into a capacity to understand truths even to the inmost degree in which the angels of the third heaven are; for the human understanding, rising up by continuity around the two higher degrees, receives the light of their wisdom, in the manner stated above (n. 256). therefore man has the ability to become rational according to his elevation; if raised to the third degree he becomes rational from that degree, if raised to the second degree he becomes rational from that degree, if not raised he is rational in the first degree. it is said that he becomes rational from those degrees, because the natural degree is the general receptacle of their light. the reason why man does not become rational to the height that he might is, that love, which is of the will, cannot be raised in the same manner as wisdom, which is of the understanding. love, which is of the will, is raised only by fleeing from evils as sins, and then by goods of charity, which are uses, which the man thereafter performs from the lord. consequently, when love, which is of the will, is not at the same time raised, wisdom, which is of the understanding, however it may have ascended, falls back again down to its own love. therefore, if man's love is not at the same time raised into the spiritual degree, he is rational only in the lowest degree. from all this it can be seen that man's rational is in appearance as if it were of three degrees, a rational from the celestial, a rational from the spiritual, and a rational from the natural; also that rationality, which is the capacity whereby man is elevated, is still in man whether he be elevated or not. 259. it has been said that every man is born into that capacity, namely, rationality, but by this is meant every man whose externals have not been injured by some accident, either in the womb, or by some disease after birth, or by a wound inflicted on the head, or in consequence of some insane love bursting forth, and breaking down restraints. in such the rational cannot be elevated; for life, which is of the will and understanding, has in such no bounds in which it can terminate, so disposed that it can produce outmost acts according to order; for life acts in accordance with outmost determinations, though not from them. that there can be no rationality with infants and children, may be seen below (n. 266, at the end). 260. the natural mind, since it is the covering and containant of the higher degrees of the human mind, is reactive; and if the higher degrees are not opened it acts against them, but if they are opened it acts with them. it has been shown in the preceding chapter that as the natural mind is in the outmost degree, it envelops and encloses the spiritual mind and the celestial mind, which, in respect to degrees, are above it. it is now to be shown that the natural mind reacts against the higher or interior minds. it reacts because it covers, includes, and contains them, and this cannot be done without reaction; for unless it reacted, the interior or enclosed parts would become loosened and press outward and thus fall apart, just as the viscera, which are the interiors of the body, would push forth and fall asunder if the coverings which are about the body did not react against them; so, too, unless the membrane investing the motor fibers of a muscle reacted against the force of these fibers in their activities, not only would action cease, but all the inner tissues would be let loose. it is the same with every outmost degree of the degrees of height; consequently with the natural mind with respect to higher degrees; for, as was said above, there are three degrees of the human mind, the natural, the spiritual, and the celestial, and the natural mind is in the outmost degree. another reason why the natural mind reacts against the spiritual mind is, that the natural mind consists not only of substances of the spiritual world but also of substances of the natural world (as was said above, n. 257), and substances of the natural world of their very nature react against the substances of the spiritual world; for substances of the natural world are in themselves dead, and are acted upon from without by substances of the spiritual world; and substances which are dead, and which are acted upon from without, by their nature resist, and thus by their nature react. from all this it can be seen that the natural man reacts against the spiritual man, and that there is combat. it is the same thing whether the terms "natural and spiritual man" or "natural and spiritual mind" are used. 261. from this it is obvious that when the spiritual mind is closed the natural mind continually acts against the things of the spiritual mind, fearing lest anything should flow in therefrom to disturb its own states. everything that flows in through the spiritual mind is from heaven, for the spiritual mind in its form is a heaven; while everything that flows into the natural mind is from the world, for the natural mind in its form is a world. from which it follows that when the spiritual mind is closed, the natural mind reacts against all things of heaven, giving them no admission except so far as they are serviceable to it as means for acquiring and possessing the things of the world. and when the things of heaven are made to serve the natural mind as means to its own ends, then those means, though they seem to be heavenly, are made natural; for the end qualifies them, and they become like the knowledges of the natural man, in which interiorly there is nothing of life. but as things heavenly cannot be so joined to things natural that the two act as one, they separate, and, with men merely natural, things heavenly arrange themselves from without, in a circuit about the natural things which are within. from this it is that a merely natural man can speak and preach about heavenly things, and even simulate them in his actions, though inwardly he thinks against them; the latter he does when alone, the former when in company. but of these things more in what follows. 262. by virtue of the reaction which is in him from birth the natural mind, or man, when he loves himself and the world above all things, acts against the things that are of the spiritual mind or man. then also he has a sense of enjoyment in evils of every kind, as adultery, fraud, revenge, blasphemy, and other like things; he then also acknowledges nature as the creator of the universe; and confirms all things by means of his rational faculty; and after confirmation he either perverts or suffocates or repels the goods and truths of heaven and the church, and at length either shuns them or turns his back upon them or hates them. this he does in his spirit, and in the body just so far as he dares to speak with others from his spirit without fear of the loss of reputation as a means to honor and gain. when man is such, he gradually shuts up the spiritual mind closer and closer. confirmations of evil by means of falsities especially close it up; therefore evil and falsity when confirmed cannot be uprooted after death; they are only uprooted by means of repentance in the world. 263. but when the spiritual mind is open the state of the natural mind is wholly different. then the natural mind is arranged in compliance with the spiritual mind, and is subordinated to it. for the spiritual mind acts upon the natural mind from above or within, and removes the things therein that react, and adapts to itself those that act in harmony with itself, whereby the excessive reaction is gradually taken away. it is to be noted, that in things greatest and least of the universe, both living and dead, there is action and reaction, from which comes an equilibrium of all things; this is destroyed when action overcomes reaction, or the reverse. it is the same with the natural and with the spiritual mind. when the natural mind acts from the enjoyments of its love and the pleasures of its thought, which are in themselves evils and falsities, the reaction of the natural mind removes those things which are of the spiritual mind and blocks the doors lest they enter, and it makes action to come from such things as agree with its reaction. the result is an action and reaction of the natural mind opposite to the action and reaction of the spiritual mind, whereby there is a closing of the spiritual mind like the twisting back of a spiral. but when the spiritual mind is opened, the action and reaction of the natural mind are inverted; for the spiritual mind acts from above or within, and at the same time it acts from below or from without, through those things in the natural mind which are arranged in compliance with it; and it twists back the spiral in which the action and reaction of the natural mind lie. for the natural mind is by birth in opposition to the things belonging to the spiritual mind; an opposition derived, as is well known, from parents by heredity. such is the change of state which is called reformation and regeneration. the state of the natural mind before reformation may be compared to a spiral twisting or bending itself downward; but after reformation it may be compared to a spiral twisting or bending itself upwards; therefore man before reformation looks downwards to hell, but after reformation looks upwards to heaven. 264. the origin of evil is from the abuse of the capacities proper to man, that are called rationality and freedom. by rationality is meant the capacity to understand what is true and thereby what is false, also to understand what is good and thereby what is evil; and by freedom is meant the capacity to think, will and do these things freely. from what precedes it is evident, and it will become more evident from what follows, that every man from creation, consequently from birth, has these two capacities, and that they are from the lord; that they are not taken away from man; that from them is the appearance that man thinks, speaks, wills, and acts as from himself; that the lord dwells in these capacities in every man, that man by virtue of that conjunction lives to eternity; that man by means of these capacities can be reformed and regenerated, but not without them; finally, that by them man is distinguished from beasts. 265. that the origin of evil is from the abuse of these capacities will be explained in the following order: (1) a bad man equally with a good man enjoys these two capacities. (2) a bad man abuses these capacities to confirm evils and falsities, but a good man uses them to confirm goods and truths. (3) evils and falsities confirmed in man are permanent, and come to be of his love, consequently of his life. (4) such things as have come to be of the love and life are engendered in offspring. (5) all evils, both engendered and acquired, have their seat in the natural mind. 266. (1) a bad man, equally with a good man enjoys these two capacities. it was shown in the preceding chapter that the natural mind, as regards the understanding, can be elevated even to the light in which angels of the third heaven are, and can see truths, acknowledge them, and then give expression to them. from this it is plain that since the natural mind can be elevated, a bad man equally with a good man enjoys the capacity called rationality; and because the natural mind can be elevated to such an extent, it follows that a bad man can also think and speak about heavenly truths. moreover, that he is able to will and to do them, even though he does not will and do them, both reason and experience affirm. reason affirms it: for who cannot will and do what he thinks? his not willing and doing it is because he does not love to will and do it. this ability to will and to do is the freedom which every man has from the lord; but his not willing and doing good when he can, is from a love of evil, which opposes; but this love he is able to resist, and many do resist it. experience in the spiritual world has often corroborated this. i have listened to evil spirits who inwardly were devils, and who in the world had rejected the truths of heaven and the church. when the affection for knowing, in which every man is from childhood, was excited in them by the glory that, like the brightness of fire, surrounds each love, they perceived the arcana of angelic wisdom just as clearly as good spirits do who inwardly were angels. those diabolical spirits even declared that they were able to will and act according to those arcana, but did not wish to. when told that they might will them, if only they would flee from evils as sins, they said that they could even do that, but did not wish to. from this it was evident that the wicked equally with the good have the capacity called freedom. let any one look within himself, and he will observe that it is so. man has the power to will, because the lord, from whom that capacity comes, continually gives the power; for, as was said above, the lord dwells in every man in both of these capacities, and therefore in the capacity, that is, in the power, of being able to will. as to the capacity to understand, called rationality, this man does not have until his natural mind reaches maturity; until then it is like seed in unripe fruit, which cannot be opened in the soil and grow up into a shrub. neither does this capacity exist in those mentioned above (n. 259). 267. (2) a bad man abuses these capacities to confirm evils and falsities, but a good man uses them to confirm goods and truths. from the intellectual capacity called rationality, and from the voluntary capacity called freedom, man derives the ability to confirm whatever he wishes; for the natural man is able to raise his understanding into higher light to any extent he desires; but one who is in evils and in falsities therefrom, raises it no higher than into the upper regions of his natural mind, and rarely as far as the border of the spiritual mind; for the reason that he is in the delights of the love of his natural mind, and when he raises the understanding above that mind, the delight of his love perishes; and if it is raised still higher, and sees truths which are opposed to the delights of his life or to the principles of his self-intelligence, he either falsifies those truths or passes them by and contemptuously leaves them behind, or retains them in the memory as means to serve his life's love, or the pride of his self-intelligence. that the natural man is able to confirm whatever he wishes is plainly evident from the multitude of heresies in the christian world, each of which is confirmed by its adherents. who does not know that evils and falsities of every kind can be confirmed? it is possible to confirm, and by the wicked it is confirmed within themselves, that there is no god, and that nature is everything and created herself; that religion is only a means for keeping simple minds in bondage; that human prudence does everything, and divine providence nothing except sustaining the universe in the order in which it was created; also that murders, adulteries, thefts, frauds, and revenge are allowable, as held by machiavelli and his followers. these and many like things the natural man is able to confirm, and even to fill volumes with the confirmations; and when such falsities are confirmed they appear in their delusive light, but truths in such obscurity as to be seen only as phantoms of the night. in a word, take what is most false and present it as a proposition, and ask an ingenious person to prove it, and he will do so to the complete extinction of the light of truth; but set aside his confirmations, return and view the proposition itself from your own rationality, and you will see its falsity in all its deformity. from all this it can be seen that man is able to abuse these two capacities, which he has from the lord, to confirm evils and falsities of every kind. this no beast can do, because no beast enjoys these capacities. consequently, a beast is born into all the order of its life, and into all the knowledge of its natural love, but man is not. 268. (3) evils and falsities confirmed in man are permanent, and come to be of his love and life. confirming evil and falsity is nothing else than putting away good and truth, and if persisted in, it is their rejection; for evil removes and rejects good, and falsity truth. for this reason confirming evil and falsity is a closing up of heaven, for every good and truth flows in from the lord through heaven, and when heaven is closed, man is in hell, and in a society therein which a like evil prevails and a like falsity; from which hell he cannot afterwards be delivered. it has been granted me to speak with some who ages ago confirmed themselves in the falsities of their religion, and i saw that they remained in the same falsities, in the same way as they were in them in the world. the reason is, that all things in which a man confirms himself come to be of his love and life. they come to be of his love because they come to be of his will and understanding; and will and understanding constitute the life of every one; and when they come to be of man's life, they come to be not only of his whole mind but also of his whole body. from this it is evident that a man who has confirmed himself in evils and falsities is such from head to foot, and when he is wholly such, by no turning or twisting back can he be reduced to an opposite state, and thus withdrawn from hell. from all this, and from what precedes in this chapter, it can be seen what the origin of evil is. 269. (4) such things as have come to be of the love, and consequently of the life, are engendered in offspring. it is known that man is born into evil, and that he derives it by inheritance from parents; though by some it is believed that he inherits it not from his parents, but through parents from adam; this, however, is an error. he derives it from the father, from whom he has a soul that is clothed with a body in the mother. for the seed, which is from the father, is the first receptacle of life, but such a receptacle as it was with the father; for the seed is in the form of his love, and each one's love is, in things greatest and least, similar to itself; and there is in the seed a conatus to the human form, and by successive steps it goes forth into that form. from this it follows that evils called hereditary are from fathers, thus from grandfathers and great-grandfathers, successively transmitted to offspring. this may be learned also from observation, for as regards affections, there is a resemblance of races to their first progenitor, and a stronger resemblance in families, and a still stronger resemblance in households; and this resemblance is such that generations are distinguishable not only by the disposition, but even by the face. but of this ingeneration of the love of evil by parents in offspring more will be said in what follows, where the correspondence of the mind, that is, of the will and understanding, with the body and its members and organs will be fully treated of. here these few things only are brought forward, that it may be known that evils are derived from parents successively, and that they increase through the accumulations of one parent after another, until man by birth is nothing but evil; also that the malignity of evil increases according to the degree in which the spiritual mind is closed up, for in this manner the natural mind also is closed above; finally, that there is no recovery from this in posterity except through their fleeing from evils as sins by the help of the lord. in this and in no other way is the spiritual mind opened, and by means of such opening the natural mind is brought back into correspondent form. 270. (5) all evils and their falsities, both engendered and acquired, have their seat in the natural mind. evils and their falsities have their seat in the natural mind, because that mind is, in form or image, a world; while the spiritual mind in its form or image is a heaven, and in heaven evil cannot be entertained. the spiritual mind, therefore, is not opened from birth, but is only in the capability of being opened. moreover, the natural mind derives its form in part from substances of the natural world; but the spiritual mind from substances of the spiritual world only; and this mind is preserved in its integrity by the lord, in order that man may be capable of becoming a man; for man is born an animal, but he becomes a man. the natural mind, with all its belongings, is coiled into gyres from right to left, but the spiritual mind into gyres from left to right; the two thus curving in directions contrary to each other a proof that evil has its seat in the natural mind, and that of itself it acts against the spiritual mind. moreover, the gyration from right to left is turned downward, thus towards hell, but the gyration from left to right tends upward, thus toward heaven. this was made evident to me by the fact that an evil spirit can gyrate his body only from right to left, not from left to right; while a good spirit can gyrate his body from right to left only with difficulty, but with ease from left to right. gyration follows the flow of the interiors, which belong to the mind. 271. evils and falsities are in complete opposition to goods and truths, because evils and falsities are diabolical and infernal, while goods and truths are divine and heavenly. that evil and good are opposites, also the falsity of evil and the truth of good, every one acknowledges when he hears it. still those who are in evil do not feel, and therefore do not perceive, otherwise than that evil is good; for evil gives enjoyment to their senses, especially sight and hearing, and from that gives enjoyment also to their thoughts, and thus their perceptions. while, therefore, the evil acknowledge that evil and good are opposites, still, when they are in evil, they declare from their enjoyment of it that evil is good, and good evil. for example:-one who abuses his freedom to think and to do what is evil calls that freedom, while its opposite, namely, to think the good which in itself is good, he calls bondage; when, in fact, the latter is to be truly free, and the former to be in bondage. he who loves adulteries calls it freedom to commit adultery, but not to be allowed to commit adultery he calls bondage; for in lasciviousness he has a sense of enjoyment, but of the contrary in chastity. he who is in the love of ruling from love of self feels in that love an enjoyment of life surpassing other enjoyments of every kind; consequently, everything belonging to that love he calls good, and everything contrary to it he declares to be evil; when yet the reverse is true. it is the same with every other evil. while every one, therefore, acknowledges that evil and good are opposites, those who are in evils cherish a reverse conception of such opposition, and only those who are in good have a right conception of it. no one so long as he is in evil can see good, but he who is in good can see evil. evil is below as in a cave, good is above as on a mountain. 272. now as many do not know what the nature of evil is, and that it is entirely opposite to good, and as this knowledge is important, the subject shall be considered in the following order: (1) the natural mind that is in evils and in falsities therefrom is a form and image of hell. (2) the natural mind that is a form and image of hell descends through three degrees. (3) the three degrees of the natural mind that is a form and image of hell, are opposite to the three degrees of the spiritual mind which is a form and image of heaven. (4) the natural mind that is a hell is in every respect opposed to the spiritual mind that is a heaven. 273. (1) the natural mind that is in evils and in falsities therefrom is a form and image of hell. the nature of the natural mind in man in its substantial form cannot here be described, that is, its nature in its own form woven out of the substances of both worlds, in the brains where that mind in its first principles, has its seat. the universal idea of that form will be given in what follows, where the correspondence of the mind and body is to be treated of. here somewhat only shall be said of its form as regards the states and their changes, whereby perceptions, thoughts, intentions, volitions, and their belongings are manifested; for, as regards these states and changes, the natural mind that is in evils and their falsities is a form and image of hell. such a form supposes a substantial form as a subject; for without a substantial form as a subject, changes of state are impossible, just as sight is impossible without an eye, or hearing without an ear. in regard, then, to the form or image wherein the natural mind images hell, that form or image is such that the reigning love with its lusts, which is the universal state of that mind, is like what the devil is in hell; and the thoughts of the false arising out of that reigning love are, as it were, the devil's crew. by "the devil" and by "his crew" nothing else is meant in the word. moreover, the case is similar, since in hell there is a love of ruling from love of self, a reigning love, called there the "devil;" and the affections of the false, with the thoughts arising out of that love, are called "his crew." it is the same in every society of hell, with differences resembling the differences of species in a genus. and the natural mind that is in evils and in falsities therefrom is in a similar form; consequently, a natural man who is of this character comes, after death, into a society of hell similar to himself, and then, in each and every particular, he acts in unison with it; for he thus enters into his own form, that is, into the states of his own mind. there is also another love, called "satan," subordinate to the former love that is called the devil; it is the love of possessing the goods of others by every evil device. cunning villainies and subtleties are its crew. those who are in this hell are generally called satans; those in the former, devils; and such of them as do not act in a clandestine way there do not disown their name. from this it is that the hells, as a whole, are called the devil and satan. the two hells are generically divided in accordance with these two loves, because all the heavens are divided into two kingdoms, the celestial and the spiritual, in accordance with two loves; and the devil hell corresponds, by opposites, to the celestial kingdom, and the satan hell corresponds, by opposites, to the spiritual kingdom. that the heavens are divided into two kingdoms, the celestial and the spiritual, may be seen in the work heaven and hell (n. 20-28). the reason why a natural mind of such a character is in form a hell, is that every spiritual form is like itself both in what is greatest and in what is least; therefore every angel is, in lesser form, a heaven, as is also shown in the work on heaven and hell (n. 51-58); from which it follows that every man or spirit who is a devil or a satan is, in lesser form, a hell. 274. (2) the natural mind that is a form or image of hell descends through three degrees it may be seen above (n. 222-229) that both in the greatest and in the least of all things there are degrees of two kinds, namely, degrees of height and degrees of breadth. this is also true of the natural mind in its greatest and its least parts. degrees of height are what are now referred to. the natural mind, by its two capacities called rationality and freedom, is in such a state as to be capable of ascending through three degrees, or of descending through three degrees; it ascends by goods and truths, and descends by evils and falsities. when it ascends, the lower degrees which tend to hell are shut, and when it descends, the higher degrees which tend to heaven are shut; for the reason that they are in reaction. these three degrees, higher and lower, are neither open nor shut in man in earliest infancy, for he is then ignorant both of good and truth and of evil and falsity; but as he lets himself into one or the other, the degrees are opened and shut on the one side or the other. when they are opened towards hell, the reigning love, which is of the will, obtains the highest or inmost place; the thought of the false, which is of the understanding from that love, obtains the second or middle place; and the result of the love through the thought, or of the will through the understanding, obtains the lowest place. the same is true here as of degrees of height treated of above; they stand in order as end, cause, and effect, or as first end, middle end, and last end. the descent of these degrees is towards the body, consequently in the descent they wax grosser, and become material and corporeal. if truths from the word are received in the second degree to form it, these truths are falsified by the first degree, which is the love of evil, and become servants and slaves. from this it can be seen what the truths of the church from the word become with those who are in the love of evil, or whose natural mind is in form a hell, namely, that they are profaned because they serve the devil as means; for the love of evil reigning in the natural mind that is a hell, is the devil, as was said above. 275. (3) the three degrees of the natural mind that is a form and image of hell, are opposite to the three degrees of the spiritual mind which is a form and image of heaven. it has been shown above that there are three degrees of the mind, called natural, spiritual, and celestial, and that the human mind, made up of these degrees, looks towards heaven, and turns itself about in that direction. from this it can be seen that the natural mind, looking downwards and turning itself about towards hell, is made up in like manner of three degrees, and that each degree of it is opposite to a degree of that mind which is a heaven. that this is so has been made very clear to me by things seen in the spiritual world; namely, that there are three heavens, and these distinct according to three degrees of height; that there are three hells, and these also distinct according to three degrees of height or depth; that the hells are opposed to the heavens in each and every particular; also that the lowest hell is opposite to the highest heaven, and the middle hell to the middle heaven, and the uppermost hell to the lowest heaven. it is the same with the natural mind that is in the form of hell; for spiritual forms are like themselves in things greatest and least. the heavens and hells are thus opposite, because their loves are opposed. in the heavens, love to the lord, and consequent love to the neighbor, constitute the inmost degree; in the hells, love of self and love of the world constitute the inmost degree. in the heavens, wisdom and intelligence, springing from their loves, constitute the middle degree; in the hells folly and insanity, springing from their loves and appearing like wisdom and intelligence, constitute the middle degree. in the heavens, the results from the two other degrees, either laid up in the memory as knowledges, or determined into actions in the body, constitute the lowest degree; in the hells, the results from the two other degrees, which have become either knowledges or acts, constitute the outermost degree. how the goods and truths of heaven are turned, in the hells, into evils and falsities, thus into what is opposite, may be seen from this experience: i heard that a certain divine truth flowed down out of heaven into hell, and that in its descent by degrees it was converted on the way into what is false, until at the lowest hell, it became the exact opposite of that truth; from which it was manifest that the hells according to degrees are in opposition to the heavens in regard to all goods and truths, these becoming evils and falsities by influx into forms turned the reverse way; for all inflowing, it is well known, is perceived and felt according to recipient forms and their states. this conversion into the opposite was made further evident to me from this experience: it was granted me to see the hells as they are placed relatively to the heavens; and those who were there appeared inverted, the head downward and the feet upward; but it was said that they nevertheless appear to themselves to be upright on their feet; comparatively like the antipodes. by these evidences from experience, it can be seen that the three degrees of the natural mind, which is a hell in form and image, are opposite to the three degrees of the spiritual mind which is a heaven in form and image. 276. (4) the natural mind that is a hell is in complete opposition to the spiritual mind which is a heaven. when the loves are opposite all things of perception become opposites; for out of love, which makes the very life of man, everything else flows like streams from their source; the things not from that source separating in the natural mind from those which are. whatever springs from man's reigning love is in the middle, and other things are at the sides. if these latter are truths of the church from the word, they are transferred from the middle further away to the sides, and are finally exterminated; and then the man, that is, the natural mind, perceives evil as good, and sees falsity as truth; and conversely. this is why he believes perfidy to be wisdom, insanity to be intelligence, cunning to be prudence, and evil devices to be ingenuity; moreover, he makes nothing of divine and heavenly things pertaining to the church and worship, while he regards bodily and worldly things as of the greatest worth. he thus inverts the state of his life, making what is of the head to be of the sole of the foot, and trampling upon it; and making what is of the sole of the foot to be of the head. thus from being alive he becomes dead. one is said to be alive whose mind is a heaven, and one is said to be dead whose mind is a hell. 277. all things of the three degrees of the natural mind are included in the deeds that are done by the acts of the body. by the knowledge of degrees, which is set forth in this part, the following arcanum is disclosed: all things of the mind, that is, of the will and understanding of man, are in his acts or deeds, included therein very much as things visible and invisible are in a seed or fruit or egg. acts or deeds by themselves appear outwardly as these do, but in their internals there are things innumerable, such as the concurring forces of the motor fibers of the whole body and all things of the mind that excite and determine these forces, all of which, as shown above, are of three degrees. and since all things of the mind are in these, so also are things of the will, that is, all the affections of man's love, which make the first degree; all things of the understanding, that is, all thoughts from his perception, which makes the second degree; and all things of the memory, that is, all ideas of the thought nearest to speech, taken from the memory, which compose the third degree. out of these things determined into act, deeds come forth, in which, seen in external form, prior things are not visible although they are actually therein. that the outmost is the complex, containant, and base of things prior may be seen above (n. 209-216); and that degrees of height are in fullness in their outmost (n. 217-221). 278. the acts of the body when viewed by the eye, appear thus simple and uniform, as seeds, fruits, and eggs do, in external form, or as nuts and almonds in their shells, yet they contain in themselves all the prior things from which they exist, because every outmost is sheathed about and is thereby rendered distinct from things prior. so is each degree enveloped by a covering, and thereby separated from other degrees; consequently things of the first degree are not perceived by the second, nor those of the second by the third. for example: the love of the will, which is the first degree of the mind, is not perceived in the wisdom of the understanding, which is the second degree of the mind, except by a certain enjoyment in thinking of the matter. again, the first degree, which is, as just said, the love of the will, is not perceived in the knowledge of the memory, which is the third degree, except by a certain pleasure in knowing and speaking. from all this it follows that every deed, or bodily act, includes all these things, although externally it appears simple, and as if it were a single thing. 279. this is corroborated by the following: the angels who are with man perceive separately the things that are from the mind in the act, the spiritual angels perceiving those things therein that are from the understanding, and the celestial angels those things therein that are from the will. this appears incredible, but it is true. it should be known, however, that the things of the mind pertaining to any subject that is under consideration, or before the mind, are in the middle, and the rest are round about these according to their affinities therewith. the angels declare that a man's character is perceived from a single deed, but in a likeness of his love, which varies according to its determinations into affections, and into thoughts therefrom. in a word, before the angels every act or deed of a spiritual man is like a palatable fruit, useful and beautiful, which when opened and eaten yields flavor, use, and delight. that the angels have such a perception of the acts and deeds of men may also be seen above (n. 220). 280. it is the same with man's speech. the angels recognize a man's love from his tone in speaking, his wisdom from his articulation, and his knowledge from the meaning of the words. they declare, moreover, that these three are in every word, because the word is a kind of resultant, involving tone, articulation, and meaning. it was told me by angels of the third heaven that from each successive word that a man speaks in discourse they perceive the general state of his disposition, and also some particular states. that in each single word of the word there is something spiritual from the divine wisdom, and something celestial from the divine love; and that these are perceived by angels when the word is devoutly read by man, has been abundantly shown in the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the sacred scripture. 281. the conclusion is, that in the deeds of a man whose natural mind descends through three degrees into hell there are all his evils and his falsities of evil; and that in the deeds of a man whose natural mind ascends into heaven there are all his goods and truths; and that both are perceived by the angels from the mere speech and act of man. from this it is said in the word that a man "shall be judged according to his deeds," and that he shall render an account of his words. 282. part fourth. the lord from eternity, who is jehovah, created the universe and all things thereof from himself, and not from nothing. it is known throughout the world, and acknowledged by every wise man from interior perception, that god, who is the creator of the universe, is one; and it is known from the word that god the creator of the universe is called "jehovah," which is from the verb to be, because he alone is. that the lord from eternity is that jehovah is shown by many statements from the word in the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the lord. jehovah is called the lord from eternity, since jehovah assumed a human that he might save men from hell; he then commanded his disciples to call him lord. therefore in the new testament jehovah is called "the lord;" as can be seen from this: thou shalt love jehovah thy god with all thy heart and with all thy soul (deut. 5:5); but in the new testament: thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart and with all thy soul (matt. 22:35). it is the same in other passages in the gospels, taken from the old testament. 283. every one who thinks from clear reason sees that the universe was not created out of nothing, for he sees that not anything can be made out of nothing; since nothing is nothing, and to make anything out of nothing is a contradiction, and a contradiction is contrary to the light of truth, which is from divine wisdom; and whatever is not from divine wisdom is not from divine omnipotence. every one who thinks from clear reason sees also that all things have been created out of a substance that is substance in itself for that is esse itself, out of which every thing that is can take form; and since god alone is substance in itself, and therefore esse itself, it is evident that from this source alone is the formation of things. many have seen this, because reason causes them to see it; and yet they have not dared to confirm it, fearing lest they might thereby be led to think that the created universe is god, because from god, or that nature is from itself, and consequently that the inmost of nature is what is called god. for this reason, although many have seen that the formation of all things is from god alone and out of his esse, yet they have not dared to go beyond their first thought on the subject, lest their understanding should become entangled in a so-called gordian knot, beyond the possibility of release. such release would be impossible, because their thought of god, and of the creation of the universe by god, has been in accordance with time and space, which are properties of nature; and from nature no one can have any perception of god and of the creation of the universe; but every one whose understanding is in any interior light can have a perception of nature and of its creation out of god, because god is not in time and space. that the divine is not in space may be seen above (n. 7-10); that the divine apart from space fills all the spaces of the universe (n. 69-72); and that the divine apart from time is in all time (n. 73-76). in what follows it will be seen that although god has created the universe and all things thereof out of himself, yet there is nothing whatever in the created universe that is god; and other things besides, which will place this matter in its proper light. 284. part first of this work treated of god, that he is divine love and divine wisdom; that he is life, and that he is substance and form, which is the very and only esse. part second treated of the spiritual sun and its world, and of the natural sun and its world, and of the creation of the universe with all things thereof from god by means of these two suns. part third treated of degrees in which are each and all things that have been created. part fourth will now treat of the creation of the universe from god. all these subjects are now explained, because the angels have lamented before the lord, that when they look upon the world they see nothing but darkness, and among men no knowledge of god, of heaven, or of the creation of nature, for their wisdom to rest upon. 285. the lord from eternity, that is, jehovah, could not have created the universe and all things thereof unless he were a man. those who have a corporeal natural idea of god as a man, are wholly unable to comprehend how god as a man could have created the universe and all things thereof; for they think within themselves, how can god as a man wander all over the universe from space to space, and create? or how can he, from his place, speak the word, and as soon as it is spoken, creation follow? when it is said that god is a man, such ideas present themselves to those whose conception of the god-man is like their conception of a man in the world, and who think of god from nature and its properties, which are time and space. but those whose conception of god-man is not drawn from their conception of a man in the world, nor from nature and its space and time, clearly perceive that unless god were a man the universe could not have been created. bring your thought into the angelic idea of god as being a man, putting away, as much as you can, the idea of space, and you will come near in thought to the truth. in fact, some of the learned have a perception of spirits and angels as not in space, because they have a perception of the spiritual as apart from space. for the spiritual is like thought, which although it is in man, man is nevertheless able by means of it to be present as it were elsewhere, in any place however remote. such is the state of spirits and angels, who are men even as regards their bodies. in whatever place their thought is, there they appear, because in the spiritual world spaces and distances are appearances, and make one with the thought that is from their affection. from all this it can be seen that god, who appears as a sun far above the spiritual world, and to whom there can belong no appearance of space, is not to be thought of from space. and it can then be comprehended that he created the universe out of himself, and not out of nothing; also that his human body cannot be thought great or small, that is, of any one stature, because this also pertains to space; consequently that in things first and last, and in things greatest and least, he is the same; and still further, that the human is the inmost in every created thing, though apart from space. that the divine is the same in things greatest and least may be seen above (n. 77-82); and that the divine apart from space fills all spaces (n. 69-72). and because the divine is not in space, it is not continuous [nec est continuum], as the inmost of nature is. 286. that god unless he were a man could not have created the universe and all things thereof, may be clearly apprehended by any intelligent person from this, that he cannot deny that in god there is love and wisdom, mercy and clemency, and also goodness itself and truth itself, inasmuch as these are from god. and because he cannot deny this, neither can he deny that god is a man; for abstractly from man not one of these is possible; for man is their subject, and to separate them from their subject is to say that they are not. think of wisdom, and place it outside of man is it anything? can you conceive of it as something ethereal, or as something flaming? you cannot; unless perchance you conceive of it as being within these; and if within these, it must be wisdom in a form such as man has; it must be wholly in the form of man, not one thing can be lacking if wisdom is to be in that form. in a word, the form of wisdom is man; and because man is the form of wisdom, he is also the form of love, mercy, clemency, good and truth, because these make one with wisdom. that love and wisdom are not possible except in a form, see above (n. 50-53). 287. that love and wisdom are man is further evident from the fact that the angels of heaven are men in beauty in the measure in which they are in love and its wisdom from the lord. the same is evident from what is said of adam in the word, that he was created into the likeness and into the image of god (gen. 1:26), because into the form of love and wisdom. every man on earth is born into the human form as regards his body, for the reason that his spirit, which is also called his soul, is a man; and this is a man because it is receptive of love and wisdom from the lord; and so far as these are received by the spirit or soul of man, so far it becomes a man after the death of the material body which it had drawn about it; and so far as these are not received it becomes a monster, which derives something of manhood from the ability to receive. 288. because god is a man, the whole angelic heaven in the aggregate resembles a single man, and is divided into regions and provinces according to the members, viscera, and organs of man. thus there are societies of heaven which constitute the province of all things of the brain, of all things of the facial organs, and of all things of the viscera of the body; and these provinces are distinct from each other, just as those organs are in man; moreover, the angels know in what province of man they are. the whole heaven is in this image, because god is a man. god is also heaven, because the angels, who constitute heaven, are recipients of love and wisdom from the lord, and recipients are images. that heaven is in the form of all things of man is shown in the arcana coelestia, at the end of various chapters. 289. all this makes evident how empty are the ideas of those who think of god as something else than a man, and of the divine attributes as not being in god as a man, since these separated from man are mere figments of reason. that god is very man, from whom every man is a man according to his reception of love and wisdom, may be seen above (n. 11-13). this truth is here corroborated on account of what follows, that the creation of the universe by god, because he is a man, may be perceived. 290. the lord from eternity, that is, jehovah, brought forth from himself the sun of the spiritual world, and from that created the universe and all things thereof. the sun of the spiritual world was treated of in part second of this work, and the following propositions were there established:-divine love and divine wisdom appear in the spiritual world as a sun (n. 83-88). spiritual heat and spiritual light go forth from that sun (n. 89-92). that sun is not god, but is a proceeding from the divine love and divine wisdom of god-man; so also are the heat and light from that sun (n. 93-98). the sun of the spiritual world is at a middle altitude, and appears far off from the angels like the sun of the natural world from men (n. 103-107). in the spiritual world the east is where the lord appears as a sun, and from that the other quarters are determined (n. 119-123, 125-128). angels turn their faces constantly to the lord as a sum (n. 129-134, 135-139). the lord created the universe and all things thereof by means of the sun, which is the first proceeding of divine love and divine wisdom (n. 151-156). the sun of the natural world is mere fire, and nature, which derives its origin from that sun, is consequently dead; and the sun of the natural world was created in order that the work of creation might completed and finished (n. 157-162). without a double sun, one living and the other dead, no creation is possible (n. 163-166). 291. this also, among other things, is shown in part second:-that the spiritual sun is not the lord, but is a proceeding from his divine love and his divine wisdom. it is called a proceeding, because the sun was brought forth out of divine love and divine wisdom which are in themselves substance and form, and it is by means of this that the divine proceeds. but as human reason is such as to be unwilling to yield assent unless it sees a thing from its cause, and therefore has some perception of how it is, thus in the present case, how the sun of the spiritual world, which is not the lord, but a proceeding from him, was brought forth something shall be said on this subject. in regard to this matter i have conversed much with the angels. they said that they have a clear perception of it in their own spiritual light, but that they cannot easily present it to man, in his natural light, owing to the difference between the two kinds of light and the consequent difference of thought. the matter, however, may be likened, they said, to the sphere of affections and of thoughts therefrom which encompasses each angel, whereby his presence is made evident to others near and far. but that encompassing sphere, they said, is not the angel himself; it is from each and everything of his body, wherefrom substances are constantly flowing out like a stream, and what flows out surrounds him; also that these substances, contiguous to his body, as they are constantly moved by his life's two fountains of motion, the heart and the lungs, arouse the same activities in the atmospheres, and thereby produce a perception as of his presence with others; therefore that it is not a separate sphere of affections and of thoughts therefrom that goes forth and is continuous from him, although it is so called, since the affections are mere states of the mind's forms in the angel. they said, moreover, that there is such a sphere about every angel, because there is one about the lord, and that the sphere about the lord is in like manner from him, and that that sphere is their sun, that is, the sun of the spiritual world. 292. a perception has often been granted me of such a sphere around each angel and spirit, and also a general sphere around many in a society. i have also been permitted to see it under various appearances, in heaven sometimes appearing like a thin flame, in hell like gross fire, also sometimes in heaven like a thin and shining white cloud, and in hell like a thick and black cloud. it has also been granted me to perceive these spheres as various kinds of odors and stenches. by these experiences i was convinced that a sphere, consisting of substances set free and separated fromtheir bodies, encompasses every one in heaven and every one in hell. 293. it was also perceived that a sphere flows forth, not only from angels and spirits but also from each and all things that appear in the spiritual world, from trees and from their fruits, from shrubs and from their flowers, from herbs, and from grasses, even from the soils and from their very particles. from which it was patent that both in the case of things living and things dead this is a universal law, that each thing is encompassed by something like that which is within it, and that this is continually exhaled from it. it is known, from the observation of many learned men, that it is the same in the natural world that is, that there is a wave of effluvia constantly flowing forth out of man, also out of every animal, likewise out of tree, fruit, shrub, flower, and even out of metal and stone. this the natural world derives from the spiritual, and the spiritual world from the divine. 294. because those things that constitute the sun of the spiritual world are from the lord, but are not the lord, they are not life in itself, but are devoid of life in itself; just as those things that flow forth from angel or man, and constitute spheres around him are not the angel or the man, but are from him, and devoid of his life. these spheres make one with the angel or man no otherwise than that they are concordant; and this they are because taken from the forms of their bodies, which in them were forms of their life. this is an arcanum which angels, with their spiritual ideas, are able to see in thought and also express in speech, but men with their natural ideas are not; because a thousand spiritual ideas make one natural idea, and one natural idea cannot be resolved by man into any spiritual idea, much less into so many. the reason is that these ideas differ according to degrees of height, which were treated of in part third. 295. that there is such a difference between the thoughts of angels and the thoughts of men was made known to me by this experience: the angels were asked to think spiritually on some subject, and afterwards to tell me what they had thought. this they did; but when they wished to tell me they could not, and said that these things could not be expressed in words. it was the same with their spiritual language and their spiritual writing; there was not a word of spiritual language that was like any word of natural language; nor was there anything of spiritual writing like natural writing, except the letters, each of which contained an entire meaning. but what is wonderful, they said that they seemed to themselves to think, speak, and write in the spiritual state in the same manner that man does in the natural state, when yet there is no similarity. from this it was plain that the natural and the spiritual differ according to degrees of height, and that they communicate with each other only by correspondences. 296. there are in the lord three things that are the lord, the divine of love, the divine of wisdom, and the divine of use; and these three are presented in appearance outside of the sun of the spiritual world, the divine of love by heat, the divine of wisdom by light and the divine of use by the atmosphere which is their containant. that heat and light go forth out of the sun of the spiritual world, heat out of the lord's divine love, and light out of his divine wisdom, may be seen above (n. 89-92, 99-102, 156-150). now it will be shown that the third which goes forth out of that sun is the atmosphere, which is the containant of heat and light, and that this goes forth out of the lord's divine which is called use. 297. any one who thinks with any enlightenment can see that love has use for an end and intends it, and brings it forth by means of wisdom; for love can bring forth no use of itself, but only by wisdom as a medium. what, in fact, is love unless there be something loved? that something is use; and because use is that which is loved, and is brought forth by means of wisdom, it follows that use is the containant of wisdom and love. that these three, love, wisdom and use follow in order according to degrees of height, and that the outmost degree is the complex, containant, and base of the prior degrees has been shown (n. 209-216, and elsewhere). from all this it can be seen that these three, the divine of love, the divine of wisdom, and the divine of use, are in the lord, and are the lord in essence. 298. that man, as regards both his exteriors and his interiors, is a form of all uses, and that all the uses in the created universe correspond to those uses in him, will be fully shown in what follows; it need only be mentioned here, that it may be known that god as a man is the form itself of all uses, from which form all uses in the created universe derive their origin, thus that the created universe, viewed as to uses, is an image of him. those things are called uses which from god-man, that is, from the lord, are by creation in order; but those things which are from what is man's own are not called uses; since what is man's own is hell, and whatever is therefrom is contrary to order. 299. now since these three, love, wisdom, and use, are in the lord, and are the lord; and since the lord is everywhere, for he is omnipresent; and since the lord cannot make himself present, such as he is in himself and such as he is in his own sun, to any angel or man, he therefore presents himself by means of such things as can be received, presenting himself, as to love by heat, as to wisdom by light, and as to use by an atmosphere. the lord presents himself as to use by an atmosphere, because an atmosphere is a containant of heat and light, as use is the containant of love and wisdom. for light and heat going forth from the divine sun cannot go forth in nothing, that is, in vacuum, but must go forth in a containant which is a subject. this containant we call an atmosphere; and this encompasses the sun, receiving the sun in its bosom, and bearing it to heaven where angels are, and then to the world where men are, thus making the lord's presence everywhere manifest. 300. that there are atmospheres in the angelic world, as well as in the natural world, has been shown above (n. 173-178, 179-183). it was there declared that the atmospheres of the spiritual world are spiritual, and the atmospheres of the natural world are natural. it can now be seen, from the origin of the spiritual atmosphere most closely encompassing the spiritual sun, that everything belonging to it is in its essence such as the sun is in its essence. the angels, by means of their spiritual ideas, which are apart from space, elucidate this truth as follows: there is only one substance from which all things are, and the sun of the spiritual world is that substance; and since the divine is not in space, and is the same in things greatest and least, this is also true of that sun which is the first going forth of god-man; furthermore, this one only substance, which is the sun, going forth by means of atmospheres according to continuous degrees or degrees of breadth, and at the same time according to discrete degrees or degrees of height presents the varieties of all things in the created universe. the angels declared that these things are totally incomprehensible, unless spaces be removed from the ideas; and if not removed, appearances must needs induce fallacies. but so long as the thought is held that god is the very esse from which all things are, fallacies cannot enter. 301. it is evident, moreover, from angelic ideas, which are apart from space, that in the created universe nothing lives except god-man, that is, the lord, neither is anything moved except by life from him, nor has being except through the sun from him; so that it is a truth, that in god we live, and move, and have our being. 302. the atmospheres, of which there are three both in the spiritual and in the natural world, in their outmosts close into substances and matters such as are in lands. it has been shown in part third (n. 173-176), that there are three atmospheres both in the spiritual and in the natural world, which are distinct from each other according to degrees of height, and which, in their progress toward lower things, decrease [in activity] according to degrees of breadth. and since atmospheres in their progress toward lower things decrease [in activity], it follows that they constantly become more compressed and inert, and finally, in outmosts, become so compressed and inert as to be no longer atmospheres, but substances at rest, and in the natural world, fixed like those in the lands that are called matters. as such is the origin of substances and matters, it follows, first, that these substances and matters also are of three degrees; secondly, that they are held together in mutual connection by encompassing atmospheres; thirdly, that they are fitted for the production of all uses in their forms. 303. that such substances or matters as are in earths, were brought forth by the sun through its atmospheres any one will readily acknowledge who reflects that there are continual mediations from the first to outmosts, and that nothing can take form except from what is prior to itself, and so finally from the first. the first is the sun of the spiritual world, and the first of that sun is god-man, or the lord. now as atmospheres are those prior things, whereby the spiritual sun manifests itself in outmosts, and as these prior things continually decrease in activity and expansion down to the outmosts, it follows that when their activity and expansion come to an end in outmosts they become substances, and matters such as are in lands, which retain within them, from the atmospheres out of which they originated, an effort and conatus to bring forth uses. those who do not evolve the creation of the universe and all things thereof by continuous mediations from the first [being], can but hold hypotheses, disjoined and divorced from their causes, which, when surveyed by a mind with an interior perception of things, do not appear like a house, but like heaps of rubbish. 304. from this universal origin of all things in the created universe, every particular thereof has a similar order; in that these also go forth from their first to outmosts which are relatively in a state of rest, that they may terminate and become permanent. thus in the human body fibers proceed from their first forms until at last they become tendons; also fibers with vessels proceed from their first forms until they become cartilages and bones; upon these they may rest and become permanent. because of such a progression of fibers and vessels in man from firsts to outmosts, there is a similar progression of their states, which are sensations, thoughts, and affections. these, also, from their firsts, where they are in light, proceed through to outmosts, where they are in shade; or from their firsts, where they are in heat, to outmosts where they are not in heat. with such a progression of these there is also a like progression of love and of all things thereof, and of wisdom and all things thereof. in a word, such is the progression of all things in the created universe. this is the same as was shown above (n. 222-229), that there are degrees of both kinds in the greatest and least of all created things. there are degrees of both kinds even in the least things of all, because the spiritual sun is the sole substance from which all things are (according to the spiritual ideas of the angels, n. 300). 305. in the substances and matters of which lands are formed there is nothing of the divine in itself, but still they are from the divine in itself. from the origin of lands (treated of in the preceding chapter), it can be seen, that in their substances and matters there is nothing of the divine in itself, but that they are devoid of all-that is divine in itself. for they are, as was said, the endings and closings of the atmospheres, whose heat has died away into cold, whose light into darkness, and whose activity into inertness. nevertheless, by continuation from the substance of the spiritual sun, they have brought with them what there was in that substance from the divine, which (as said above, n. 291-298), was the sphere encompassing god-man, or the lord. from that sphere, by continuation from the sun through the atmospheres as mediums have arisen the substances and matters of which the lands are formed. 306. the origin of lands from the spiritual sun through the atmospheres, as mediums, can no otherwise be described by expressions flowing out of natural ideas, but may by expressions flowing out of spiritual ideas, because these are apart from space, and for this reason, they do not fall into any expressions of natural language. that spiritual thoughts, speech, and writings differ so entirely from natural thoughts, speech, and writings, that they have nothing in common, and have communication only by correspondences, may be seen above (n. 295). it may suffice, therefore, if the origin of lands be perceived in some measure naturally. 307. all uses, which are ends of creation are in forms, which forms they take from substances and matters such as are in lands. all things treated of hitherto, as the sun, atmospheres, and lands, are only means to ends. the ends of creation are those things that are produced by the lord as a sun, through the atmospheres, out of lands; and these ends are called uses. in their whole extent these are all things of the vegetable kingdom, all things of the animal kingdom, and finally the human race, and the angelic heaven which is from it. these are called uses, because they are recipients of divine love and divine wisdom also because they have regard to god the creator from whom they are, and thereby conjoin him to his great work; by which conjunction it comes that, as they spring forth from him, so do they have unceasing existence from him. they are said to have regard to god the creator from whom they are, and to conjoin him to his great work, but this is to speak according to appearance. it is meant that god the creator causes them to have regard and to conjoin themselves to him as it were of themselves; but how they have regard and thereby conjoin will be declared in what follows. something has been said before on these subjects in their place, as that divine love and divine wisdom must necessarily have being and form in other things created by themselves (n. 37-51); that all things in the created universe are recipients of divine love and divine wisdom (n. 55-60); that the uses of all created things ascend by degrees to man, and through man to god the creator from whom they are (n. 65-68). 308. who does not see clearly that uses are the ends of creation, when he considers that from god the creator nothing can have form, and therefore nothing can be created, except use; and that to be use, it must be for the sake of others; and that use for the sake of self is also for the sake of others, since a use for the sake of self looks to one's being in a state to be of use to others? whoso considers this is also able to see, that use which is use cannot spring from man, but must be in man from that being from whom everything that comes forth is use, that is, from the lord. 309. but as the forms of uses are here treated of, the subject shall be set forth in the following order: (1) in lands there is a conatus to produce uses in forms, that is, forms of uses. (2) in all forms of uses there is a kind of image of the creation of the universe. (3) in all forms of uses there is a kind of image of man. (4) in all forms of uses there is a kind of image of the infinite and the eternal. 310. (1) in lands there is a conatus to produce uses in forms, that is, forms of uses. that there is this conatus in lands, is evident from their source, since the substances and matters of which lands consist are endings and closings of atmospheres which proceed as uses from the spiritual sun (as may be seen above, n. 305, 306). and because the substances and matters of which lands consist are from that source, and their aggregations are held in connection by the pressure of the surrounding atmospheres, it follows that they have from that a perpetual conatus to bring forth forms of uses. the very quality that makes them capable of bringing forth they derive from their source, as being the outmosts of atmospheres, with which they are constantly in accord. such a conatus and quality are said to be in lands, but it is meant that they are present in the substances and matters of which lands consist, whether these are in the lands or in the atmospheres as exhalations from the lands. that atmospheres are full of such things is well known. that there is such a conatus and such quality in the substances and matters of lands is plain from the fact that seeds of all kinds, opened by means of heat even to their inmost core, are impregnated by the most subtle substances (which can have no other than a spiritual origin), and through this they have power to conjoin themselves to use, from which comes their prolific principle. then through conjunction with matters from a natural origin they are able to produce forms of uses, and thereafter to deliver them as from a womb, that they may come forth into light, and thus sprout up and grow. this conatus is afterwards continuous from the lands through the root even to outmosts, and from outmosts to firsts, wherein use itself is in its origin. thus uses pass into forms; and forms, in their progression from firsts to outmosts and from outmosts to firsts, derive from use (which is like a soul) that each and every thing of the form is of some use. use is said to be like a soul, since its form is like a body. it also follows that there is a conatus more interior, that is, the conatus to produce uses for the animal kingdom through vegetable growths, since by these animals of every kind are nourished. it further follows that in all these there is an inmost conatus, the conatus to perform use to the human race. from all this these things follow: (1) that there are outmosts, and in outmosts are all prior things simultaneously in their order, according to what has been frequently explained above; (2) that as there are degrees of both kinds in the greatest and least of all things (as was shown above, n. 222-229), so there are likewise in this conatus; (3) that as all uses are brought forth by the lord out of outmosts, so in outmosts there must be a conatus to uses. 311. still none of these are living conatus, for they are the conatus of life's outmost forces; within which forces there exists, from the life out of which they spring, a striving to return at last to their origin through the means afforded. in outmosts, atmospheres become such forces; and by these forces, substances and matters, such as are in the lands, are molded into forms and held together in forms both within and without. but the subject is too large to allow a more extended explanation here. 312. the first production from these earthy matters, while they were still new and in their simple state, was production of seed; the first conatus therein could not be any other. 313. (2) in all forms of uses there is a kind of image of creation. forms of uses are of a threefold kind; forms of uses of the mineral kingdom, forms of uses of the vegetable kingdom, and forms of uses of the animal kingdom. the forms of uses of the mineral kingdom cannot be described, because they are not visible to the eye. the first forms are the substances and matters of which the lands consist, in their minutest divisions; the second forms are aggregates of these, and are of infinite variety; the third forms come from plants that have fallen to dust, and from animal remains, and from the continual evaporations and exhalations from these, which are added to lands and make their soil. these forms of the mineral kingdom in three degrees represent creation in an image in this, that, made active by the sun through the atmospheres and their heat and light, they bring forth uses in forms, which uses were creative ends. this image of creation lies deeply hidden within their conatus (of which see above, n. 310). 314. in the forms of uses of the vegetable kingdom an image of creation appears in this, that from their firsts they proceed to their outmosts, and from outmosts to firsts. their firsts are seeds, their outmosts are stalks clothed with bark; and by means of the bark which is the outmost of the stalk, they tend to seeds which, as was said, are their firsts. the stalks clothed with layers of bark represent the globe clothed with lands, out of which come the creation and formation of all uses. that vegetation is effected through the outer and inner barks and coatings, by a climbing up, by means of the coverings of the roots (which are continued around the stalks and branches), into the beginnings of the fruit, and in like manner through the fruits into the seeds, is known to many. an image of creation is displayed in forms of uses in the progress of the formation of uses from firsts to outmosts, and from outmosts to firsts; also in this, that in the whole progression there lies the end of producing fruit and seeds, which are uses. from what has been said above it is plain, that the progression of the creation of the universe was from its first (which is the lord encircled by the sun) to outmosts which are lands, and from these through uses to its first, that is, the lord; also that the ends of the whole creation were uses. 315. it should be known that to this image of creation the heat, light, and atmospheres of the natural world contribute nothing whatever. it is only the heat, light, and atmospheres of the sun of the spiritual world that do this, bringing that image with them, and clothing it with the forms of uses of the vegetable kingdom. the heat, light, and atmospheres of the natural world simply open the seeds, keep their products in a state of expansion, and clothe them with the matters that give them fixedness. and this is done not by any forces from their own sun (which viewed in themselves are null), but by forces from the spiritual sun, by which the natural forces are unceasingly impelled to these services. natural forces contribute nothing whatever towards forming this image of creation, for the image of creation is spiritual. but that this image may be manifest and perform use in the natural world, and may stand fixed and be permanent, it must be materialized, that is, filled in with the matters of that world. 316. in the forms of uses of the animal kingdom there is a similar image of creation, in that the animal body, which is the outmost thereof, is formed by a seed deposited in a womb or an ovum, and this body, when mature, brings forth new seed. this progression is similar to the progression of the forms of uses of the vegetable kingdom: seeds are the beginnings; the womb or the ovum is like the ground; the state before birth is like the state of the seed in the ground while it takes root; the state after birth until the animal becomes prolific is like the growth of a tree until it reaches its state of fruit-bearing. from this parallelism it is plain that there is a likeness of creation in the forms of animals as well as in the forms of plants, in that there is a progression from firsts to outmosts, and from outmosts to firsts. a like image of creation exists in every single thing there is in man; for there is a like progression of love through wisdom into uses, consequently a like progression of the will through the understanding into acts, and of charity through faith into deeds. will and understanding, also charity and faith, are the firsts as their source; acts and deeds are the outmosts; from these, by means of the enjoyments of uses, a return is made to their firsts, which, as was said, are the will and understanding, or charity and faith. that the return is effected by means of the enjoyments of uses is very evident from the enjoyments felt in those acts and deeds which are from any love, in that they flow back to the first of the love from which they spring and that thereby conjunction is effected. the enjoyments of acts and deeds are what are called the enjoyments of uses. a like progression from firsts to outmosts, and from outmosts to firsts, is exhibited in the forms most purely organic of affections and thoughts in man. in his brains there are those star-like forms called the cineritious substances; out of these go forth fibers through the medullary substance by the neck into the body; passing through to the outmosts of the body, and from outmosts returning to their firsts. this return of fibers to their firsts is made through the blood vessels. there is a like progression of all affections and thoughts, which are changes and variations of state of those forms or substances, for the fibers issuing out of those forms or substances are comparatively like the atmospheres from the spiritual sun, which are containants of heat and light; while bodily acts are like the things produced from the lands by means of atmospheres, the enjoyments of their uses returning to the source from which they sprang. but that the progression of these is such, and that within this progression there is an image of creation, can hardly be comprehended fully by the understanding, both because thousands and myriads of forces operating in act appear as one, and because the enjoyments of uses do not appear as ideas in the thought, but only affect without distinct perception. on this subject see what has been declared and explained above, as follows: the uses of all created things ascend by degrees of height to man, and through man to god the creator from whom they are (n. 65-68). the end of creation takes form in outmosts, which end is that all things may return to the creator and that there may be conjunction (n. 167-172). but these things will appear in still clearer light in the following part, where the correspondence of the will and understanding with the heart and lungs will be treated of. 317. (3) in all forms of uses there is a kind of image of man. this has been shown above (n. 61-64). that all uses, from firsts to outmosts and from outmosts to firsts, have relation to all parts of man and have correspondence with them, consequently that man is, in a kind of image, a universe, and conversely that the universe viewed as to uses is in image a man, will be seen in the following chapter. 318. (4) in all forms of uses there is a kind of image of the infinite and the eternal. the image of the infinite in these forms is plain from their conatus and power to fill the spaces of the whole world, and even of many worlds, to infinity. for a single seed produces a tree, shrub, or plant, which fills its own space; and each tree, shrub, or plant produces seeds, in some cases thousands of them, which, when sown and grown up, fill their own spaces; and if from each seed of these there should proceed as many more, reproduced again and again, in the course of years the whole world would be filled; and if the production were still continued many worlds would be filled; and this to infinity. estimate a thousand seeds from one, and multiply the thousand by a thousand ten times, twenty times, even to a hundred times, and you will see. there is a like image of the eternal in these forms; seeds are propagated from year to year, and the propagations never cease; they have not ceased from the creation of the world till now, and will not cease to eternity. these two are standing proofs and attesting signs that all things of the universe have been created by an infinite and eternal god. beside these images of the infinite and eternal, there is another image of the infinite and eternal in varieties, in that there can never be a substance, state, or thing in the created universe the same as or identical with any other, neither in atmospheres, nor in lands, nor in the forms arising out of these. thus not in any of the things which fill the universe can any thing the same be produced to eternity. this is plainly to be seen in the variety of the faces of human beings; no one face can be found throughout the world which is the same as another, nor can there be to all eternity, consequently not one mind, for the face is the type of the mind. 319. all things of the created universe, viewed in reference to uses represent man in an image, and this testifies that god is a man by the ancients man was called a microcosm, from his representing the macrocosm, that is, the universe in its whole complex; but it is not known at the present day why man was so called by the ancients, for no more of the universe or macrocosm is manifest in him than that he derives nourishment and bodily life from its animal and vegetable kingdoms, and that he is kept in a living condition by its heat, sees by its light, and hears and breathes by its atmospheres. yet these things do not make man a microcosm, as the universe with all things thereof is a macrocosm. the ancients called man a microcosm, or little universe, from truth which they derived from the knowledge of correspondences, in which the most ancient people were, and from their communication with angels of heaven; for angels of heaven know from the things which they see about them that all things of the universe, viewed as to uses, represent man as an image. 320. but the truth that man is a microcosm, or little universe, because the created universe, viewed as to uses is, in image, a man, cannot come into the thought and from that into the knowledge of any one on earth from the idea of the universe as it is viewed in the spiritual world; and therefore it can be corroborated only by an angel, who is in the spiritual world, or by some one to whom it has been granted to be in that world, and to see things which are there. as this has been granted to me, i am able, from what i have seen there, to disclose this arcanum. 321. it should be known that the spiritual world is in external appearance, wholly like the natural world. lands, mountains, hills, valleys, plains, fields, lakes, rivers, springs of water are to be seen there, as in the natural world; thus all things belonging to the mineral kingdom. paradises, gardens, groves, woods, and in them trees and shrubs of all kinds bearing fruit and seeds; also plants, flowers, herbs, and grasses are to be seen there; thus all things pertaining to the vegetable kingdom. there are also to be seen there, beasts, birds, and fishes of every kind; thus all things pertaining to the animal kingdom. man there is an angel or spirit. this is premised that it may be known that the universe of the spiritual world is wholly like the universe of the natural world, with this difference only, that things in the spiritual world are not fixed and settled like those in the natural world, because in the spiritual world nothing is natural but every thing is spiritual. 322. that the universe of that world represents man in an image can be clearly seen from this, that all things just mentioned (n. 321) appear to the life, and take form about the angel, and about the angelic societies, as if they were produced or created by them; they are about them permanently, and do not pass away. that they are as if they were produced or created by them is seen by their no longer appearing when the angel goes away, or when the society passes to another place; also when other angels come in place of these the appearance of all things about them is changed in the paradises the trees and fruits are changed, in the flower gardens the flowers and seeds, in the fields the herbs and grasses, also the kinds of animals and birds are changed. such things take form and are changed in this manner, because all these things take form according to the affections and consequent thoughts of the angels, for they are correspondences. and because things that correspond make one with that to which they correspond they are an image representative of it. the image itself is not seen when these things are viewed in their forms, it is seen only when they are viewed in respect to uses. it has been granted me to perceive that angels, when their eyes were opened by the lord, and they saw these things from the correspondence of uses, recognized and saw themselves therein. 323. inasmuch as these things which have existence about the angels, corresponding to their affections and thoughts, represent a universe, in that there are lands, plants, and animals, and these constitute an image representative of the angel, it is evident why the ancients called man a microcosm. 324. that this is so has been abundantly confirmed in the arcana coelestia, also in the work heaven and hell, and occasionally in the preceding pages where correspondence is treated of. it has been there shown also that nothing is to be found in the created universe which has not a correspondence with something in man, not only with his affections and their thoughts, but also with his bodily organs and viscera; not with these however as substances, but as uses. from this it is that in the word, where the church and the man of the church are treated of, such frequent mention is made of trees, such as "olives," "vines," and "cedars;" of "gardens," "groves" and "woods;" and of the "beasts of the earth," "birds of the air," and "fish of the sea." they are there mentioned because they correspond, and by correspondence make one, as was said above; consequently, when such things are read in the word by man, these objects are not perceived by angels, but the church or the men of the church in respect to their states are perceived instead. 325. since all things of the universe have relation in an image to man, the wisdom and intelligence of adam are described by the "garden of eden," wherein were all kinds of trees, also rivers, precious stones, and gold, and animals to which he gave names; by all of which are meant such things as were in adam, and constitute that which is called man. nearly the same things are said of ashur, by whom the church in respect to intelligence is signified (ezek. 31:3-9); and of tyre, by which the church in respect to knowledges of good and truth is signified (ezek. 28:12, 13). 326. from all this it can be seen that all things in the universe, viewed from uses, have relation in an image to man, and that this testifies that god is a man. for such things as have been mentioned above take form about the angelic man, not from the angels, but from the lord through the angels. for they take their form from the influx of the lord's divine love and divine wisdom into the angel, who is a recipient, and before whose eyes all this is brought forth like the creation of a universe. from this they know there that god is a man, and that the created universe, viewed in its uses, is an image of god. 327. all things created by the lord are use; they are uses in the order, degree, and respect in which they have relation to man, and through man to the lord, from whom [they are]. in respect to this it has been shown above: that from god the creator nothing can take form except uses (n. 308); that the uses of all created things ascend by degrees from outmost things to man, and through man to god the creator, from whom they are (n. 65-68); that the end of creation takes form in outmosts, which end is, that all things may return to god the creator, and that there may be conjunction (n. 167-172); that things are uses so far as they have regard to the creator (n. 307); that the divine must necessarily have being and form in other things created by itself (n. 47-51); that all things of the universe are recipients according to uses, and this according to degrees (n. 58); that the universe, viewed from uses, is an image of god (n. 59); and many other things. from all which thistruth is plain, that all things created by the lord are uses, and that they are uses in that order, degree, and respect in which they have relation to man, and through man to the lord from whom [they are]. it remains now that some things should be said in detail respecting uses. 328. by man, to whom uses have relation, is meant not alone an individual but an assembly of men, also a society smaller or larger, as a commonwealth, kingdom, or empire, or that largest society, the whole world, for each of these is a man. likewise in the heavens, the whole angelic heaven is as one man before the lord, and equally every society of heaven; from this it is that every angel is a man. that this is so may be seen in the work heaven and hell (n. 68-103). this makes clear what is meant by man in what follows. 329. the end of the creation of the universe clearly shows what use is. the end of the creation of the universe is the existence of an angelic heaven; and as the angelic heaven is the end, man also or the human race is the end, since heaven is from that. from which it follows that all created things are mediate ends, and that these are uses in that order, degree, and respect in which they have relation to man, and through man to the lord. 330. inasmuch as the end of creation is an angelic heaven out of the human race, and thus the human race itself, all other created things are mediate ends, and these, as having relation to man, with a view to his conjunction with the lord, refer themselves to these three things in him, his body, his rational, and his spiritual. for man cannot be conjoined to the lord unless he be spiritual, nor can he be spiritual unless he be rational, nor can he be rational unless his body is in a sound state. these three are like a house; the body like the foundation, the rational like the superstructure, the spiritual like those things which are in the house, and conjunction with the lord like dwelling in it. from this can be seen in what order, degree, and respect uses (which are the mediate ends of creation) have relation to man, namely, (1) for sustaining his body, (2) for perfecting his rational, (3) for receiving what is spiritual from the lord. 331. uses for sustaining the body relate to its nourishment, its clothing, its habitation, its recreation and enjoyment, its protection and the preservation of its state. the uses created for the nourishment of the body are all things of the vegetable kingdom suitable for food and drink, as fruits, grapes, grain, pulse, and herbs; in the animal kingdom all things which are eaten, as oxen, cows, calves, deer, sheep, kids, goats, lambs, and the milk they yield; also fowls and fish of many kinds. the uses created for the clothing of the body are many other products of these two kingdoms; in like manner, the uses for habitation, also for recreation, enjoyment, protection, and preservation of state. these are not mentioned because they are well known, and their mere enumeration would fill pages. there are many things, to be sure, which are not used by man; but what is superfluous does not do away with the use, but ensures its continuance. misuse of uses is also possible, but misuse does not do away with use, even as falsification of truth does not do away with truth except with those who falsify it. 332. uses for perfecting the rational are all things that give instruction about the subjects above mentioned, and are called sciences and branches of study, pertaining to natural, economical, civil and moral affairs, which are learned either from parents and teachers, or from books, or from interaction with others, or by reflection on these subjects by oneself. these things perfect the rational so far as they are uses in a higher degree, and they are permanent as far as they are applied to life. space forbids the enumeration of these uses, by reason both of their multitude and of their varied relation to the common good. 333. uses for receiving the spiritual from the lord, are all things that belong to religion and to worship therefrom; thus all things that teach the acknowledgment and knowledge of god and the knowledge and acknowledgment of good and truth and thus eternal life, which are acquired in the same way as other learning, from parents, teachers, discourses, and books, and especially by applying to life what is so learned; and in the christian world, by doctrines and discourses from the word, and through the word from the lord. these uses in their full extent may be described under the same heads as the uses of the body, as nourishment, clothing, habitation, recreation and enjoyment, and preservation of state, if only they are applied to the soul; as nutrition to goods of love, clothing to truths of wisdom, habitation to heaven, recreation and enjoyment to felicity of life and heavenly joy, protection to safety from infesting evils, and preservation of state to eternal life. all these things are given by the lord according to the acknowledgment that all bodily things are also from the lord, and that a man is only as a servant and house-steward appointed over the goods of his lord. 334. that such things have been given to man to use and enjoy, and that they are free gifts, is clearly evident from the state of angels in the heavens, who have, like men on earth, a body, a rational, and a spiritual. they are nourished freely, for food is given them daily; they are clothed freely, for garments are given them; their dwellings are free, for houses are given them; nor have they any care about all these things; and so far as they are rational-spiritual do they have enjoyment, protection, and preservation of state. the difference is that angels see that these things, because created according to the state of their love and wisdom, are from the lord (as was shown in the preceding chapter, n. 322); but men do not see this, because their harvest returns yearly, and is not in accord with the state of their love and wisdom, but in accord with the care bestowed by them. 335. these things are called uses, because through man they have relation to the lord; nevertheless, they must not be said to be uses from man for the lord's sake, but from the lord for man's sake, inasmuch as in the lord all uses are infinitely one, but in man there are no uses except from the lord; for man cannot do good from himself, but only from the lord, and good is what is called use. the essence of spiritual love is doing good to others, not for the sake of self but for the sake of others; infinitely more is this the essence of divine love. it is like the love of parents for their children, in that parents do good to their children from love, not for their own sake but for their children's sake. this is especially manifest in a mothers love for her offspring. because the lord is to be adored, worshiped and glorified, he is supposed to love adoration, worship, and glory for his own sake; but he loves these for man's sake, because by means of them man comes into a state in which the divine can flow in and be perceived; since by means of them man puts away that which is his own, which hinders influx and reception, for what is man's own, which is self-love, hardens the heart and shuts it up. this is removed by man's acknowledging that from himself comes nothing but evil and from the lord nothing but good; from this acknowledgment there is a softening of the heart and humiliation, out of which flow forth adoration and worship. from all this it follows, that the use which the lord performs for himself through man is that man may be able to do good from love, and since this is the lord's love, its reception is the enjoyment of his love. therefore, let no one believe that the lord is with those who merely worship him, he is with those who do his commandments, thus who perform uses; with such he has his abode, but not with the former. (see what was said above on this subject, n. 47-49.) 336. evil uses were not created by the lord, but originated together with hell. all good things that take form in act are called uses; and all evil things that take form in act are also called uses, but evil uses, while the former are called good uses. now, since all good things are from the lord and all evil things from hell, it follows that none but good uses were created by the lord, and that evil uses arose out of hell. by the uses specially treated of in this chapter are meant all those things which are to be seen upon the earth, as animals of every kind and plants of every kind. such things of both kingdoms as are useful to man are from the lord, but those which are harmful to man are from hell. by uses from the lord are likewise meant all things that perfect the rational of man, and cause him to receive the spiritual from the lord; but by evil uses are meant all things that destroy the rational, and make man unable to become spiritual. those things that are harmful to man are called uses because they are of use to the evil in doing evil, and also are serviceable in absorbing malignities and thus also as remedies. "use" is employed in both senses, as love is when we speak of good love and evil love; moreover, everything that love does it calls use. 337. that good uses are from the lord, and evil uses from hell, will be shown in the following order. (1) what is meant by evil uses on the earth. (2) all things that are evil uses are in hell, and all things that are good uses are in heaven. (3) there is unceasing influx from the spiritual world into the natural world. (4) those things that are evil uses are effected by the operation of influx from hell, wherever there are such things as correspond thereto. (5) this is done by the lowest spiritual separated from what is above it. (6) there are two forms into which the operation by influx takes place, the vegetable and the animal. (7) both these forms receive the ability to propagate their kind and the means of propagation. 338. (1) what is meant by evil uses on the earth. by evil uses on earth are meant all noxious things in both the animal and vegetable kingdom, also in the mineral kingdom. it is needless to enumerate all the noxious things in these kingdoms, for to do so would merely heap up names, and doing this without indicating the noxious effect that each kind produces would not contribute to the object which this work has in view. for the sake of information a few examples will suffice:-in the animal kingdom there are poisonous serpents, scorpions, crocodiles, great snakes, horned owls, screech owls, mice, locusts, frogs, spiders; also flies, drones, moths, lice, mites; in a word, creatures that destroy grasses, leaves, fruits, seed, food, and drink, and are harmful to beast and man. in the vegetable kingdom there are all hurtful, virulent, and poisonous herbs, with leguminous plants and shrubs of like character; and in the mineral kingdom all poisonous earths. from these few examples it can be seen what is meant by evil uses on earth; for evil uses are all things that are opposite to good uses (of which, in the preceding paragraph, n. 336). 339. (2) all things that are evil uses are in hell, and all things that are good uses are in heaven. before it can be seen that all evil uses that take form on earth are not from the lord but from hell, something must be premised concerning heaven and hell, without a knowledge of which evil uses as well as good may be attributed to the lord, and it may be believed that they are together from creation; or they may be attributed to nature, and their origin to the sun of nature. from these two errors man cannot be delivered, unless he knows that nothing whatever takes form in the natural world that does not derive its cause and therefore its origin from the spiritual world, and that good is from the lord, and evil from the devil, that is, from hell. by the spiritual world is meant both heaven and hell. in heaven are to be seen all those things that are good uses (of which in a preceding article, n. 336). in hell are to be seen all those that are evil uses (see just above, n. 338, where they are enumerated). these are wild creatures of every kind, as serpents, scorpions, great snakes, crocodiles, tigers, wolves, foxes, swine, owls of different kinds, bats, rats, and mice, frogs, locusts, spiders, and noxious insects of many kinds; also hemlocks and aconites, and all kinds of poisons, both of herbs and of earths; in a word, everything hurtful and deadly to man. such things appear in the hells to the life precisely like those on and in the earth. they are said to appear there; yet they are not there as on earth, for they are mere correspondences of lusts that swarm out of their evil loves, and present themselves in such forms before others. because there are such things in the hells, these abound in foul smells, cadaverous, stercoraceous, urinous, and putrid, wherein the diabolical spirits there take delight, as animals do in rank stenches. from this it can be seen that like things in the natural world did not derive their origin from the lord, and were not created from the beginning, neither did they spring from nature through her sun, but are from hell. that they are not from nature through her sun is plain, for the spiritual inflows into the natural, and not the reverse. and that they are not from the lord is plain, because hell is not from him, therefore nothing in hell corresponding to the evils of its inhabitants is from him. 340. (3) there is unceasing influx out of the spiritual world into the natural world. he who does not know that there is a spiritual world, or that it is distinct from the natural world, as what is prior is distinct from what is subsequent, or as cause from the thing caused, can have no knowledge of this influx. this is the reason why those who have written on the origin of plants and animals could not do otherwise than ascribe that origin to nature; or if to god, then in the sense that god had implanted in nature from the beginning a power to produce such things, not knowing that no power has been implanted in nature, since nature, in herself, is dead, and contributes no more to the production of these things than a tool does, for instance, to the work of a mechanic, the tool acting only as it is continually moved. it is the spiritual, deriving its origin from the sun where the lord is, and proceeding to the outmosts of nature, that produces the forms of plants and animals, exhibiting the marvels that exist in both, and filling the forms with matters from the earth, that they may become fixed and enduring. but because it is now known that there is a spiritual world, and that the spiritual is from the spiritual sun, in which the lord is and which is from the lord, and that the spiritual is what impels nature to act, as what is living impels what is dead, also that like things exist in the spiritual world as in the natural world, it can now be seen that plants and animals have had their existence only from the lord though that world, and through that world they have perpetual existence. thus there is unceasing influx from the spiritual world into the natural. that this is so will be abundantly corroborated in the next chapter. noxious things are produced on earth through influx from hell, by the same law of permission whereby evils themselves from hell flow into men. this law will be set forth in the angelic wisdom concerning the divine providence. 341. (4) those things that are evil uses are effected by the operation of influx from hell, wherever there are such things as correspond thereto. the things that correspond to evil uses, that is, to hurtful plants and noxious animals, are cadaverous, putrid, excrementitious, stercoraceous, rancid, and urinous matters; consequently, in places where these are, such herbs and such animalcules spring forth as are mentioned above; and in the torrid zone, like things of larger size, as serpents, basilisks, crocodiles, scorpions, rats, and so forth. every one knows that swamps, stagnant ponds, dung, fetid bogs, are full of such things; also that noxious insects fill the atmosphere in clouds, and noxious vermin walk the earth in armies, and consume its herbs to the very roots. i once observed in my garden, that in the space of a half yard, nearly all the dust was turned into minute insects, for when it was stirred with a stick, they rose in clouds. that cadaverous and putrid matters are in accord with these noxious and useless little things, and that the two are homogeneous, is evident from mere observation; and it is still more clearly seen from the cause, which is, that like stenches and fumes exist in the hells, where such little things are likewise to be seen. those hells are therefore named accordingly; some are called cadaverous, some stercoraceous, some urinous, and so on. but all these hells are covered over, that those vapors may not escape from them. for when they are opened a very little, which happens when novitiate devils enter, they excite vomiting and cause headache, and such as are also poisonous induce fainting. the very dust there is also of the same nature, wherefore it is there called damned dust. from this it is evident that there are such noxious insects wherever there are such stenches, because the two correspond. 342. it now becomes a matter of inquiry whether such things spring from eggs conveyed to the spot by means of air, or rain, or water oozing through the soil, or whether they spring from the damp and stenches themselves. that these noxious animalcules and insects mentioned above are hatched from eggs which have been carried to the spot, or which have lain hidden everywhere in the ground since creation, is opposed to all observation. for worms spring forth in minute seeds, in the kernels of nuts, in wood, in stones, and even from leaves, and upon plants and in plants there are lice and grubs which are accordant with them. of flying insects, too, there are such as appear in houses, fields, and woods, which arise in like manner in summer, with no oviform matters sufficient to account for them; also such as devour meadows and lawns, and in some hot localities fill and infest the air; besides those that swim and fly unseen in filthy waters, wines becoming sour, and pestilential air. these facts of observation support those who say that the odors, effluvia, and exhalations emitted from plants, earths, and ponds, are what give the initiative to such things. that when they have come forth, they are afterwards propagated either by eggs or offshoots, does not disprove their immediate generation; since every living creature, along with its minute viscera, receives organs of generation and means of propagation (see below, n. 347). in agreement with these phenomena is the fact heretofore unknown that there are like things also in the hells. 343. that the hells mentioned above have not only communication but conjunction with such things in the earths may be concluded from this, that the hells are not distant from men, but are about them, yea, are within those who are evil; thus they are contiguous to the earth; for man, in regard to his affections and lusts, and consequent thoughts, and in regard to his actions springing from these, which are good or evil uses, is in the midst either of angels of heaven or of spirits of hell; and as such things as are on the earth are also in the heavens and hells, it follows that influx therefrom directly produces such things when the conditions are favorable. all things, in fact, that appear in the spiritual world, whether in heaven or in hell, are correspondences of affections or lusts, for they take form there in accordance with these; consequently when affections or lusts, which in themselves are spiritual, meet with homogeneous or corresponding things in the earths, there are present both the spiritual that furnishes a soul, and the material that furnishes a body. moreover, within everything spiritual there is a conatus to clothe itself with a body. the hells are about men, and therefore contiguous to the earth, because the spiritual world is not in space, but is where there is a corresponding affection. 344. i heard two presidents of the english royal society, sir hans sloane and martin folkes, conversing together in the spiritual world about the existence of seeds and eggs, and about productions from them in the earths. the former ascribed them to nature, and contended that nature was endowed from creation with a power and force to produce such effects by means of the sun's heat. the other maintained that this force is in nature unceasingly from god the creator. to settle the discussion, a beautiful bird appeared to sir hans sloane, and he was asked to examine it to see whether it differed in the smallest particle from a similar bird on earth. he held it in his hand, examined it, and declared that there was no difference. he knew indeed that it was nothing but an affection of some angel represented outside of the angel as a bird, and that it would vanish or cease with its affection. and this came to pass. by this experience sir hans sloane was convinced that nature contributes nothing whatever to the production of plants and animals, that they are produced solely by what flows into the natural world out of the spiritual world. if that bird, he said, were to be infilled, in its minutest parts, with corresponding matters from the earth, and thus fixed, it would be a lasting bird, like the birds on the earth; and that it is the same with such things as are from hell. to this he added that had he known what he now knew of the spiritual world, he would have ascribed to nature no more than this, that it serves the spiritual, which is from god, in fixing the things which flow in unceasingly into nature. 345. (5) this is effected by the lowest spiritual separated from what is above it. it was shown in part third that the spiritual flows down from its sun even to the outmosts of nature through three degrees, which are called the celestial, the spiritual, and the natural; that these three degrees are in man from creation, consequently from birth; that they are opened according to man's life; that if the celestial degree which is the highest and inmost is opened, man becomes celestial; if the spiritual degree which is the middle is opened, he becomes spiritual; but if only the natural degree which is the lowest and outermost is opened, he becomes natural; that if man becomes natural only, he loves only corporeal and worldly things; and that so far as he loves these, so far he does not love celestial and spiritual things, and does not look to god, and so far he becomes evil. from all this it is evident that the lowest spiritual, which is called the spiritual-natural, can be separated from its higher degrees, and is separated in such men as hell consists of. this lowest spiritual can separate itself from its higher parts, and look to hell, in men only; it cannot be so separated in beasts, or in soils. from which it follows that these evil uses mentioned above are effected on the earth by this lowest spiritual separated from what is above it, such as it is in those who are in hell. that the noxious things on the earth have their origin in man, thus from hell, may be shown by the state of the land of canaan, as described in the word; in that when the children of israel lived according to the commandments, the earth yielded its increase, likewise the flocks and herds; but when they lived contrary to the commandments the ground was barren, and as it is said, accursed; instead of harvests it yielded thorns and briars, the flocks and herds miscarried, and wild beasts broke in. the same may be inferred from the locusts, frogs, and lice in egypt. 346. (6) there are two forms into which the operation by influx takes place, the vegetable and the animal form. that there are only two universal forms produced out of the earth is known from the two kingdoms of nature, called the animal and the vegetable kingdoms, also that all the subjects of either kingdom possess many things in common. thus the subjects of the animal kingdom have organs of sense and organs of motion and members and viscera that are actuated by brains, hearts, and lungs. so the subjects of the vegetable kingdom send down a root into the ground, and bring forth stem, branches, leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds. both the animal and the vegetable kingdoms, as regards the production of their forms, derive their origin from spiritual influx and operation out of the sun of heaven where the lord is, and not from the influx and operation of nature out of her sun; from this they derive nothing except their fixation, as was said above. all animals, great and small, derive their origin from the spiritual in the outmost degree, which is called the natural; man alone from all three degrees, called the celestial, spiritual, and natural. as each degree of height or discrete degree decreases from its perfection to its imperfection, as light to shade, by continuity, so do animals; there are therefore perfect, less perfect, and imperfect animals. the perfect animals are elephants, camels, horses, mules, oxen, sheep, goats, and others which are of the herd or the flock; the less perfect are birds; and the imperfect are fish and shell-fish; these, as being the lowest of that degree, are as it were in shade, while the former are in light. yet animals, since they live only from the lowest spiritual degree, which is called the natural, can look nowhere else than towards the earth and to food there, and to their own kind for the sake of propagation; the soul of all these is natural affection and appetite. the subjects of the vegetable kingdom comprise, in like manner, the perfect, less perfect, and imperfect; the perfect are fruit trees, the less perfect are vines and shrubs, and the imperfect are grasses. but plants derive from the spiritual out of which they spring that they are uses, while animals derive from the spiritual out of which they spring that they are affections and appetites, as was shown above. 347. (7) each of these forms receives with its existence the means of propagation. in all products of the earth, which pertain, as was said above, either to the vegetable or to the animal kingdom, there is a kind of image of creation, and a kind of image of man, and also a kind of image of the infinite and the eternal; this was shown above (n. 313-318); also that the image of the infinite and the eternal is clearly manifest in the capacity of all these for infinite and eternal propagation. they all, therefore, receive means of propagation; the subjects of the animal kingdom through seed, in the egg or in the womb or by spawning; and the subjects of the vegetable kingdom through seeds in the ground. from which it can be seen that although the more imperfect and the noxious animals and plants originate through immediate influx out of hell, yet afterwards they are propagated mediately by seeds, eggs, or grafts; consequently, the one position does not annul the other. 348. that all uses, both good and evil, are from a spiritual origin, thus from the sun where the lord is, may be illustrated by this experience. i have heard that goods and truths have been sent down through the heavens by the lord to the hells, and that these same, received by degrees to the lowest deep, were there turned into evils and falsities, which are the opposite of the goods and truths sent down. this took place because recipient subjects turn all things that inflow into such things as are in agreement with their own forms, just as the white light of the sun is turned into ugly colors or into black in those objects whose substances are interiorly of such a form as to suffocate and extinguish the light, and as stagnant ponds, dung-hills, and dead bodies turn the heat of the sun into stenches. from all this it can be seen that even evil uses are from the spiritual sun, but that good uses are changed in hell into evil uses. it is evident, therefore, that the lord has not created and does not create any except good uses, but that hell produces evil uses. 349. the visible things in the created universe bear witness that nature has produced and does produce nothing, but that the divine out of itself, and through the spiritual world, has produced and does produce all things. speaking from appearances, most men say that the sun by heat and light produces whatever is to be seen in plains, fields, gardens, and forests; also that the sun by its heat hatches worms from eggs, and makes prolific the beasts of the earth and the fowls of the air; and that it even gives life to man. those who speak from appearances only may speak in this way without ascribing these things to nature, because they are not thinking about the matter; as there are those who speak of the sun as rising and setting, and causing days and years, and being now at this or that altitude; such persons speak from appearances, and in doing so, do not ascribe such effects to the sun, because they are not thinking of the sun's fixity or the earth's revolution. but those who confirm themselves in the idea that the sun produces the things that appear upon the earth by means of its heat and light, end by ascribing all things to nature, even the creation of the universe, and become naturalists and, at last, atheists. these may continue to say that god created nature and endowed her with the power of producing such things, but this they say from fear of losing their good name; and by god the creator they still mean nature, and some mean the innermost of nature, and then the divine things taught by the church they regard as of no account. 350. there are some who are excusable for ascribing certain visible things to nature, for two reasons. first, because they have had no knowledge of the sun of heaven, where the lord is, or of influx therefrom, or of the spiritual world and its state, or even of its presence with man, and therefore had no other idea than that the spiritual is a purer natural; consequently, that angels are in the ether or in the stars; and that the devil is either man's evil or if an actual existence, that he is in the air or the abyss; also that the souls of men, after death, are either in the interior of the earth, or in an undetermined somewhere till the day of judgment; and other like things deduced by fancy out of ignorance of the spiritual world and its sun. secondly, they are excusable, because they are unable to see how the divine could produce everything that appears on the earth, where there are not only good things but also evil things; and they are afraid to confirm themselves in such an idea, lest they ascribe the evil things also to god, and form a material conception of god, and make god and nature one, and thus confound the two. for these two reasons those are excusable who have believed that nature produces the visible world by a power implanted in her by creation. but those who have made themselves atheists by confirmations in favor of nature are not excusable, because they might have confirmed themselves in favor of the divine. ignorance indeed excuses, but does not remove, falsity which has been confirmed, for such falsity coheres with evil, thus with hell. consequently, those same persons who have confirmed themselves in favor of nature to such an extent as to separate the divine from nature, regard nothing as sin, because all sin is against the divine, and this they have separated, and thus have rejected it; and those who in spirit regard nothing as sin, after death when they become spirits, since they are in bonds to hell, rush into wickednesses which are in accord with the lusts to which they have given rein. 351. those who believe in a divine operation in all the details of nature, are able by very many things they see in nature to confirm themselves in favor of the divine, as fully as others confirm themselves in favor of nature, yea, more fully. for those who confirm themselves in favor of the divine give attention to the wonders which are displayed in the production both of plants and animals. in the production of plants, how out of a little seed cast into the ground there goes forth a root, and by means of the root a stem, and branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits in succession, even to new seeds; just as if the seed knew the order of succession, or the process by which it is to renew itself. can any reasonable person think that the sun, which is mere fire, has this knowledge, or that it is able to empower its heat and light to effect these results, or is able to fashion these wonderful things in plants, and to contemplate use? any man of elevated reason who sees and weighs these things, cannot think otherwise than that they come from him who has infinite reason, that is, from god. those who acknowledge the divine also see and think this, but those who do not acknowledge the divine do not see or think this because they do not wish to; thus they sink their rational into the sensual, which draws all its ideas from the lumen which is proper to the bodily senses and which confirms their illusions, saying, do you not see the sun effecting these things by its heat and light? what is a thing that you do not see? is it anything? those who confirm themselves in favor of the divine give attention to the wonders which are displayed in the production of animals; to mention here only, in reference to eggs, how the chick in its seed or beginning lies hidden therein, with everything requisite till it is hatched, also with everything pertaining to its subsequent development, until it becomes a bird or winged thing of the same form as its parent. and if one observes the living form, it is such as to fill any one with astonishment who thinks deeply, seeing that in the minutest as in the largest living creatures, even in the invisible, as in the visible, there are the organs of sense, namely, sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch; and organs of motion which are muscles, for they fly and walk; also viscera surrounding the heart and lungs, which are set in action by brains. that even the commonest insects enjoy such organisms is shown in their anatomy as described by some writers, and especially by swammerdam, in his biblia naturae. those who ascribe everything to nature, see all these things, but they merely perceive that they exist, and say that nature produces them. they say this because they have turned their minds away from thinking about the divine; and those who have done this are unable, when they see the wonderful things in nature, to think rationally, still less spiritually; but they think sensually and materially; and then they think in nature from nature, and not above nature, just as those do who are in hell. they differ from beasts only in having the power to think rationally, that is, in being able to understand, and therefore to think otherwise, if they choose. 352. those who have averted themselves from thinking about the divine when observing the wonderful things in nature, and who thereby become sensual, do not reflect that the sight of the eye is so gross as to see many little insects as an obscure speck, when yet each one of these is organized to feel and to move, and is accordingly furnished with fibers and vessels, also with a minute heart, pulmonary tubes, viscera, and brains; also that these organs are woven out of the purest substances in nature, their tissues corresponding to that somewhat of life by which their minutest parts are separately moved. when the sight of the eye is so gross that many such creatures, with innumerable particulars in each, appear to it as an obscure speck, and yet those who are sensual think and judge by that sight, it is clear how dulled their minds are, and therefore what thick darkness they are in concerning spiritual things. 353. any one who chooses may confirm himself in favor of the divine from things seen in nature, and whoever thinks about god in reference to life does so confirm himself; as when he observes the birds of the air, how each species knows its food and where to find it, recognizes its kind by sound and sight, and which among other kinds are its friends and which its enemies; how also they mate, have knowledge of the sexual relation, skillfully build nests, lay eggs therein, sit upon these, know the period of incubation, and this having elapsed, bring forth their young, love them most tenderly, cherish them under their wings, bring them food and feed them, until they can do for themselves, perform the same offices, and bring forth a family to perpetuate their kind. any one who is willing to reflect on the divine influx through the spiritual world into the natural can see such influx in these things, and if he will, can say from his heart, such knowledges cannot flow into these creatures out of the sun through its rays of light, for the sun, from which nature derives its origin and essence, is mere fire, consequently its rays of light are wholly dead; and thus he may conclude that such things are from the influx of divine wisdom into the outmosts of nature. 354. any one may confirm himself in favor of the divine from things visible in nature, when he sees larvae, from the delight of some impulse, desiring and longing to change their terrestrial state to a certain likeness of the heavenly state, and for this purpose creeping into corners, and putting themselves as it were into a womb in order to be born again, and there becoming chrysalises, aurelias, caterpillars, nymphs, and at length butterflies; and having undergone this metamorphosis, and each after its kind been decked with beautiful wings, they ascend into the air as into their heaven, and there disport themselves joyfully, form marriage unions, lay eggs, and provide for themselves a posterity, nourished meanwhile with pleasant and sweet food from flowers. who that confirms himself in favor of the divine from the visible things in nature can help seeing a kind of image of man's earthly state in these as larvae, and in them as butterflies an image of the heavenly state? those who confirm themselves in favor of nature see the same things, but because in heart they have rejected the heavenly state of man they call them merely natural instincts. 355. any one may confirm himself in favor of the divine from things seen in nature by giving attention to what is known about bees: that they know how to collect wax and suck honey from herbs and flowers, and to build cells like little houses, and set them in the form of a city, with streets through which to come in and go out; that they scent at long distances the flowers and herbs from which they collect wax for their houses and honey for food, and laden with these fly back in a direct line to their hive; thus providing themselves with food and habitation for the coming winter, as if they had foresight and knowledge of it. they also set over them a mistress as queen, out of whom a posterity may be propagated; and for her they build a sort of a palace over themselves with guards around it; and when her time of bringing forth is at hand, she goes attended by her guards from cell to cell, and lays her eggs, which the crowd of followers smear over to protect them from the air, from which a new progeny springs forth for them. when this progeny becomes mature enough to do the same, it is driven from the hive. the expelled swarm first collects, and then in a close body, to preserve its integrity, flies away in quest of a home for itself. moreover, in the autumn the useless drones are led out and are deprived of their wings to prevent their returning and consuming the food for which they have not labored; not to mention other particulars. from all this it can be seen that bees, because of their use to the human race, have from influx from the spiritual world, a form of government similar to that among men on earth, and even like that of angels in heaven. can any man of unimpaired reason fail to see that these doings of the bees are not from the natural world? what has that sun, from which nature springs, in common with a government that vies with and resembles the government of heaven? from these things and others very similar to them in the brute creation, the confessor and worshiper of nature confirms himself in favor of nature, while the confessor and worshiper of god confirms himself from the same things in favor of the divine; for the spiritual man sees in them spiritual things and the natural man natural things, thus each according to his character. as for myself, such things have been proofs to me of an influx of the spiritual into the natural, that is, of the spiritual world into the natural world, thus of an influx from the lord's divine wisdom. consider, moreover, whether you can think analytically concerning any form of government, or any civil law, or moral virtue, or spiritual truth, unless the divine out of his wisdom flows in through the spiritual world ? for myself, i could not and cannot. for having now observed that influx perceptibly and sensibly for about nineteen years continually, i speak as an eye-witness. 356. can anything natural regard use as an end and dispose uses into series and forms? no one can do this unless he be wise; and no one but god, whose wisdom is infinite, can so give order and form to the universe. who else or what else is able to foresee and provide all things needful for the food and clothing of man, food from the fruits of earth and from animals, and clothing from the same? how marvelous that so insignificant a creature as the silk-worm should clothe in silk and splendidly adorn both women and men, from queens and kings to maidservants and menservants, and that insignificant insects like the bees should supply wax for the candles by which temples and palaces are made brilliant. these and many other things are manifest proofs that the lord from himself by means of the spiritual world, brings about everything that comes into existence in nature. 357. to this must be added that those who have confirmed themselves in favor of nature, from the visible things of the world, until they have become atheists, have been seen by me in the spiritual world; and in the spiritual light their understanding appeared open below, but closed above, because in thought they had looked downward toward the earth, and not upward toward heaven. above their sensual, which is the bottom of the understanding, appeared something like a veil; which in some flashed with hellish fire, in some was black like soot, and in some livid like a corpse. therefore let every one beware of confirmations in favor of nature; let him confirm himself in favor of the divine; there is no lack of material. 358. part fifth. two receptacles and abodes for himself, called will and understanding, have been created and formed by the lord in man; the will for his divine love, and the understanding for his divine wisdom. the divine love and divine wisdom of god the creator, who is the lord from eternity, and also the creation of the universe, have been treated of; something shall now be said of the creation of man. we read (in gen. 1:26) that man was created "in the image of god, after his likeness." by "image of god" is there meant the divine wisdom, and by "likeness" of god the divine love; since wisdom is nothing but an image of love, for in wisdom love presents itself to be seen and recognized, and because it is seen and recognized in wisdom, wisdom is an image of it. moreover love is the esse of life, and wisdom is the existere of life therefrom. in angels the likeness and image of god clearly appear, since love from within shines forth in their faces, and wisdom in their beauty, and their beauty is a form of their love. i have seen and know. 359. man cannot be an image of god, after his likeness, unless god is in him and is his life from the inmost. that god is in man and, from the inmost, is his life, follows from what has been shown above (n. 4-6), that god alone is life, and that men and angels are recipients of life from him. moreover, that god is in man and that he makes his abode with him, is known from the word; for which reason it is customary for preachers to declare that men ought to prepare themselves to receive god, that he may enter into them, and be in their hearts, that they may be his dwelling-place. the devout man says the same in his prayers, and some speak more openly respecting the holy spirit, which they believe to be in them when they are in holy zeal, and from that zeal they think, speak, and preach. that the holy spirit is the lord, and not a god who is a person by himself, has been shown in the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the lord (n. 51-53). for the lord declares: in that day ye shall know that ye are in me, and i in you (john 14:20; so also in chap. 15:4, 5; and chap. 17:23). 360. now because the lord is divine love and divine wisdom, and these two essentially are himself, it is necessary, in order that he may abide in man and give life to man, that he should create and form in man receptacles and abodes for himself; the one for love and the other for wisdom. these receptacles and abodes in man are called will and understanding; the receptacle and abode of love is called the will, and the receptacle and abode of wisdom is called the understanding. that these two are the lord's in man, and that from these two man has all his life, will be seen in what follows. 361. that every man has these two, will and understanding, and that they are distinct from each other, as love and wisdom are distinct, is known and is not known in the world. it is known from common perception, but it is not known from thought and still less from thought when written out; for who does not know from common perception that the will and the understanding are two distinct things in man? for every one perceives this when he hears it stated, and may himself say to another, this man means well, but does not understand clearly; while that one's understanding is good, but his will is not; i like the man whose understanding and will are both good; but i do not like him whose understanding is good and his will bad. yet when he thinks about the will and the understanding he does not make them two and distinguish them, but confounds them, since his thought then acts in common with the bodily sight. when writing he apprehends still less that will and understanding are two distinct things, because his thought then acts in common with the sensual, that is, with what is the man's own. from this it is that some can think and speak well, but cannot write well. this is common with women. it is the same with many other things. is it not known by everyone from common perception that a man whose life is good is saved, but that a man whose life is bad is condemned? also that one whose life is good will enter the society of angels, and will there see, hear, and speak like a man? also that one who from justice does what is just and from what is right does right, has a conscience? but if one lapses from common perception, and submits these things to thought, he does not know what conscience is; or that the soul can see, hear, and speak like a man; or that the good of life is anything except giving to the poor. and if from thought you write about these things, you confirm them by appearances and fallacies, and by words of sound but of no substance. for this reason many of the learned who have thought much, and especially who have written much, have weakened and obscured, yea, have destroyed their common perception; while the simple see more clearly what is good and true than those who think themselves their superiors in wisdom. this common perception comes by influx from heaven, and descends into thought even to sight; but thought separated from common perception falls into imagination from the sight and from what is man's own. you may observe that this is so. tell some truth to any one that is in common perception, and he will see it; tell him that from god and in god we are and live and are moved, and he will see it; tell him that god dwells with man in love and in wisdom, and he will see it; tell him further that the will is the receptacle of love, and the understanding of wisdom, and explain it a little, and he will see it; tell him that god is love itself and wisdom itself, and he will see it; ask him what conscience is, and he will tell you. but say the same things to one of the learned, who has not thought from common perception, but from principles or from ideas obtained from the world through sight, and he will not see. then consider which is the wiser. 362. will and understanding, which are the receptacles of love and wisdom, are in the brains, in the whole and in every part of them, and therefrom in the body, in the whole and in every part of it. this shall be shown in the following order: (1) love and wisdom, and will and understanding therefrom, make the very life of man. (2) the life of man in its first principles is in the brains, and in its derivatives in the body. (3) such as life is in its first principles, such it is in the whole and in every part. (4) by means of first principles life is in the whole from every part, and in every part from the whole. (5) such as the love is, such is the wisdom, consequently such is the man. 363. (1) love and wisdom, and will and understanding therefrom, make the very life of man. scarcely any one knows what life is. when one thinks about life, it seems as if it were a fleeting something, of which no distinct idea is possible. it so seems because it is not known that god alone is life, and that his life is divine love and divine wisdom. from this it is evident that in man life is nothing else than love and wisdom, and that there is life in man in the degree in which he receives these. it is known that heat and light go forth from the sun, and that all things in the universe are recipients and grow warm and bright in the degree in which they receive. so do heat and light go forth from the sun where the lord is; the heat going forth therefrom is love, and the light wisdom (as shown in part second). life, therefore, is from these two which go forth from the lord as a sun. that love and wisdom from the lord is life can be seen also from this, that man grows torpid as love recedes from him, and stupid as wisdom recedes from him, and that were they to recede altogether he would become extinct. there are many things pertaining to love which have received other names because they are derivatives, such as affections, desires, appetites, and their pleasures and enjoyments; and there are many things pertaining to wisdom, such as perception, reflection, recollection, thought, intention to an end; and there are many pertaining to both love and wisdom, such as consent, conclusion, and determination to action; besides others. all of these, in fact, pertain to both, but they are designated from the more prominent and nearer of the two. from these two are derived ultimately sensations, those of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, with their enjoyments and pleasures. it is according to appearance that the eye sees; but it is the understanding that sees through the eye; consequently seeing is predicated also of the understanding. the appearance is that the ear hears; but it is the understanding that hears through the ear; consequently hearing is predicated also of attention and giving heed, which pertain to the understanding. the appearance is that the nose smells, and the tongue tastes but it is the understanding that smells and also tastes by virtue of its perception; therefore smelling and tasting are predicated also of perception. so in other cases. the sources of all these are love and wisdom; from which it can be seen that these two make the life of man. 364. everyone sees that the understanding is the receptacle of wisdom, but few see that the will is the receptacle of love. this is because the will does not act at all by itself, but only through the understanding; also because the love of the will, in passing over into the wisdom of the understanding, is first changed into affection, and thus passes over; and affection is not perceived except by something pleasant in thinking, speaking, and acting, which is not noticed. still it is evident that love is from the will, for the reason that everyone wills what he loves, and does not will what he does not love. 365. (2) the life of man in its first principles is in the brains, and in its derivatives in the body. in first principles means in its firsts, and in derivatives means in what is brought forth and formed from its firsts. by life in first principles is meant will and understanding. these two are what are in their first principles in the brains, and in their derivatives in the body. it is evident that the first principles or firsts of life are in the brains: (1) from the feeling itself; since man perceives, when he exerts his mind and thinks, that he thinks in the brain. he draws in as it were the sight of the eye, contracts the forehead, and perceives the mental process to be within, especially inside the forehead and somewhat above it. (2) from man's formation in the womb; in that the brain or head is first developed, and continues for some time larger than the body. (3) in that the head is above and the body below; and it is according to order for the higher to act upon the lower, and not the reverse. (4) in that, when the brain is injured in the womb or by a wound or by disease, or by excessive application, thought is weakened and sometimes the mind becomes deranged. (5) in that all the external senses of the body sight, hearing, smell, and taste, with touch (the universal sense) as also speech, are in the front part of the head, which is called the face, and communicate immediately through fibers with the brains, and derive therefrom their sensitive and active life. (6) it is from this that affections, which are of love, appear imaged forth in the face, and that thoughts, which are of wisdom, are revealed in a kind of sparkle of the eyes. (7) anatomy teaches that all fibers descend from the brains through the neck into the body, and that none ascend from the body through the neck into the brains. and where the fibers are in their first principles or firsts, there life is in its first principles or firsts. will any one venture to deny that life has its origin where the fibers have their origin? (8) ask any one of common perception where his thought resides or where he thinks, and he will say, in the head. then appeal to some one who has assigned the seat of the soul to some gland or to the heart or somewhere else, and ask him where affection and thought therefrom are in their firsts, whether they are not in the brain? and he will answer, no, or that he does not know. the cause of this ignorance may be seen above (n. 361). 366. (3) such as life is in its first principles, such it is in the whole and in every part. that this may be perceived, it shall now be told where in the brains these first principles are, and how they become derivative. anatomy shows where in the brains these first principles are; it teaches that there are two brains; that these are continued from the head into the spinal column; that they consist of two substances, called cortical substance and medullary substance; that cortical substance consists of innumerable gland-like forms, and medullary substance of innumerable fiber-like forms. now as these little glands are heads of fibrils, they are also their first principles. for from these, fibers begin and thereupon go forth, gradually bundling themselves into nerves. these bundles or nerves, when formed, descend to the organs of sense in the face, and to the organs of motion in the body, and form them. consult any one skilled in the science of anatomy, and you will be convinced. this cortical or glandular substance constitutes the surface of the cerebrum, and also the surface of the corpora striata, from which proceeds the medulla oblongata; it also constitutes the middle of the cerebellum, and the middle of the spinal marrow. but medullary or fibrillary substance everywhere begins in and proceeds from the cortical; out of it nerves arise, and from them all things of the body. that this is true is proved by dissection. they who know these things, either from the study of anatomical science or from the testimony of those who are skilled in the science, can see that the first principles of life are in the same place as the beginnings of the fibers, and that fibers cannot go forth from themselves, but must go forth from first principles. these first principles, that is, beginnings, which appear as little glands, are almost countless; their multitude may be compared to the multitude of stars in the universe; and the multitude of fibrils coming out of them may be compared to the multitude of rays going forth from the stars and bearing their heat and light to the earth. the multitude of these little glands may also be compared to the multitude of angelic societies in the heavens, which also are countless, and, i have been told, are in like order as the glands. also the multitude of fibrils going out from these little glands may be compared to the spiritual truths and goods which in like manner flow down from the angelic societies like rays. from this it is that man is like a universe, and like a heaven in least form (as has been frequently said and shown above). from all which it can now be seen that such as life is in first principles, such it is in derivatives; or such as it is in its firsts in the brains, such it is in the things arising therefrom in the body. 367. (4) by means of first principles life is in the whole from every part, and in every part from the whole. this is because the whole, which is the brain and the body together, is originally made up of nothing but fibers proceeding from their first principles in the brains. it has no other origin, as is evident from what has been shown just above (n. 366); consequently, the whole is from every part; and by means of these first principles life is in every part from the whole, because the whole dispenses to each part its task and needs, thereby making it to be a part in the whole. in a word, the whole has existence from the parts, and the parts have permanent existence from the whole. that there is such reciprocal communion, and conjunction thereby, is clear from many things in the body. for the same order prevails there as in a state, commonwealth, or kingdom; the community has its existence from the individuals which are its parts, and the parts or individuals have permanent existence from the community. it is the same with every thing that has form, most of all in man. 368. (5) such as the love is, such is the wisdom, consequently such is the man. for such as the love and wisdom are, such are the will and understanding, since the will is the receptacle of love, and the understanding of wisdom, as has been shown above; and these two make the man and his character. love is manifold, so manifold that its varieties are limitless; as can be seen from the human race on the earths and in the heavens. there is no man or angel so like another that there is no difference. love is what distinguishes; for every man is his own love. it is supposed that wisdom distinguishes; but wisdom is from love; it is the form of love; love is the esse of life, and wisdom is the existere of life from that esse. in the world it is believed that the understanding makes the man; but this is believed because the understanding can be elevated, as was shown above, into the light of heaven, giving man the appearance of being wise; yet so much of the understanding as transcends, that is to say, so much as is not of the love, although it appears to be man's and therefore to determine man's character, is only an appearance. for so much of the understanding as transcends is, indeed, from the love of knowing and being wise, but not at the same time from the love of applying to life what man knows and is wise in. consequently, in the world it either in time passes away or lingers outside of the things of memory in its mere borders as something ready to drop off; and therefore after death it is separated, no more of it remaining than is in accord with the spirit's own love. inasmuch as love makes the life of man, and thus the man himself, all societies of heaven, and all angels in societies, are arranged according to affections belonging to love, and no society nor any angel in a society according to anything of the understanding separate from love. so likewise in the hells and their societies, but in accordance with loves opposite to the heavenly loves. from all this it can be seen that such as the love is such is the wisdom, and consequently such is the man. 369. it is acknowledged, indeed, that man is such as his reigning love is, but only in respect to his mind and disposition, not in respect to his body, thus not wholly. but it has been made known to me by much experience in the spiritual world, that man from head to foot, that is, from things primary in the head to the outmosts in the body, is such as his love is. for all in the spiritual world are forms of their own love; the angels forms of heavenly love, the devils of hellish love; the devils deformed in face and body, but the angels beautiful in face and body. moreover, when their love is assailed their faces are changed, and if much assailed they wholly disappear. this is peculiar to that world, and so happens because their bodies make one with their minds. the reason is evident from what has been said above, that all things of the body are derivatives, that is, are things woven together by means of fibers out of first principles, which are receptacles of love and wisdom. howsoever these first principles may be, their derivatives cannot be different; therefore wherever first principles go their derivatives follow, and cannot be separated. for this reason he who raises his mind to the lord is wholly raised up to him, and he who casts his mind down to hell is wholly cast down thither; consequently the whole man, in conformity to his life's love, comes either into heaven or into hell. that man's mind is a man because god is a man, and that the body is the mind's external, which feels and acts, and that they are thus one and not two, is a matter of angelic wisdom. 370. it is to be observed that the very forms of man's members, organs, and viscera, as regards the structure itself, are from fibers that arise out of their first principles in the brains; but these become fixed by means of such substances and matters as are in earths, and from earths in air and in ether. this is effected by means of the blood. consequently, in order that all parts of the body may be maintained in their formation and rendered permanent in their functions, man requires to be nourished by material food, and to be continually renewed. 371. there is a correspondence of the will with the heart, and of the understanding with the lungs. this shall be shown in the following series: (1) all things of the mind have relation to the will and understanding, and all things of the body to the heart and lungs. (2) there is a correspondence of the will and understanding with the heart and lungs, consequently a correspondence of all things of the mind with all things of the body. (3) the will corresponds to the heart. (4) the understanding corresponds to the lungs. (5) by means of this correspondence many arcana relating to the will and understanding, thus also to love and wisdom, may be disclosed. (6) man's mind is his spirit, and the spirit is the man, while the body is the external by means of which the mind or spirit feels and acts in its world. (7) the conjunction of man's spirit with his body is by means of the correspondence of his will and understanding with his heart and lungs, and their separation is from non-correspondence. 372. (1) all things of the mind have relation to the will and understanding, and all things of the body to the heart and lungs. by the mind nothing else is meant than the will and understanding, which in their complex are all things that affect man and all that he thinks, thus all things of man's affection and thought. the things that affect man are of his will, and the things that he thinks are of his understanding. that all things of man's thought are of his understanding is known, since he thinks from the understanding; but it is not so well known that all things of man's affection are of his will, this is not so well known because when man is thinking he pays no attention to the affection, but only to what he is thinking; just as when he hears a person speaking, he pays no attention to the tone of the voice but only to the language. yet affection is related to thought as the tone of the voice is to the language; consequently the affection of the one speaking is known by the tone, and his thought by the language. affection is of the will, because all affection is of love, and the will is the receptacle of love, as was shown above. he that is not aware that affection is of the will confounds affection with understanding, for he declares it to be one with thought, yet they are not one but act as one. that they are confounded is evident from the common expression, i think i will do this, meaning, i will to do it. but that they are two is also evident from a common expression, i wish to think about this matter; and when one thinks about it, the affection of the will is present in the thought of the understanding, like the tone in speech, as was said before. that all parts of the body have relation to the heart and lungs is known, but that there is a correspondence of the heart and lungs with the will and understanding is not known. this subject will therefore be treated in what follows. 373. because the will and understanding are the receptacles of love and wisdom, these two are organic forms, or forms organized out of the purest substances; for such they must be to be receptacles. it is no objection that their organization is imperceptible to the eye; it lies beyond the reach of vision, even when this is increased by the microscope. the smallest insects are also too small to be seen, yet they have organs of sense and motion, for they feel, walk, and fly. that they have brains, hearts, pulmonary pipes, and viscera, acute observers have discovered from their anatomy by means of the microscope. since minute insects themselves are not visible, and still less so their component viscera, and since it is not denied that they are organized even to each single particle in them, how can it be said that the two receptacles of love and wisdom, called will and understanding, are not organic forms? how can love and wisdom, which are life from the lord, act upon what is not a subject, or upon what has no substantial existence? without organic forms, how can thought inhere; and from thought inherent in nothing can one speak? is not the brain, where thought comes forth, complete and organized in every part? the organic forms themselves are there visible even to the naked eye; and the receptacles of the will and understanding, in their first principles, are plainly to be seen in the cortical substance, where they are perceptible as minute glands (on which see above, n. 366). do not, i pray, think of these things from an idea of vacuum. vacuum is nothing, and in nothing nothing takes place, and from nothing nothing comes forth. (on the idea of vacuum, see above, n. 82.) 374. (2) there is a correspondence of the will and understanding with the heart and lungs, consequently a correspondence of all things of the mind with all things of the body. this is new: it has hitherto been unknown because it has not been known what the spiritual is, and how it differs from the natural; therefore it has not been known what correspondence is; for there is a correspondence between things spiritual and things natural, and by means of correspondence they are conjoined. it is said that heretofore there has been no knowledge of what the spiritual is, or of what its correspondence with the natural is and therefore what correspondence is; yet these might have been known. who does not know that affection and thought are spiritual, therefore that all things of affection and thought are spiritual? who does not know that action and speech are natural, therefore that all things of action and speech are natural: who does not know that affection and thought, which are spiritual, cause man to act and to speak? from this who cannot see what correspondence is between things spiritual and things natural? does not thought make the tongue speak, and affection together with thought make the body act? there are two distinct things: i can think without speaking, and i can will without acting; and the body, it is known, neither thinks nor wills, but thought falls into speech, and will descends into action. does not affection also beam forth from the face, and there exhibit a type of itself? this everyone knows. is not affection, regarded in itself, spiritual, and the change of countenance, called the expression, natural? from this who might not conclude that there is correspondence; and further, a correspondence of all things of the mind with all things of the body; and since all things of the mind have relation to affection and thought, or what is the same, to the will and understanding, and all things of the body to the heart and lungs, that there is a correspondence of the will with the heart and of the understanding with the lungs? such things have remained unknown, though they might have been known, because man has become so external as to be unwilling to acknowledge anything except the natural. this has become the joy of his love, and from that the joy of his understanding; consequently it has become distasteful to him to raise his thought above the natural to anything spiritual separate from the natural; therefore, from his natural love and its delights, he can think of the spiritual only as a purer natural, and of correspondence only as a something flowing in by continuity; yea, the merely natural man cannot think of anything separate from the natural; any such thing to him is nothing. again, these things have not heretofore been seen and known, because everything of religion, that is, everything called spiritual, has been banished from the sight of man by the dogma of the whole christian world, that matters theological, that is, spiritual, which councils and certain leaders have decreed, are to be believed blindly because (as they say) they transcend the understanding. some, therefore, have imagined the spiritual to be like a bird flying above the air in an ether to which the sight of the eye does not reach; when yet it is like a bird of paradise, which flies near the eye, even touching the pupil with its beautiful wings and longing to be seen. by the sight of the eye intellectual vision is meant. 375. the correspondence of the will and understanding with the heart and lungs cannot be abstractly proved, that is, by mere reasonings, but it may be proved by effects. it is much the same as it is with the causes of things which can be seen rationally, yet not clearly except by means of effects; for causes are in effects, and by means of effects make themselves visible; and until causes are thus made visible, the mind is not assured respecting them. in what follows, the effects of this correspondence will be described. but lest any one should fall into ideas of this correspondence imbibed from hypotheses about the soul, let him first read over carefully the propositions in the preceding chapter, as follows: love and wisdom, and the will and understanding therefrom, make the very life of man (n. 363, 365). the life of man is in first principles in the brains, and in derivatives in the body (n. 365). such as life is in first principles, such it is in the whole and in every part (n. 366). by means of these first principles life is in the whole from every part, and in every part from the whole (n. 367). such as the love is, such is the wisdom, consequently such is the man (n. 368). 376. it is permitted to introduce here, in the way of evidence, a representation of the correspondence of the will and understanding with the heart and lungs which was seen in heaven among the angels. by a wonderful flowing into spiral movements, such as no words can express, the angels formed the likeness of a heart and the likeness of lungs, with all the interior structures therein; and in this they were falling in with the flow of heaven, for heaven from the inflowing of love and wisdom from the lord strives to come into such forms. they thus represented the conjunction of the heart and lungs, and at the same time the correspondence of these with the love of the will and with the wisdom of the understanding. this correspondence and union they called the heavenly marriage; saying that in the whole body, and in its several members, organs, and viscera, it is the same as in the things belonging to the heart and lungs; also that where the heart and lungs do not act, each in its turn, there can be no motion of life from any voluntary principle, and no sensation of life from any intellectual principle. 377. inasmuch as the correspondence of the heart and lungs with the will and understanding is treated of in what now follows, and upon this correspondence is based that of all parts of the body, namely, the members, the organs of the senses, and the viscera throughout the body, and inasmuch as the correspondence of natural things with spiritual has been heretofore unknown, and yet is amply shown in two works, one of which treats of heaven and hell and the other, the arcana coelestia, of the spiritual sense of the word in genesis and exodus, i will here point out what has been written and shown in those two works respecting correspondence. in the work on heaven and hell: the correspondence of all things of heaven with all things of man (n. 87-102). the correspondence of all things of heaven with all things on earth (n. 103-115). in the arcana coelestia, the work on the spiritual sense of the word in genesis and exodus: the correspondence of the face and its expressions with the affections of the mind (n. 1568, 2988, 2989, 3631, 4796, 4797, 4800, 5165, 5168, 5695, 9306). the correspondence of the body, its gestures and actions, with things intellectual and things voluntary (n. 2988, 3632, 4215). the correspondence of the senses in general (n. 4318-4330). the correspondence of the eyes and of their sight (n. 44034420). the correspondence of the nostrils and of smell (n. 4624-4634). the correspondence of the ear, and of hearing (n. 4652-4660). the correspondence of the tongue and of taste (n. 4791-4805). the correspondence of the hands, arms, shoulders and feet (n. 4931-4953). the correspondence of the loins and organs of generation (n. 5050-5062). thy correspondence of the internal viscera of the body, especially of the stomach, thymus gland, the receptacle and ducts of the chyle and lacteals, and of the mesentery (n. 5171-5180, 5181, 5189). the correspondence of the spleen (n. 9698). the correspondence of the peritonaeum, kidneys and bladder (n. 5377-5385). the correspondence of the liver, and of the hepatic, cystic and pancreatic ducts (n. 5183-5185). the correspondence of the intestines (n. 5392-5395, 5379). the correspondence of the bones (n. 5560-5564). the correspondence of the skin (n. 5552-5559). the correspondence of heaven with man (n. 911, 1900, 1982, 2996-2998, 3624-3649, 3741-3745, 3884, 4051, 4279, 4403, 4423, 4524, 4525, 6013, 6057, 9279, 9632). all things that exist in the natural world and in its three kingdoms correspond to all things which appear in the spiritual world (n. 1632, 1831, 1881, 2758, 2990-3003, 3213-3227, 3483, 3624-3649, 4044, 4053, 4116, 4366, 4939, 5116, 5377, 5428, 5477, 8211, 9280). all things that appear in the heavens are correspondences (n. 1521, 1532, 1619-1625, 1807, 1808, 1971, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1981, 2299, 2601, 3213-3226, 3349, 3350, 3475-3585, 3748, 9481, 9570, 9576, 9577). the correspondence of the sense of the letter of the word and of its spiritual sense is treated of in the arcana coelestia throughout; and on this subject see also the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the sacred scripture (n. 5-26, 27-65). 378. (3) the will corresponds to the heart. this can not be seen so clearly taken by itself as when the will is considered in its effects (as was said above). taken by itself it can be seen by this, that all affections, which are of love, induce changes in the heart's pulsations, as is evident from the pulse of the arteries, which act synchronously with the heart. the heart's changes and pulsations in accordance with the love's affections are innumerable. those felt by the finger are only that the beats are slow or quick, high or low, weak or strong, regular or irregular, and so on; thus that there is a difference in joy and in sorrow, in tranquillity of mind and in wrath, in fearlessness and in fear, in hot diseases and in cold, and so on. because the two motions of the heart, systolic and diastolic, change and vary in this manner according to the affections of each one's love, many of the ancient and after them some modern writers have assigned the affections to the heart, and have made the heart their dwelling-place. from this have come into common language such expressions as a stout heart, a timid heart, a joyful heart, a sad heart, a soft heart, a hard heart, a great heart, a weak heart, a whole heart, a broken heart, a heart of flesh, a heart of stone; likewise being gross, or soft, or tender in heart; giving the heart to a thing, giving a single heart, giving a new heart, laying up in the heart, receiving in the heart, not reaching the heart, hardening one's heart, a friend at heart; also the terms concord, discord, folly [vecordia], and other similar terms expressive of love and its affections. there are like expressions in the word, because the word was written by correspondences. whether you say love or will it is the same, because the will is the receptacle of love, as was explained above. 379. it is known that there is vital heat in man and in every living creature; but its origin is not known. every one speaks of it from conjecture, consequently such as have known nothing of the correspondence of natural things with spiritual have ascribed its origin, some to the sun's heat, some to the activity of the parts, some to life itself; but as they have not known what life is, they have been content with the mere phrase. but any one who knows that there is a correspondence of love and its affections with the heart and its derivations may know that the origin of vital heat is love. for love goes forth as heat from the spiritual sun where the lord is, and moreover is felt as heat by the angels. this spiritual heat which in its essence is love, is what inflows by correspondence into the heart and its blood, and imparts heat to it, and at the same time vivifies it. that a man grows hot, and, as it were, is fired, according to his love and the degree of it, and grows torpid and cold according to its decrease, is known, for it is felt and seen; it is felt by the heat throughout the body, and seen by the flushing of the face; and on the other hand, extinction of love is felt by coldness in the body, and is seen by paleness in the face. because love is the life of man, the heart is the first and the last of his life; and because love is the life of man, and the soul maintains its life in the body by means of the blood, in the word blood is called the soul (gen. 9:4; levit. 17:14). the various meanings of soul will be explained in what follows. 380. the redness, also, of the blood is from the correspondence of the heart and the blood with love and its affection; for in the spiritual world there are all kinds of colors, of which red and white are the fundamental, the rest deriving their varieties from these and from their opposites, which are a dusky fire color and black. red there corresponds to love, and white to wisdom. red corresponds to love because it originates in the fire of the spiritual sun, and white corresponds to wisdom because it originates in the light of that sun. and because there is a correspondence of love with the heart, the blood must needs be red, and reveal its origin. for this reason in the heavens where love to the lord reigns the light is flame-colored, and the angels there are clothed in purple garments; and in the heavens where wisdom reigns the light is white, and the angels there are clothed in white linen garments. 381. the heavens are divided into two kingdoms, one called celestial, the other spiritual; in the celestial kingdom love to the lord reigns, and in the spiritual kingdom wisdom from that love. the kingdom where love reigns is called heaven's cardiac kingdom, the one where wisdom reigns is called its pulmonic kingdom. be it known, that the whole angelic heaven in its aggregate represents a single man, and before the lord appears as a single man; consequently its heart makes one kingdom and its lungs another. for there is a general cardiac and pulmonic movement throughout heaven, and a particular movement therefrom in each angel. the general cardiac and pulmonic movement is from the lord alone, because love and wisdom are from him alone. for these two movements are in the sun where the lord is and which is from the lord, and from that in the angelic heavens and in the universe. banish spaces and think of omnipresence, and you will be convinced that it is so. that the heavens are divided into two kingdoms, celestial and spiritual, see the work on heaven and hell (n. 20-28); and that the whole angelic heaven in the aggregate represents a single man (n. 59-67). 382. (4) the understanding corresponds to the lungs. this follows from what has been said of the correspondence of the will with the heart; for there are two things, will and understanding, which reign in the spiritual man, that is, in the mind, and there are two things, heart and lungs, which reign in the natural man, that is, in the body; and there is correspondence (as was said above) of all things of the mind with all thinks of the body; from which it follows that as the will corresponds to the heart, so the understanding corresponds to the lungs. moreover, that the understanding corresponds to the lungs any one may observe in himself, both from his thought and from his speech. (1) from thought: no one is able to think except with the concurrence and concordance of the pulmonary respiration; consequently, when he thinks tacitly he breathes tacitly, if he thinks deeply he breathes deeply; he draws in the breath and lets it out, contracts and expands the lungs, slowly or quickly, eagerly, gently, or intently, all in conformity to his thought, thus to the influx of affection from love; yea, if he hold the breath entirely he is unable to think, except in his spirit by its respiration, which is not manifestly perceived. (2) from speech: since not the least vocal sound flows forth from the mouth without the concurrent aid of the lungs, for the sound, which is articulated into words, all comes forth from the lungs through the trachea and epiglottis, therefore, according to the inflation of these bellows and the opening of the passage the voice is raised even to a shout, and according to their contraction it is lowered; and if the passage is entirely closed speech ceases and thought with it. 383. since the understanding corresponds to the lungs and thought therefrom to the respiration of the lungs, in the word, "soul" and "spirit" signify the understanding; for example: thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart and with all thy soul (matt. 22:37). god will give a new heart and a new spirit (ezek. 36:26; psalm 51:10). that "heart" signifies the love of the will was shown above; therefore "soul" and "spirit" signify the wisdom of the understanding. that the spirit of god, also called the holy spirit, means divine wisdom, and therefore divine truth which is the light of men, may be seen in the doctrine of the new jerusalem concerning the lord (n. 50, 51), therefore, the lord breathed on his disciples, and said, receive ye the holy spirit (john 20:22); for the same reason it is said that: jehovah god breathed into the nostrils of adam the breath of lives, and he was made into a living soul (gen. 2:7); also he said to the prophet: prophesy upon the breath, and say unto the wind, come from the four winds, o breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live (ezek. 37:9); likewise in other places; therefore the lord is called "the breath of the nostrils," and "the breath of life." because respiration passes through the nostrils, perception is signified by them; and an intelligent man is said to be keen-scented, and an unintelligent man to be dull-scented. for the same reason, spirit and wind in the hebrew, and in some other languages, are the same word; for the word spirit is derived from a word that means breathing; and therefore when a man dies he is said to give up the ghost [anima]. it is for the same reason that men believe the spirit to be wind, or an airy something like breath breathed out from the lungs, and the soul to be of like nature. from all this it can be seen that to "love god with all the heart and all the soul" means to love him with all the love and with all the understanding, and to "give a new heart and a new spirit" means to give a new will and a new understanding. because "spirit" signifies understanding, it is said of bezaleel: that he was filled with the spirit of wisdom, of intelligence, and of knowledge (exod. 31:3); and of joshua: that he was filled with the spirit of wisdom (deut. 34:9); and nebuchadnezzar says of daniel: that an excellent spirit of knowledge, of intelligence, and of wisdom, was in him (dan. 5:11, 12, 14); and it is said in isaiah: they that err in spirit shall learn intelligence (29:24); likewise in many other places. 384. since all things of the mind have relation to the will and understanding, and all things of the body to the heart and lungs, there are in the head two brains, distinct from each other as will and understanding are distinct. the cerebellum is especially the organ of the will, and the cerebrum of the understanding. likewise the heart and lungs in the body are distinct from the remaining parts there. they are separated by the diaphragm, and are enveloped by their own covering, called the pleura, and form that part of the body called the chest. in the other parts of the body, called members, organs, and viscera, there is a joining together of the two, and thus there are pairs; for instance, the arms, hands, loins, feet, eyes, and nostrils; and within the body the kidneys, ureters, and testicles; and the viscera which are not in pairs are divided into right and left. moreover, the brain itself is divided into two hemispheres, the heart into two ventricles, and the lungs into two lobes; the right of all these having relation to the good of truth, and the left to the truth of good, or, what is the same, the right having relation to the good of love from which is the truth of wisdom, and the left having relation to the truth of wisdom which is from the good of love. and because the conjunction of good and truth is reciprocal, and by means of that conjunction the two become as it were one, therefore the pairs in man act together and conjointly in functions, motions, and senses. 385. (5) by means of this correspondence many arcana relating to the will and understanding, thus also to love and wisdom, may be disclosed. in the world it is scarcely known what the will is or what love is, for the reason that man is not able, by himself, to love, and from love to will, although he is able as it were by himself to exercise intelligence and thought; just as he is not able of himself to cause the heart to beat, although he is able of himself to cause the lungs to respire. now because it is scarcely known in the world what the will is or what love is, but it is known what the heart and the lungs are, for these are objects of sight and can be examined, and have been examined and described by anatomists, while the will and the understanding are not objects of sight, and cannot be so examined therefore when it is known that these correspond, and by correspondence act as one, many arcana relating to the will and understanding may be disclosed that could not otherwise be disclosed; those for instance relating to the conjunction of the will with the understanding, and the reciprocal conjunction of the understanding with the will; those relating to the conjunction of love with wisdom, and the reciprocal conjunction of wisdom with love; also those relating to the derivation of love into affections, and to the consociation of affections, to their influx into perceptions and thoughts, and finally their influx according to correspondence into the bodily acts and senses. these and many other arcana may be both disclosed and illustrated by the conjunction of the heart and lungs, and by the influx of the blood from the heart into the lungs, and reciprocally from the lungs into the heart, and therefrom through the arteries into all the members, organs and viscera of the body. 386. (6) man's mind is his spirit, and the spirit is the man, while the body is an external by means of which the mind or spirit feels and acts in its world. that man's mind is his spirit, and that the spirit is the man, can hardly enter the faith of those who have supposed the spirit to be wind, and the soul to be an airy something like breath breathed out from the lungs. for they say, how can the spirit, when it is spirit, be the man, and how can the soul, when it is soul, be the man? they think in the same way of god because he is called a spirit. this idea of the spirit and the soul has come from the fact that spirit and wind in some languages are the same word; also, that when a man dies, he is said to give up the ghost or spirit; also, that life returns, after suffocation or swooning, when the spirit or breath of the lungs comes back. because in these cases nothing but the breath or air is perceived, it is concluded from the eye and bodily sense that the spirit and soul of man after death is not the man. from this corporeal conclusion about the spirit and soul, various hypotheses have arisen, and these have given birth to a belief that man after death does not become a man until the day of the last judgment, and that meanwhile his spirit remains somewhere or other awaiting reunion with the body, according to what has been shown in the continuation concerning the last judgment (n. 32-38). because man's mind is his spirit, the angels, who also are spirits, are called minds. 387. man's mind is his spirit, and the spirit is the man, because by the mind all things of man's will and understanding are meant, which things are in first principles in the brains and in derivatives in the body; therefore in respect to their forms they are all things of man. this being so, the mind (that is, the will and understanding) impels the body and all its belongings at will. does not the body do whatever the mind thinks and wills? does not the mind incite the ear to hear, and direct the eye to see, move the tongue and the lips to speak, impel the hands and fingers to do whatever it pleases, and the feet to walk whither it will? is the body, then, anything but obedience to its mind; and can the body be such unless the mind is in its derivatives in the body? is it consistent with reason to think that the body acts from obedience simply because the mind so wills? in which case they should be two, the one above and the other below, one commanding, the other obeying. as this is in no way consistent with reason, it follows that man's life is in its first principles in the brains, and in its derivatives in the body (according to what has been said above, n. 365); also that such as life is in first principles, such it is in the whole and in every part (n. 366); and by means of these first principles life is in the whole from every part, and in every part from the whole (n. 367). that all things of the mind have relation to the will and understanding, and that the will and understanding are the receptacles of love and wisdom from the lord, and that these two make the life of man, has been shown in the preceding pages. 388. from what has now been said it can also be seen that man's mind is the man himself. for the primary texture of the human form, that is, the human form itself with each and every thing thereof, is from first principles continued from the brain through the nerves, in the manner described above. it is this form into which man comes after death, who is then called a spirit or an angel, and who is in all completeness a man, but a spiritual man. the material form that is added and superinduced in the world, is not a human form by itself, but only by virtue of the spiritual form, to which it is added and superinduced that man may be enabled to perform uses in the natural world, and also to draw to himself out of the purer substances of the world a fixed containant of spiritual things, and thus continue and perpetuate life. it is a truth of angelic wisdom that man's mind, not alone in general, but in every particular, is in a perpetual conatus toward the human form, for the reason that god is a man. 389. that man may be man there must be no part lacking, either in head or in body, that has existence in the complete man; since there is nothing therein that does not enter into the human form and constitute it; for it is the form of love and wisdom, and this, in itself considered, is divine. in it are all terminations of love and wisdom, which in god-man are infinite, but in his image, that is, in man, angel, or spirit, are finite. if any part that has existence in man were lacking, there would be lacking something of termination from the love and wisdom corresponding to it, whereby the lord might be from firsts in outmosts with man, and might from his divine love through his divine wisdom provide uses in the created world. 390. (7) the conjunction of man's spirit with his body is by means of the correspondence of his will and understanding with his heart and lungs, and their separation is from noncorrespondence. as it has heretofore been unknown that man's mind, by which is meant the will and understanding, is his spirit, and that the spirit is a man; and as it has been unknown that man's spirit, as well as his body, has a pulse and respiration, it could not be known that the pulse and respiration of the spirit in man flow into the pulse and respiration of his body and produce them. since, then, man's spirit, as well as his body, enjoys a pulse and respiration, it follows that there is a like correspondence of the pulse and respiration of man's spirit with the pulse and respiration of his body, for, as was said, his mind is his spirit, consequently, when the two pairs of motions cease to correspond, separation takes place, which is death. separation or death ensues when from any kind of disease or accident the body comes into such a state as to be unable to act in unison with its spirit, for thus correspondence perishes, and with it conjunction; not, however, when respiration alone ceases, but when the heart's pulsation ceases. for so long as the heart is moved, love with its vital heat remains and preserves life, as is evident in cases of swoon and suffocation, and in the condition of fetal life in the womb. in a word, man's bodily life depends on the correspondence of its pulse and respiration with the pulse and respiration of his spirit; and when that correspondence ceases, the bodily life ceases, and his spirit departs and continues its life in the spiritual world, which is so similar to his life in the natural world that he does not know that he has died. men generally enter the spiritual world two days after the death of the body. for i have spoken with some after two days. 391. that a spirit, as well as a man on earth in the body enjoys a pulse and a respiration, can only be proved by spirits and angels themselves, when privilege is granted to speak with them. this privilege has been granted to me. when questioned about the matter they declared that they are just as much men as those in the world are, and possess a body as well as they, but a spiritual body, and feel the beat of the heart in the chest, and the beat of the arteries in the wrist, just as men do in the natural world. i have questioned many about the matter, and they all gave like answer. that man's spirit respires within his body has been granted me to learn by personal experience. on one occasion angels were allowed to control my respiration, and to diminish it at pleasure, and at length to withdraw it, until only the respiration of my spirit remained, which i then perceived by sense. a like experience was granted me when permitted to learn the state of the dying (as may be seen in the work on heaven and hell, n. 449). i have sometimes been brought into the respiration of my spirit only, which i have then sensibly perceived to be in accord with the common respiration of heaven. also many times i have been in a state like that of angels, and also raised up into heaven to them, and being then out of the body in spirit, i talked with angels with a respiration in like manner as in the world. from this and other personal evidence it has been made clear to me that man's spirit respires, not only in the body but also after it has left the body; that the respiration of the spirit is so silent as not to be perceptible to man; and that it inflows into the manifest respiration of the body almost as cause flows into effect, or thought into the lungs and through the lungs into speech. from all this it is also evident that conjunction of spirit and body in man is by means of the correspondence of the cardiac and pulmonic movement in both. 392. these two movements, the cardiac and the pulmonic, derive their origin and persistence from this, that the whole angelic heaven, in general and in particular, is in these two movements of life; and the whole angelic heaven is in these movements because the lord pours them in from the sun, where he is, and which is from him; for these two movements are maintained by that sun from the lord. it is evident that such is their origin since all things of heaven and all things of the world depend on the lord through that sun in a connection, by virtue of form, like a chain-work from the first to outmosts, also since the life of love and wisdom is from the lord, and all the forces of the universe are from life. that the variation of these movements is according to the reception of love and wisdom, also follows. 393. more will be said in what follows of the correspondence of these movements, as what the nature of that correspondence is in those who respire with heaven, and what it is in those who respire with hell; also what it is in those who speak with heaven, but think with hell, thus what it is with hypocrites, flatterers, deceivers, and others. 394. from the correspondence of the heart with the will and of the lungs with the understanding, everything may be known that can be known about the will and understanding, or about love and wisdom, therefore about the soul of man. many in the learned world have wearied themselves with inquiries respecting the soul; but as they knew nothing of the spiritual world, or of man's state after death, they could only frame theories, not about the nature of the soul, but about its operation on the body. of the nature of the soul they could have no idea except as something most pure in the ether, and of its containing form they could have no idea except as being ethereal. but knowing that the soul is spiritual, they dared not say much about the matter openly, for fear of ascribing to the soul something natural. with this conception of the soul, and yet knowing that the soul operates on the body, and produces all things in it that relate to its sensation and motion, they have wearied themselves, as was said, with inquiries respecting the operation of the soul on the body. this has been held by some to be effected by influx, and by some to be effected by harmony. but as this investigation has disclosed nothing in which the mind anxious to see the real truth can acquiesce, it has been granted me to speak with angels, and to be enlightened on the subject by their wisdom; the fruits of which are as follows: man's soul, which lives after death, is his spirit, and is in complete form a man; the soul of this form is the will and understanding, and the soul of these is love and wisdom from the lord; these two are what constitute man's life, which is from the lord above; yet for the sake of man's reception of him, he causes life to appear as if it were man's; but that man may not claim life for himself as his, and thus withdraw himself from this reception of the lord, the lord has also taught that everything of love, which is called good, and everything of wisdom, which is called truth, is from him, and nothing of these from man; and as these two are life, that everything of life which is life is from him. 395. since the soul in its very esse is love and wisdom, and these two in man are from the lord, there are created in man two receptacles, which are also the abodes of the lord in man; one for love, the other for wisdom, the one for love called the will, the other for wisdom called the understanding. now since love and wisdom in the lord are one distinctly (as may be seen above, n. 17-22), and divine love is of his divine wisdom, and divine wisdom is of his divine love (n. 34-39), and since these so go forth from god-man, that is, from the lord, therefore these two receptacles and abodes of the lord in man, the will and understanding, are so created by the lord as to be distinctly two, and yet make one in every operation and every sensation; for in these the will and understanding cannot be separated. nevertheless, to enable man to become a receptacle and an abode of the lord, it is provided, as necessary to this end, that man's understanding can be raised above his proper love into some light of wisdom in the love of which the man is not, and that he can thereby see and be taught how he must live if he would come also into that higher love, and thus enjoy eternal happiness. but by the misuse of this power to elevate the understanding above his proper love, man has subverted in himself that which might have been the receptacle and abode of the lord (that is, of love and wisdom from the lord), by making the will an abode for the love of self and the world, and the understanding an abode for whatever confirms those loves. from this it has come that these two abodes, the will and understanding, have become abodes of infernal love, and by confirmations in favor of these loves, abodes of infernal thought, which in hell is esteemed as wisdom. 396. the reason why the love of self and love of the world are infernal loves, and yet man has been able to come into them and thus subvert the will and understanding within him, is as follows: the love of self and the love of the world by creation are heavenly loves; for they are loves of the natural man serviceable to spiritual loves, as a foundation is to a house. for man, from the love of self and the world, seeks the welfare of his body, desires food, clothing, and habitation, is solicitous for the welfare of his family, and to secure employment for the sake of use, and even, in the interest of obedience, to be honored according to the dignity of the affairs which he administers, and to find delight and refreshment in worldly enjoyment; yet all this for the sake of the end, which must be use for through these things man is in a state to serve the lord and to serve the neighbor. when, however, there is no love of serving the lord and serving the neighbor, but only a love of serving himself by means of the world, then from being heavenly that love becomes hellish, for it causes a man to sink his mind and disposition in what is his own, and that in itself is wholly evil. 397. now that man may not by the understanding be in heaven while by the will he is in hell, as is possible, and may thereby have a divided mind, after death everything of the understanding which transcends its own love is removed; whereby it comes that in everyone the will and understanding finally make one. with those in heaven the will loves good and the understanding thinks truth; but with those in hell the will loves evil and the understanding thinks falsity. the same is true of man in this world when he is thinking from his spirit, as he does when alone; yet many, so long as they are in the body, when they are not alone think otherwise. they then think otherwise because they raise their understanding above the proper love of their will, that is, of their spirit. these things have been said, to make known that the will and understanding are two distinct things, although created to act as one, and that they are made to act as one after death, if not before. 398. now since love and wisdom, and therefore will and understanding, are what are called the soul, and how the soul acts upon the body, and effects all its operations, is to be shown in what follows, and since this may be known from the correspondence of the heart with the will, and of the lungs with the understanding, by means of that correspondence what follows has been disclosed: (1) love or the will is man's very life. (2) love or the will strives unceasingly towards the human form and all things of that form. (3) love or the will is unable to effect anything by its human form without a marriage with wisdom or the understanding. (4) love or the will prepares a house or bridal chamber for its future wife, which is wisdom or the understanding. (5) love or the will also prepares all things in its human form, that it may act conjointly with wisdom or the understanding. (6) after the nuptials, the first conjunction is through affection for knowing, from which springs affection for truth. (7) the second conjunction is through affection for understanding, from which springs perception of truth. (8) the third conjunction is through affection for seeing truth, from which springs thought. (9) through these three conjunctions love or the will is in its sensitive life and in its active life. (10) love or the will introduces wisdom or the understanding into all things of its house. (11) love or the will does nothing except in conjunction with wisdom or the understanding. (12) love or the will conjoins itself to wisdom or the understanding, and causes wisdom or the understanding to be reciprocally conjoined to it. (13) wisdom or the understanding, from the potency given to it by love or the will, can be elevated, and can receive such things as are of light out of heaven, and perceive them. (14) love or the will can in like manner be elevated and can perceive such things as are of heat out of heaven, provided it loves its consort in that degree. (15) otherwise love or the will draws down wisdom or the understanding from its elevation, that it may act as one with itself. (16) love or the will is purified by wisdom in the understanding, if they are elevated together. (17) love or the will is defiled in the understanding and by it, if they are not elevated together. (18) love, when purified by wisdom in the understanding, becomes spiritual and celestial. (19) love, when defiled in the understanding and by it, becomes natural and sensual. (20) the capacity to understand called rationality, and the capacity to act called freedom, still remain. (21) spiritual and celestial love is love towards the neighbor and love to the lord; and natural and sensual love is love of the world and love of self. (22) it is the same with charity and faith and their conjunction as with the will and understanding and their conjunction. 399. (1) love or the will is man's very life. this follows from the correspondence of the heart with the will (considered above, n. 378-381). for as the heart acts in the body, so does the will act in the mind; and as all things of the body depend for existence and motion upon the heart, so do all things of the mind depend for existence and life upon the will. it is said, upon the will, but this means upon the love, because the will is the receptacle of love, and love is life itself (see above, n. 1-3), and love, which is life itself, is from the lord alone. by the heart and its extension into the body through the arteries and veins it can be seen that love or the will is the life of man, for the reason that things that correspond to each other act in a like manner, except that one is natural and the other spiritual. how the heart acts in the body is evident from anatomy, which shows that wherever the heart acts by means of the vessels put forth from it, everything is alive or subservient to life; but where the heart by means of its vessels does not act, everything is lifeless. moreover, the heart is the first and last thing to act in the body. that it is the first is evident from the fetus, and that it is the last is evident from the dying, and that it may act without the cooperation of the lungs is evident from cases of suffocation and swooning; from which it can be seen that the life of the mind depends solely upon the will, in the same way as the substitute life of the body depends on the heart alone; and that the will lives when thought ceases, in the same way as the heart lives when breathing ceases. this also is evident from the fetus, from the dying, and from cases of suffocation and swooning. from which it follows that love or the will is man's very life. 400. (2) love or the will strives unceasingly towards the human form and all things of that form. this is evident from the correspondence of heart and will. for it is known that all things of the body are formed in the womb, and that they are formed by means of fibers from the brains and blood vessels from the heart, and that out of these two the tissues of all organs and viscera are made; from which it is evident that all things of man have their existence from the life of the will, which is love, from their first principles, out of the brains, through the fibers; and all things of his body out of the heart through the arteries and veins. from this it is clearly evident that life (which is love and the will therefrom), strives unceasingly towards the human form. and as the human form is made up of all the things there are in man, it follows that love or the will is in a continual conatus and effort to form all these. there is such a conatus and effort towards the human form, because god is a man, and divine love and divine wisdom is his life, and from his life is everything of life. any one can see that unless life which is very man acted into that which in itself is not life, the formation of anything such as exists in man would be impossible, in whom are thousands of thousands of things that make a one, and that unanimously aspire to an image of the life from which they spring, that man may become a receptacle and abode of that life. from all this it can be seen that love, and out of the love the will, and out of the will the heart, strive unceasingly towards the human form. 401. (3) love or the will is unable to effect anything by its human form without a marriage with wisdom or the understanding. this also is evident from the correspondence of the heart with the will. the embryo man lives by the heart, not by the lungs. for in the fetus the blood does not flow from the heart into the lungs, giving it the ability to respire; but it flows through the foramen ovale into the left ventricle of the heart; consequently the fetus is unable to move any part of its body, but lies enswathed, neither has it sensation, for its organs of sense are closed. so is it with love or the will, from which the fetus lives indeed, though obscurely, that is, without sensation or action. but as soon as the lungs are opened, which is the case after birth, he begins to feel and act, and likewise to will and think. from all this it can be seen, that love or the will is unable to effect anything by means of its human form without a marriage with wisdom or the understanding. 402. (4) love or the will prepares a house or bridal chamber for its future wife, which is wisdom or the understanding. in the created universe and in each of its particulars there is a marriage of good and truth; and this is so because good is of love and truth is of wisdom, and these two are in the lord, and out of him all things are created. how this marriage has existence in man can be seen mirrored in the conjunction of the heart with the lungs; since the heart corresponds to love or good, and the lungs to wisdom or truth (see above, n. 378-381, 382-385). from that conjunction it can be seen how love or the will betroths to itself wisdom or the understanding, and afterwards weds it, that is, enters into a kind of marriage with it. love betroths to itself wisdom by preparing for it a house or bridal chamber, and marries it by conjoining it to itself by affections, and afterwards lives wisely with it in that house. how this is cannot be fully described except in spiritual language, because love and wisdom, consequently will and understanding, are spiritual; and spiritual things can, indeed, be expressed in natural language, but can be perceived only obscurely, from a lack of knowledge of what love is, what wisdom is, what affections for good are, and what affections for wisdom, that is, affections for truth, are. yet the nature of the betrothal and of the marriage of love with wisdom, or of will with understanding, can be seen by the parallel that is furnished by their correspondence with the heart and lungs. what is true of these is true of love and wisdom, so entirely that there is no difference whatever except that one is natural and the other spiritual. thus it is evident from the heart and lungs, that the heart first forms the lungs, and afterwards joins itself to them; it forms the lungs in the fetus, and joins itself to them after birth. this the heart does in its abode which is called the breast, where the two are encamped together, separated from the other parts of the body by a partition called the diaphragm and by a covering called the pleura. so it is with love and wisdom or with will and understanding. 403. (5) love or the will prepares all things in its own human form, that it may act conjointly with wisdom or the understanding. we say, will and understanding, but it is to be carefully borne in mind that the will is the entire man; for it is the will that, with the understanding, is in first principles in the brains, and in derivatives in the body, consequently in the whole and in every part (see above, n. 365-367). from this it can be seen that the will is the entire man as regards his very form, both the general form and the particular form of all parts; and that the understanding is its partner, as the lungs are the partner of the heart. beware of cherishing an idea of the will as something separate from the human form, for it is that same form. from this it can be seen not only how the will prepares a bridal chamber for the understanding, but also how it prepares all things in its house (which is the whole body) that it may act conjointly with the understanding. this it prepares in such a way that as each and every thing of the body is conjoined to the will, so is it conjoined to the understanding; in other words, that as each and everything of the body is submissive to the will, so is it submissive to the understanding. how each and every thing of the body is prepared for conjunction with the understanding as well as with the will, can be seen in the body only as in a mirror or image, by the aid of anatomical knowledge, which shows how all things in the body are so connected, that when the lungs respire each and every thing in the entire body is moved by the respiration of the lungs, and at the same time from the beating of the heart. anatomy shows that the heart is joined to the lungs through the auricles, which are continued into the interiors of the lungs; also that all the viscera of the entire body are joined through ligaments to the chamber of the breast; and so joined that when the lungs respire, each and all things, in general and in particular, partake of the respiratory motion. thus when the lungs are inflated, the ribs expand the thorax, the pleura is dilated, and the diaphragm is stretched wide, and with these all the lower parts of the body, which are connected with them by ligaments therefrom, receive some action through the pulmonic action; not to mention further facts, lest those who have no knowledge of anatomy, on account of their ignorance of its terms should be confused in regard to the subject. consult any skillful and discerning anatomist whether all things in the entire body, from the breast down be not so bound together, that when the lungs expand by respiration, each and all of them are moved to action synchronous with the pulmonic action. from all this the nature of the conjunction prepared by the will between the understanding and each and every thing of the human form is now evident. only explore the connections well and scan them with an anatomical eye; then, following the connections, consider their cooperation with the breathing lungs and with the heart; and finally, in thought, substitute for the lungs the understanding, and for the heart the will, and you will see. 404. (6) after the nuptials, the first conjunction is through affection for knowing, from which springs affection for truth. by the nuptials is meant man's state after birth, from a state of ignorance to a state of intelligence, and from this to a state of wisdom. the first state which is one of pure ignorance, is not meant here by nuptials, because there is then no thought from the understanding, and only an obscure affection from the love or will. this state is initiatory to the nuptials. in the second state, which belongs to man in childhood, there is, as we know, an affection for knowing, by means of which the infant child learns to speak and to read, and afterwards gradually learns such things as belong to the understanding. that it is love, belonging to the will, that effects this, cannot be doubted; for unless it were effected by love or the will it would not be done. that every man has, after birth, an affection for knowing, and through that acquires the knowledge by which his understanding is gradually formed, enlarged, and perfected, is acknowledged by every one who thoughtfully takes counsel of experience. it is also evident that from this comes affection for truth; for when man, from affection for knowing, has become intelligent, he is led not so much by affection for knowing as by affection for reasoning and forming conclusions on subjects which he loves, whether economical or civil or moral. when this affection is raised to spiritual things, it becomes affection for spiritual truth. that its first initiatory state was affection for knowing, may be seen from the fact that affection for truth is an exalted affection for knowing; for to be affected by truths is the same as to wish from affection to know them, and when found, to drink them in from the joy of affection. (7) the second conjunction is through affection for understanding, from which springs perception of truth. this is evident to any one who is willing by rational insight to examine the matter. from rational insight it is clear that affection for truth and perception of truth are two powers of the understanding, which in some persons harmonize as one, and in others do not. they harmonize as one in those who wish to perceive truths with the understanding, but do not in those who only wish to know truths. it is also clear that every one is in perception of truth so far as he is in an affection for understanding; for if you take away affection for understanding truth, there will be no perception of truth; but give the affection for understanding truth, and there will be perception of truth according to the degree of affection for it. no man of sound reason ever lacks perception of truth, so long as he has affection for understanding truth. that every man has a capacity to understand truth, which is called rationality, has been shown above. (8) the third conjunction is through affection for seeing truth, from which springs thought. that affection for knowing is one thing, affection for understanding another, and affection for seeing truth another, or that affection for truth is one thing, perception of truth another, and thought another, is seen but obscurely by those who cannot perceive the operations of the mind as distinct, but is seen clearly by those who can. this is obscurely seen by those who do not perceive the operations of the mind as distinct, because with those who are in affection for truth and in perception of truth, these operations are simultaneous in the thought, and when simultaneous they cannot be distinguished. man is in manifest thought when his spirit thinks in the body, which is especially the case when he is in company with others; but when he is in affection for understanding, and through that comes into perception of truth, he is then in the thought of his spirit, which is meditation. this passes, indeed, into the thought of the body, but into silent thought; for it is above bodily thought, and looks upon what belongs to thought from the memory as below itself, drawing therefrom either conclusions or confirmations. but real affection for truth is perceived only as a pressure of will from something pleasurable which is interiorly in meditation as its life, and is little noticed. from all this it can now be seen that these three, affection for truth, perception of truth, and thought, follow in order from love, and that they have existence only in the understanding. for when love enters into the understanding, which it does when their conjunction is accomplished, it first brings forth affection for truth, then affection for understanding that which it knows, and lastly, affection for seeing in the bodily thought that which it understands; for thought is nothing but internal sight. it is true that thought is the first to be manifest, because it is of the natural mind; but thought from perception of truth which is from affection for truth is the last to be manifest; this thought is the thought of wisdom, but the other is thought from the memory through the sight of the natural mind. all operations of love or the will not within the understanding have relation not to affections for truth, but to affections for good. 405. that these three from the will's love follow in order in the understanding can, indeed, be comprehended by the rational man but yet cannot be clearly seen and thus so proved as to command belief. but as love that is of the will acts as one with the heart by correspondence, and wisdom that is of the understanding acts as one with the lungs (as has been shown above) therefore what has been said (in n. 404) about affection for truth, perception of truth, and thought, can nowhere be more clearly seen and proved than in the lungs and the mechanism thereof. these, therefore, shall be briefly described. after birth, the heart discharges the blood from its right ventricle into the lungs; and after passing through these it is emptied into the left ventricle: thus the heart opens the lungs. this it does through the pulmonary arteries and veins. the lungs have bronchial tubes which ramify, and at length end in air-cells, into which the lungs admit the air, and thus respire. around the bronchial tubes and their ramifications there are also arteries and veins called the bronchial, arising from the vena azygos or vena cava, and from the aorta. these arteries and veins are distinct from the pulmonary arteries and veins. from this it is evident that the blood flows into the lungs by two ways, and flows out from them by two ways. this enables the lungs to respire non-synchronously with the heart. that the alternate movements of the heart and the alternate movements of the lungs do not act as one is well known. now, inasmuch as there is a correspondence of the heart and lungs with the will and understanding (as shown above), and inasmuch as conjunction by correspondence is of such a nature that as one acts so does the other, it can be seen by the flow of the blood out of the heart into the lungs how the will flows into the understanding, and produces the results mentioned just above (n. 404) respecting affection for and perception of truth, and respecting thought. by correspondence this and many other things relating to the subject, which cannot be explained in a few words, have been disclosed to me. whereas love or the will corresponds to the heart, and wisdom or the understanding to the lungs, it follows that the blood vessels of the heart in the lungs correspond to affections for truth, and the ramifications of the bronchia of the lungs to perceptions and thoughts from those affections. whoever will trace out all the tissues of the lungs from these origins, and disclose the analogy with the love of the will and the wisdom of the understanding, will be able to see in a kind of image the things mentioned above (n. 404), and thereby attain to a confirmed belief. but since a few only are familiar with the anatomical details respecting the heart and lungs, and since confirming a thing by what is unfamiliar induces obscurity, i omit further demonstration of the analogy. 406. (9) through these three conjunctions love or the will is in its sensitive life and in its active life. love without the understanding, or affection which is of love without thought, which is of the understanding, can neither feel nor act in the body; since love without the understanding is as it were blind, and affection without thought is as it were in thick darkness, for the understanding is the light by which love sees. the wisdom of the understanding, moreover, is from the light that proceeds from the lord as a sun. since, then, the will's love, without the light of the understanding, sees nothing and is blind, it follows that without the light of the understanding even the bodily senses would be blind and blunted, not only sight and hearing, but the other senses also, the other senses, because all perception of truth is a property of love in the understanding (as was shown above), and all the bodily senses derive their perception from their mind's perception. the same is true of every bodily act; for action from love without understanding is like man's action in the dark, when he does not know what he is doing; consequently in such action there would be nothing of intelligence and wisdom. such action cannot be called living action, for action derives its esse from love and its quality from intelligence. moreover, the whole power of good is by means of truth; consequently good acts in truth, and thus by means of truth; and good is of love, and truth is of the understanding. from all this it can be seen that love or the will through these three conjunctions (see above, n. 404) is in its sensitive life and in its active life. 407. that this is so can be proved to the life by the conjunction of the heart with the lungs, because the correspondence between the will and the heart, and between the understanding and the lungs, is such that just as the love acts with the understanding spiritually, so does the heart act with the lungs naturally: from this, what has been said above can be seen as in an image presented to the eye. that man has neither any sensitive life nor any active life, so long as the heart and the lungs do not act together, is evident from the state of the fetus or the infant in the womb, and from its state after birth. so long as man is a fetus, that is, in the womb, the lungs are closed, wherefore he has no feeling nor any action; the organs of sense are closed up, the hands are bound, likewise the feet; but after birth the lungs are opened, and as they are opened man feels and acts; the lungs are opened by means of the blood sent into them from the heart. that man has neither sensitive life nor active life without the co-operation of the heart and the lungs, is evident also in swoons, when the heart alone acts, and not the lungs, for respiration then ceases; in this case there is no sensation and no action, as is well known. it is the same with persons suffocated, either by water or by anything obstructing the larynx and closing the respiratory passage; it is well-known that the man then appears to be dead, he feels nothing and does nothing; and yet he is alive in the heart; for he returns to both his sensitive and his active life as soon as the obstructions to the lungs are removed. the blood, it is true, circulates in the meantime through the lungs, but through the pulmonary arteries and veins, not through the bronchial arteries and veins, and these last are what give man the power of breathing. it is the same with the influx of love into the understanding. 408. (10) love or the will introduces wisdom or the understanding into all things of its house. by the house of love or the will is meant the whole man as to all things of his mind; and as these correspond to all things of the body (as shown above), by the house is meant also the whole man as to all things of his body, called members, organs, and viscera. that the lungs are introduced into all these things just as the understanding is introduced into all things of the mind, can be seen from what has been shown above, namely, that love or the will prepares a house or bridal chamber for its future wife, which is wisdom or the understanding (n. 402); and that love or the will prepares all things in its own human form, that is, in its house, that it may act conjointly with wisdom or the understanding (n. 403). from what is there said, it is evident that each and all things in the whole body are so connected by ligaments issuing from the ribs, vertebrae, sternum, and diaphragm, and from the peritonaeum which depends on these, that when the lungs respire all are likewise drawn and borne along in alternate movements. anatomy shows that the alternate waves of respiration even enter into the very viscera to their inmost recesses; for the ligaments above mentioned cleave to the sheaths of the viscera, and these sheaths, by their extensions, penetrate to their innermost parts, as do the arteries and veins also by their ramifications. from this it is evident that the respiration of the lungs is in entire conjunction with the heart in each and every thing of the body; and in order that the conjunction may be complete in every respect, even the heart itself is in pulmonic motion, for it lies in the bosom of the lungs and is connected with them by the auricles, and reclines upon the diaphragm, whereby its arteries also participate in the pulmonic motion. the stomach, too, is in similar conjunction with the lungs, by the coherence of its oesophagus with the trachea. these anatomical facts are adduced to show what kind of a conjunction there is of love or the will with wisdom or the understanding, and how the two in consort are conjoined with all things of the mind; for the spiritual and the bodily conjunction are similar. 409. (11) love or the will does nothing except in conjunction with wisdom or the understanding. for as love has no sensitive nor any active life apart from the understanding; and as love introduces the understanding into all things of the mind (as was shown above, n. 407, 408), it follows that love or the will does nothing except in conjunction with the understanding. for what is it to act from love without the understanding? such action can only be called irrational; for the understanding teaches what ought to be done and how it ought to be done. apart from the understanding love does not know this; consequently such is the marriage between love and the understanding, that although they are two, they act as one. there is a like marriage between good and truth, for good is of love and truth is of the understanding. in every particular thing of the universe as created by the lord there is such a marriage, their use having relation to good, and the form of their use to truth. from this marriage it is that in each and every thing of the body there is a right and a left, the right having relation to the good from which truth proceeds, and the left to truth from good, thus to their conjunction. from this it is that there are pairs in man; there are two brains, two hemispheres of the brain, two ventricles of the heart, two lobes of the lungs, two eyes, ears, nostrils, arms, hands, loins, feet, kidneys, testicles, etc.; and where there are not pairs, there is a right and a left side, all this for the reason that good looks to truth that it may take form, and truth looks to good that it may have being. it is the same in the angelic heavens and in their several societies. on this subject more may be seen above (n. 401), where it is shown that love or the will is unable to effect anything by its human form without a marriage with wisdom or the understanding. conjunction of evil and falsity, which is opposite to the conjunction of good and truth, will be spoken of elsewhere. 410. (12) love or the will conjoins itself to wisdom or the understanding, and causes wisdom or the understanding to be reciprocally conjoined to it. that love or the will conjoins itself to wisdom or the understanding is plain from their correspondence with the heart and lungs. anatomical observation shows that the heart is in its life's motion when the lungs are not yet in motion; this it shows by cases of swooning and of suffocation, also by the fetus in the womb and the chick in the egg. anatomical observation shows also that the heart, while acting alone, forms the lungs and so adjusts them that it may carry on respiration in them; also that it so forms the other viscera and organs that it may carry on various uses in them, the organs of the face that it may have sensation, the organs of motion that it may act, and the remaining parts of the body that it may exhibit uses corresponding to the affections of love. from all this it can now for the first time be shown that as the heart produces such things for the sake of the various functions which it is afterwards to discharge in the body, so love, in its receptacle called the will, produces like things for the sake of the various affections that constitute its form, which is the human form (as was shown above). now as the first and nearest of love's affections are affection for knowing, affection for understanding, and affection for seeing what it knows and understands, it follows, that for these affections love forms the understanding and actually enters into them when it begins to feel and to act and to think. to this the understanding contributes nothing, as is evident from the analogy of the heart and lungs (of which above). from all this it can be seen, that love or the will conjoins itself to wisdom or the understanding, and not wisdom or the understanding to love or the will; also from this it is evident that knowledge, which love acquires to itself by the affection for knowing, and perception of truth, which it acquires by the affection for understanding, and thought which it acquires by the affection for seeing what it knows and understands, are not of the understanding but of love. thoughts, perceptions, and knowledges therefrom, flow in, it is true, out of the spiritual world, yet they are received not by the understanding but by love, according to its affections in the understanding. it appears as if the understanding received them, and not love or the will, but this is an illusion. it appears also as if the understanding conjoined itself to love or the will, but this too, is an illusion; love or the will conjoins itself to the understanding, and causes the understanding to be reciprocally conjoined to it. this reciprocal conjunction is from love's marriage with wisdom, wherefrom a conjunction seemingly reciprocal, from the life and consequent power of love, is effected. it is the same with the marriage of good and truth; for good is of love and truth is of the understanding. good does everything and it receives truth into its house and conjoins itself with it so far as the truth is accordant. good can also admit truths which are not accordant; but this it does from an affection for knowing, for understanding, and for thinking its own things, whilst it has not as yet determined itself to uses, which are its ends and are called its goods. of reciprocal conjunction, that is, the conjunction of truth with good, there is none whatever. that truth is reciprocally conjoined is from the life belonging to good. from this it is that every man and every spirit and angel is regarded by the lord according to his love or good, and no one according to his intellect, or his truth separate from love or good. for man's life is his love (as was shown above), and his life is qualified according as he has exalted his affections by means of truth, that is, according as he has perfected his affections by wisdom. for the affections of love are exalted and perfected by means of truths, thus by means of wisdom. then love acts conjointly with its wisdom, as though from it; but it acts from itself through wisdom, as through its own form, and this derives nothing whatever from the understanding, but everything from a kind of determination of love called affection. 411. all things that favor it love calls its goods, and all things that as means lead to goods it calls its truths; and because these are means they are loved and come to be of its affection and thus become affections in form; therefore truth is nothing else than a form of the affection that is of love. the human form is nothing else than the form of all the affections of love; beauty is its intelligence, which it procures for itself through truths received either by sight or by hearing, external and internal. these are what love disposes into the form of its affections; and these forms exist in great variety; but all derive a likeness from their general form, which is the human. to the love all such forms are beautiful and lovely, but others are unbeautiful and unlovely. from this, again, it is evident that love conjoins itself to the understanding, and not the reverse, and that the reciprocal conjunction is also from love. this is what is meant by love or the will causing wisdom or the understanding to be reciprocally conjoined to it. 412. what has been said may be seen in a kind of image and thus corroborated by the correspondence of the heart with love and of the lungs with the understanding (of which above). for if the heart corresponds to love, its determinations, which are arteries and veins, correspond to affections, and in the lungs to affections for truth; and as there are also other vessels in the lungs called air vessels, whereby respiration is carried on, these vessels correspond to perceptions. it must be distinctly understood that the arteries and veins in the lungs are not affections, and that respirations are not perceptions and thoughts, but that they are correspondences, that is, they act correspondently or synchronously; likewise that the heart and the lungs are not the love and understanding, but correspondences: and inasmuch as they are correspondences the one can be seen in the other. whoever from anatomy has come to understand the whole structure of the lungs can see clearly, when he compares it with the understanding, that the understanding does not act at all by itself, does not perceive nor think by itself, but acts wholly by affections which are of love. these, in the understanding, are called affection for knowing, for understanding, and for seeing truth (which have been treated of above). for all states of the lungs depend on the blood from the heart and from the vena cava and aorta; and respirations, which take place in the bronchial branches, proceed in accordance with the state of those vessels; for when the flow of the blood stops, respiration stops. much more may be disclosed by comparing the structure of the lungs with the understanding, to which the lungs correspond; but as few are familiar with anatomical science, and to try to demonstrate or prove anything by what is unknown renders it obscure, it is not well to say more on this subject. by what i know of the structure of the lungs i am fully convinced that love through its affections conjoins itself to the understanding, and that the understanding does not conjoin itself to any affection of love, but that it is reciprocally conjoined by love, to the end that love may have sensitive life and active life. but it must not be forgotten that man has a twofold respiration, one of the spirit and another of the body; and that the respiration of the spirit depends on the fibers from the brains, and the respiration of the body on the blood-vessels from the heart, and from the vena cava and aorta. it is evident, moreover, that thought produces respiration; it is evident, also, that affection, which is of love, produces thought, for thought without affection is precisely like respiration without a heart, a thing impossible. from this it is clear that affection, which is of love, conjoins itself to thought, which is of the understanding (as was said above), in like manner as the heart does in the lungs. 413. (13) wisdom or the understanding, from the potency given to it by love, can be elevated and can receive such things as are of light out of heaven, and perceive them. that man has the ability to perceive arcana of wisdom when he hears them, has been shown above in many places. this capacity of man is called rationality. it belongs to every man by creation. it is the capacity to understand things interiorly, and to decide what is just and right, and what is good and true; and by it man is distinguished from beasts. this, then, is what is meant when it is said, that the understanding can be elevated and receive things that are of light out of heaven, and perceive them. that this is so can also be seen in a kind of image in the lungs, for the reason that the lungs correspond to the understanding. in the lungs it can be seen from their cellular substance, which consists of bronchial tubes continued down to the minutest air-cells, which are receptacles of air in respirations; these are what the thoughts make one with by correspondence. this cell-like substance is such that it can be expanded and contracted in a twofold mode, in one mode with the heart, in the other almost separate from the heart. in the former, it is expanded and contracted through the pulmonary arteries and veins, which are from the heart alone; in the latter, through the bronchial arteries and veins, which are from the vena cava and aorta, and these vessels are outside of the heart. this takes place in the lungs for the reason that the understanding is capable of being raised above its proper love, which corresponds to the heart, and to receive light from heaven. still, when the understanding is raised above its proper love, it does not withdraw from it, but derives from it what is called the affection for knowing and understanding, with a view to somewhat of honor, glory, or gain in the world; this clings to every love as a surface, and by it the love shines on the surface; but with the wise, the love shines through. these things respecting the lungs are brought forward to prove that the understanding can be elevated and can receive and perceive things that are of the light of heaven; for the correspondence is plenary. to see from correspondence is to see the lungs from the understanding, and the understanding from the lungs, and thus from both together to perceive proof. 414. (14) love or the will can in like manner be elevated and can receive such things as are of heat out of heaven provided it loves wisdom, its consort, in that degree. that the understanding can be elevated into the light of heaven, and from that light draw forth wisdom, has been shown in the preceding chapter and in many places above; also that love or the will can be elevated as well, provided it loves those things that are of the light of heaven or that are of wisdom, has also been shown in many places. yet love or the will cannot be thus elevated through anything of honor, glory, or gain as an end, but only through a love of use, thus not for the sake of self, but for the sake of the neighbor; and because this love is given only by the lord out of heaven, and is given by the lord when man flees from evils as sins, therefore it is that love or the will can be elevated by these means, and cannot without these means. but love or the will is elevated into heaven's heat, while the understanding is elevated into its light. when both are elevated, a marriage of the two takes place there, which is called celestial marriage, because it is a marriage of celestial love and wisdom; consequently it is said that love also is elevated if it loves wisdom, its consort, in that degree. the love of wisdom, that is, the genuine love of the human understanding is love towards the neighbor from the lord. it is the same with light and heat in the world. light exists without heat and with heat; light is without heat in winter time, and with heat in summer time; and when heat is with light all things flourish. the light with man that corresponds to the light of winter is wisdom without its love; and the light with man that corresponds to the light of summer is wisdom with its love. 415. this conjunction and disjunction of wisdom and love can be seen effigied, as it were, in the conjunction of the lungs with the heart. for the heart can be conjoined to the clustering vesicles of the bronchia by blood sent out from itself, and also by blood sent out not from itself but from the vena cava and the aorta. thereby the respiration of the body can be separated from the respiration of the spirit; but when blood from the heart alone acts the respirations cannot be separated. now since thoughts act as one with respirations by correspondence it is plain, from the twofold state of the lungs in respirations, that man is able to think and from thoughts to speak and act in one way when in company with others, and to think and from thought to speak and act in another way when not in company, that is, when he has no fear of loss of reputation; for he can then think and speak against god, the neighbor, the spiritual things of the church, and against moral and civil laws; and he can also act contrary to them, by stealing, by being revengeful, by blaspheming, by committing adultery. but in company with others, where he is afraid of losing reputation, he can talk, preach and act precisely like a spiritual, moral and civil man. from all this it can be seen that love or the will as well as the understanding can be elevated and can receive such things as are of the heat or love of heaven, provided it loves wisdom in that degree, and if it does not love wisdom, that it can as it were be separated. 416. (15) otherwise love or the will draws down wisdom, or the understanding, from its elevation, that it may act as one with itself. there is natural love and there is spiritual love. a man who is in natural and in spiritual love both at once, is a rational man; but one who is in natural love alone, although able to think rationally, precisely like a spiritual man, is not a rational man; for although he elevates his understanding even to heavenly light, thus to wisdom, yet the things of wisdom, that is, of heavenly light, do not belong to his love. his love, it is true, effects the elevation, but from desire for honor, glory and gain. but when he perceives that he gains nothing of the kind from that elevation (as is the case when he thinks with himself from his own natural love), then he does not love the things of heavenly light or wisdom; consequently he then draws down the understanding from its height, that it may act as one with himself. for example: when the understanding by its elevation is in wisdom, then the love sees what justice is, what sincerity is, what chastity is, even what genuine love is. this the natural love can see by its capacity to understand and contemplate things in heavenly light; it can even talk and preach about these and explain them as at once moral and spiritual virtues. but when the understanding is not elevated, the love, if it is merely natural, does not see these virtues, but instead of justice it sees injustice, instead of sincerity deceit, instead of chastity lewdness, and so on. if it then thinks of the things it spoke of when its understanding was in elevation, it can laugh at them and speak of them merely as serviceable to it in captivating the souls of men. from all this it can be seen how it is to be understood that love, unless it loves wisdom, its consort, in that degree, draws wisdom down from its elevation, that it may act as one with itself. that love is capable of elevation if it loves wisdom in that degree, can be seen above (n. 414). 417. now as love corresponds to the heart, and the understanding to the lungs, the foregoing statements may be corroborated by their correspondence; as, for instance, how the understanding can be elevated above its own love even into wisdom; and how, if that love is merely natural, the understanding is drawn down by it from that elevation. man has a twofold respiration; one of the body, the other of the spirit. these two respirations may be separated and they may be conjoined; with men merely natural, especially with hypocrites, they are separated, but rarely with men who are spiritual and sincere. consequently a merely natural man and hypocrite, whose understanding has been elevated, and in whose memory therefore various things of wisdom remain, can talk wisely in company by thought from the memory; but when not in company, he does not think from the memory, but from his spirit, thus from his love. he also respires in like manner, inasmuch as thought and respiration act correspondently. that the structure of the lungs is such that they can respire both by blood from the heart and by blood from outside of the heart has been shown above. 418. it is the common opinion that wisdom makes the man; therefore when any one is heard to talk and teach wisely he is believed to be wise; yea, he himself believes it at the time, because when he talks or teaches in company he thinks from the memory, and if he is a merely natural man, from the surface of his love, which is a desire for honor, glory, and gain; but when the same man is alone he thinks from the more inward love of his spirit, and then not wisely, but sometimes insanely. from all this it can be seen that no one is to be judged of by wise speaking, but by his life; that is, not by wise speaking separate from life, but by wise speaking conjoined to life. by life is meant love. that love is the life has been shown above. 419. (16) love or the will is purified in the understanding, if they are elevated together. from birth man loves nothing but self and the world, for nothing else appears before his eyes, consequently nothing else occupies his mind. this love is corporeal-natural, and may be called material love. moreover, this love has become impure by reason of the separation of heavenly love from it in parents. this love could not be separated from its impurity unless man had a power to raise his understanding into the light of heaven, and to see how he ought to live in order that his love, as well as his understanding, may be elevated into wisdom. by means of the understanding, love, that is, the man, sees what the evils are that defile and corrupt the love; he also sees that if he flees from those evils as sins and turns away from them, he loves the things that are opposite to those evils; all of which are heavenly. then also he perceives the means by which he is enabled to flee from and turn away from those evils as sins. this the love, that is, the man, sees, by the exercise of his power to elevate his understanding into the light of heaven, which is the source of wisdom. then so far as love gives heaven the first place and the world the second, and at the same time gives the lord the first place and self the second, so far love is purged of its uncleanness and is purified; in other words, is raised into the heat of heaven, and conjoined with the light of heaven in which the understanding is; and the marriage takes place that is called the marriage of good and truth, that is, of love and wisdom. any one can comprehend intellectually and see rationally, that so far as he flees from and turns away from theft and cheating, so far he loves sincerity, rectitude and justice; so far as he flees and turns away from revenge and hatred, so far he loves the neighbor; and so far as he flees and turns away from adulteries, so far he loves chastity; and so on. and yet scarcely any one knows what there is of heaven and the lord in sincerity, rectitude, justice, love towards the neighbor, chastity, and other affections of heavenly love, until he has removed their opposites. when he has removed the opposites, then he is in those affections, and therefrom recognizes and sees them. previously there is a kind of veil interposed, that does, indeed, transmit to love the light of heaven; yet inasmuch as the love does not in that degree love its consort, wisdom, it does not receive it, yea, may even contradict and rebuke it when it returns from its elevation. still man flatters himself that the wisdom of his understanding may be made serviceable as a means to honor, glory, or gain. then man gives self and the world the first place, and the lord and heaven the second, and what has the second place is loved only so far as it is serviceable, and if it is not serviceable it is disowned and rejected; if not before death, then after it. from all this the truth is now evident, that love or the will is purified in the understanding if they are elevated together. 420. the same thing is imaged in the lungs, whose arteries and veins correspond to the affections of love, and whose respirations correspond to the perceptions and thoughts of the understanding, as has been said above. that the heart's blood is purified of undigested matters in the lungs, and nourishes itself with suitable food from the inhaled air, is evident from much observation. (1) that the blood is purified of undigested matter in the lungs, is evident not only from the influent blood, which is venous, and therefore filled with the chyle collected from food and drink, but also from the moisture of the outgoing breath and from its odor as perceived by others, as well as from the diminished quantity of the blood flowing back into the left ventricle of the heart. (2) that the blood nourishes itself with suitable food from the inhaled air is evident from the immense volumes of odors and exhalations continually flowing forth from fields, gardens, and woods; from the immense supply of salts of various kinds in the water that rises from the ground and from rivers and ponds, and from the immense quantity of exhalations and effluvia from human beings and animals with which the air is impregnated. that these things flow into the lungs with the inhaled air is undeniable: it is therefore undeniable also that from them the blood draws such things as are useful to it; and such things are useful as correspond to the affections of its love. for this reason there are, in the vesicles or innermost recesses of the lungs, little veins in great abundance with tiny mouths that absorb these suitable matters; consequently, the blood that flows back into the left ventricle of the heart is changed into arterial blood of brilliant hue. these facts prove that the blood purifies itself of heterogeneous things and nourishes itself with homogeneous things. that the blood in the lungs purifies and nourishes itself correspondently to the affections of the mind is as yet unknown; but in the spiritual world it is very well known, for angels in the heavens find delight only in the odors that correspond to the love of their wisdom, while the spirits in hell find delight only in the odors that correspond to a love opposed to wisdom; these are foul odors, but the former are fragrant. it follows that men in the world impregnate their blood with similar things according to correspondence with the affections of their love; for what the spirit of a man loves, his blood according to correspondence craves and by respiration attracts. from this correspondence it results that man as regards his love is purified if he loves wisdom, and is defiled if he does not love it. moreover, all purification of man is effected by means of the truths of wisdom, and all pollution of man is effected by means of falsities that are opposite to the truths of wisdom. 421. (17) love or the will is defiled in the understanding and by it, if they are not elevated together. this is because love, if not elevated, remains impure (as stated above, n. 419, 420); and while it remains impure it loves what is impure, such as revenges, hatreds, deceits, blasphemes, adulteries, for these are then its affections that are called lusts, and it rejects what belongs to charity, justice, sincerity, truth, and chastity. love is said to be defiled in the understanding, and by it; in the understanding, when love is affected by these impure things; by the understanding, when love makes the things of wisdom to become its servants, and still more when it perverts, falsifies, and adulterates them. of the corresponding state of the heart, or of its blood in the lungs, there is no need to say more than has been said above (n. 420), except that instead of the purification of the blood its defilement takes place; and instead of the nutrition of the blood by fragrant odors its nutrition is effected by stenches, precisely as it is respectively in heaven and in hell. 422. (18) love, when purified by wisdom in the understanding, becomes spiritual and celestial. man is born natural, but in the measure in which his understanding is raised into the light of heaven, and his love conjointly is raised into the heat of heaven, he becomes spiritual and celestial; he then becomes like a garden of eden, which is at once in vernal light and vernal heat. it is not the understanding that becomes spiritual and celestial, but the love; and when the love has so become, it makes its consort, the understanding, spiritual and celestial. love becomes spiritual and celestial by a life according to the truths of wisdom which the understanding teaches and requires. love imbibes these truths by means of its understanding, and not from itself; for love cannot elevate itself unless it knows truths, and these it can learn only by means of an elevated and enlightened understanding; and then so far as it loves truths in the practice of them so far it is elevated; for to understand is one thing and to will is another; or to say is one thing and to do is another. there are those who understand and talk about the truths of wisdom, yet neither will nor practise them. when, therefore, love puts in practice the truths of light which it understands and speaks, it is elevated. this one can see from reason alone; for what kind of a man is he who understands the truths of wisdom and talks about them while he lives contrary to them, that is, while his will and conduct are opposed to them? love purified by wisdom becomes spiritual and celestial, for the reason that man has three degrees of life, called natural, spiritual, and celestial (of which in the third part of this work), and he is capable of elevation from one degree into another. yet he is not elevated by wisdom alone, but by a life according to wisdom, for a man's life is his love. consequently, so far as his life is according to wisdom, so far he loves wisdom; and his life is so far according to wisdom as he purifies himself from uncleannesses, which are sins; and so far as he does this does he love wisdom. 423. that love purified by the wisdom in the understanding becomes spiritual and celestial cannot be seen so clearly by their correspondence with the heart and lungs, because no one can see the quality of the blood by which the lungs are kept in their state of respiration. the blood may abound in impurities, and yet not be distinguishable from pure blood. moreover, the respiration of a merely natural man appears the same as the respiration of a spiritual man. but the difference is clearly discerned in heaven, for there every one respires according to the marriage of love and wisdom; therefore as angels are recognized according to that marriage, so are they recognized according to their respiration. for this reason it is that when one who is not in that marriage enters heaven, he is seized with anguish in the breast, and struggles for breath like a man in the agonies of death; such persons, therefore throw themselves headlong from the place, nor do they find rest until they are among those who are in a respiration similar to their own; for then by correspondence they are in similar affection, and therefore in similar thought. from all this it can be seen that with the spiritual man it is the purer blood, called by some the animal spirit, which is purified; and that it is purified so far as the man is in the marriage of love and wisdom. it is this purer blood which corresponds most nearly to that marriage; and because this blood inflows into the blood of the body, it follows that the latter blood is also purified by means of it. the reverse is true of those in whom love is defiled in the understanding. but, as was said, no one can test this by any experiment on the blood; but he can by observing the affections of love, since these correspond to the blood. 424. (19) love, when defiled in the understanding and by it, becomes natural, sensual, and corporeal. natural love separated from spiritual love is the opposite of spiritual love; because natural love is love of self and of the world, and spiritual love is love to the lord and love to the neighbor; and love of self and the world looks downward and outward, and love to the lord looks upward and inward. consequently when natural love is separated from spiritual love it cannot be elevated above what is man's own, but remains immersed in it, and so far as it loves it, is glued to it. then if the understanding ascends, and sees by the light of heaven such things as are of wisdom, this natural love draws down such wisdom, and joins her to itself in what is its own; and there either rejects the things of wisdom or falsifies them or encircles itself with them, that it may talk about them for reputation's sake. as natural love can ascend by degrees and become spiritual and celestial, in the same way it can descend by degrees and become sensual and corporeal, and it does descend so far as it loves dominion from no love of use, but solely from love of self. it is this love which is called the devil. those who are in this love are able to speak and act in the same manner as those who are in spiritual love; but they do this either from memory or from the understanding elevated by itself into the light of heaven. nevertheless, what they say and do is comparatively like fruit that appears beautiful on the surface but is wholly rotten within; or like almonds which from the shell appear sound but are wholly worm-eaten within. these things in the spiritual world are called fantasies, and by means of them harlots, there called sirens, make themselves appear handsome, and adorn themselves with beautiful garments; but when the fantasy is dissipated the sirens appear like ghosts, and are like devils who make themselves angels of light. for when that corporeal love draws its understanding down from its elevation, as it does when man is alone and thinks from his own love, then he thinks against god in favor of nature, against heaven in favor of the world, and against the truths and goods of the church in favor of the falsities and evils of hell; thus against wisdom. from this the character of those who are called corporeal men can be seen: for they are not corporeal in understanding, but corporeal in love; that is, they are not corporeal in understanding when they converse in company, but are so when they hold converse with themselves in spirit; and being such in spirit, therefore after death they become, both in love and in understanding, spirits that are called corporeal. those who in the world had been in a supreme love of ruling from the love of self, and had also surpassed others in elevation of understanding, then appear in body like egyptian mummies, and in mind gross and silly. who in the world at the present day is aware that this love in itself is of such a nature? yet a love of ruling from love of use is possible, but only from love of use for the sake of the common good, not for the sake of self. it is difficult, however, for man to distinguish the one love from the other, although the difference between them is like that between heaven and hell. the differences between these two loves of ruling may be seen in the work on heaven and hell (n. 551-565). 425. (20) the capacity to understand called rationality and the capacity to act called freedom, still remain. these two capacities belonging to man have been treated of above (n. 264-267). man has these two capacities that he may from being natural become spiritual, that is, may be regenerated. for, as was said above, it is man's love that becomes spiritual, and is regenerated; and it cannot become spiritual or be regenerated unless it knows, by means of its understanding, what evil is and what good is, and therefore what truth is and what falsity is. when it knows this it can choose either one or the other; and if it chooses good it can, by means of its understanding, be instructed about the means by which to attain to good. all the means by which man is enabled to attain good are provided. it is by rationality that man is able to know and understand these means, and by freedom that he is able to will and to do them. there is also a freedom to will to know, to understand, and to think these means. those who hold from church doctrine that things spiritual or theological transcend the understanding, and are therefore to be believed apart from the understanding know nothing of these capacities called rationality and freedom. these cannot do otherwise than deny that there is a capacity called rationality. those, too, who hold from church doctrine that no one is able to do good from himself, and consequently that good is not to be done from any will to be saved, cannot do otherwise than deny, from a principle of religion, the existence of both these capacities which belong to man. therefore, those who have confirmed themselves in these things, after death, in agreement with their faith, are deprived of both these capacities; and in place of heavenly freedom, in which they might have been, are in infernal freedom, and in place of angelic wisdom from rationality, in which they might have been, are in infernal insanity; and what is wonderful, they claim that both these capacities have place in doing what is evil and thinking what is false, not knowing that the exercise of freedom in doing what is evil is slavery, and that the exercise of the reason to think what is false is irrational. but it is to be carefully noted that these capacities, freedom and rationality, are neither of them man's, but are of the lord in man, and that they cannot be appropriated to man as his; nor indeed, can they be given to man as his, but are continually of the lord in man, and yet are never taken away from man; and this because without them man cannot be saved, for without them he cannot be regenerated (as has been said above). for this reason man is instructed by the church that from himself he can neither think what is true nor do what is good. but inasmuch as man perceives no otherwise than that he thinks from himself what is true and does from himself what is good, it is very evident that he ought to believe that he thinks as if from himself what is true, and does as if from himself what is good. for if he does not believe this, either he does not think what is true nor do what is good, and therefore has no religion, or he thinks what is true and does what is good from himself, and thus ascribes to himself that which is divine. that man ought to think what is true and do good as if from himself, may be seen in the doctrine of life for the new jerusalem, from beginning to end. 426. (21) spiritual and celestial love is love toward the neighbor and love to the lord; and natural and sensual love is love of the world and love of self. by love toward the neighbor is meant the love of uses, and by love to the lord is meant the love of doing uses (as has been shown before). these loves are spiritual and celestial, because loving uses and doing them from a love of them, is distinct from the love of what is man's own; for whoever loves uses spiritually looks not to self, but to others outside of self for whose good he is moved. opposed to these loves are the loves of self and of the world, for these look to uses not for the sake of others but for the sake of self; and those who do this invert divine order, and put self in the lord's place, and the world in the place of heaven; as a consequence they look backward, away from the lord and away from heaven, and looking backward away from these is looking to hell. (more about these loves may be seen above, n. 424.) yet man does not feel and perceive the love of performing uses for the sake of uses as he feels and perceives the love of performing uses for the sake of self; consequently when he is performing uses he does not know whether he is doing them for the sake of uses or for the sake of self. but let him know that he is performing uses for the sake of uses in the measure in which he flees from evils; for so far as he flees from evils, he performs uses not for himself, but from the lord. for evil and good are opposites; so far as one is not in evil he is in good. no one can be in evil and in good at the same time, because no one can serve two masters at the same time. all this has been said to show that although man does not sensibly perceive whether the uses which he performs are for the sake of use or for the sake of self, that is, whether the uses are spiritual or merely natural, still he can know it by this, whether or not he considers evils to be sins. if he regards them as sins, and for that reason abstains from doing them, the uses which he does are spiritual. and when one who does this flees from sins from a feeling of aversion, he then begins to have a sensible perception of the love of uses for the sake of uses, and this from spiritual enjoyment in them. 427. (22) it is the same with charity and faith and their conjunction as with the will and understanding and their conjunction. there are two loves, according to which the heavens are distinct, celestial love and spiritual love. celestial love is love to the lord, and spiritual love is love towards the neighbor. these loves are distinguished by this, that celestial love is the love of good, and spiritual love the love of truth; for those who are in celestial love perform uses from love of good, and those in spiritual love from love of truth. the marriage of celestial love is with wisdom, and the marriage of spiritual love with intelligence; for it is of wisdom to do good from good, and it is of intelligence to do good from truth, consequently celestial love does what is good, and spiritual love does what is true. the difference between these two loves can be defined only in this way, that those who are in celestial love have wisdom inscribed on their life, and not on the memory, for which reason they do not talk about divine truths, but do them; while those who are in spiritual love have wisdom inscribed on their memory, therefore they talk about divine truths, and do them from principles in the memory. because those who are in celestial love have wisdom inscribed on their life, they perceive instantly whether whatever they hear is true or not; and when asked whether it is true, they answer only, it is, or it is not. these are they who are meant by the words of the lord: let your speech be yea, yea, nay, nay (matt. 5:37). and because they are such, they are unwilling to hear anything about faith, saying, what is faith? is it not wisdom? and what is charity? is it not doing ? and when told that faith is believing what is not understood, they turn away, saying, the man is crazy. these are they who are in the third heaven, and who are the wisest of all. such have they become who in the world have applied the divine truths which they have heard immediately to the life by turning away from evils as infernal, and worshiping the lord alone. these, since they are in innocence, appear to others as infants; and since they never talk about the truths of wisdom and there is nothing of pride in their discourse, they also appear simple. nevertheless, when they hear any one speaking, they perceive from the tone all things of his love, and from the speech all things of his intelligence. these are they who are in the marriage of love and wisdom from the lord; and who represent the heart region of heaven, mentioned above. 428. those, however, who are in spiritual love, which is love towards the neighbor, do not have wisdom inscribed on their life, but intelligence; for it is of wisdom to do good from affection for good, while it is of intelligence to do good from affection for truth (as has been said above). neither do these know what faith is. when faith is mentioned they understand truth, and when charity is mentioned they understand doing the truth; and when told that they must believe, they call it empty talk, and ask, who does not believe what is true? this they say because they see truth in the light of their own heaven; therefore, to believe what they do not see they call either simplicity or foolishness. these are they who constitute the lung region of heaven, also mentioned above. 429. but those who are in spiritual-natural love have neither wisdom nor intelligence inscribed on their life, but only something of faith out of the word, so far as this has been conjoined with charity. inasmuch as these do not know what charity is, or whether faith be truth, they cannot be among those in the heavens who are in wisdom and intelligence, but among those who are in knowledge only. yet such of them as have fled from evil as sins are in the outmost heaven, and are in a light there like the light of the moon by night; while those who have not confirmed themselves in a faith in what is unknown, but have cherished a kind of affection for truth are instructed by angels, and according to their reception of truths and a life in agreement therewith, are raised into the societies of those who are in spiritual love and therefore in intelligence. those become spiritual, the rest becoming spiritual-natural. but those who have lived in faith separate from charity are removed, and sent away into deserts, because they are not in any good, thus not in any marriage of good and truth, in which all are who are in the heavens. 430. all that has been said of love and wisdom in this part may be said of charity and faith, if by charity spiritual love is understood, and by faith the truth whereby there is intelligence. it is the same whether the terms will and understanding, or love and intelligence be used, since the will is the receptacle of love, and the understanding of intelligence. 431. to this i will add the following notable experience:-in heaven all who perform uses from affection for use, because of the communion in which they live are wiser and happier than others; and with them performing uses is acting sincerely, uprightly, justly, and faithfully in the work proper to the calling of each. this they call charity; and observances pertaining to worship they call signs of charity, and other things they call obligations and favors; saying that when one performs the duties of his calling sincerely, uprightly, justly, and faithfully, the good of the community is maintained and perpetuated, and that this is to "be in the lord," because all that flows in from the lord is use, and it flows in from the parts into the community, and flows out from the community to the parts. the parts there are angels, and the community is a society of them. 432. what man's beginning is from conception. what man's beginning or primitive form is in the womb after conception no one can know, because it cannot be seen; moreover, it is made up of spiritual substance, which is not visible by natural light. now because there are some in the world who are eager to investigate even the primitive form of man, which is seed from the father, from which conception is effected, and because many of these have fallen into the error of thinking that man is in his fullness from his first, which is the rudiment, and is afterwards perfected by growth, it has been disclosed to me what that rudiment or first is in its form. it has been disclosed to me by angels, to whom it was revealed by the lord; and because they had made it a part of their wisdom, and it is the joy of their wisdom to communicate to others what they know, permission having been granted, they presented before my eyes in the light of heaven a type of man's initial form, which was as follows: there appeared as it were a tiny image of a brain with a delicate delineation of something like a face in front, with no appendage. this primitive form in the upper convex part was a structure of contiguous globules or spherules, and each spherule was a joining together of those more minute, and each of these in like manner of those most minute. it was thus of three degrees. in front, in the flat part, a kind of delineation appeared for a face. the convex part was covered round about with a very delicate skin or membrane which was transparent. the convex part, which was a type of the brain in least forms, was also divided into two beds, as it were, just as the brain in its larger form is divided into hemispheres. it was told me that the right bed was the receptacle of love, and the left the receptacle of wisdom; and that by wonderful interweavings these were like consorts and partners. it was further shown in the light of heaven, which fell brightly on it, that the structure of this little brain within, as to position and movement, was in the order and form of heaven, and that its outer structure was in direct opposition to that order and form. after these things were seen and pointed out, the angels said that the two interior degrees, which were in the order and form of heaven, were the receptacles of love and wisdom from the lord; and that the exterior degree, which was in direct opposition to the order and form of heaven, was the receptacle of hellish love and insanity; for the reason that man, by hereditary corruption, is born into evils of every kind, and these evils reside there in the outermosts; and that this corruption is not removed unless the higher degrees are opened, which, as was said, are the receptacles of love and wisdom from the lord. and as love and wisdom are very man, for love and wisdom in their essence are the lord, and this primitive form of man is a receptacle, it follows that in that primitive form there is a continual effort towards the human form, which also it gradually assumes. http://mormontextsproject.org/ for a complete list of mormon texts available on project gutenberg, to help proofread similar books, or to report typos. special thanks to elissa nysetvold and ryan ricks for proofreading. the mormon doctrine of deity the roberts-van der donckt discussion to which is added a discourse jesus christ: the revelation of god by b. h. roberts. also a collection of authoritative mormon utterances on the being and nature of god. "it is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of god; and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another."--joseph smith. "he who possesses a knowledge of god, and a knowledge of man, will not easily commit sin."--talmud. salt lake city, utah. 1903. preface. in nothing have men so far departed from revealed truth as in their conceptions of god. therefore, when it pleased the lord in these last days to open again direct communication with men, by a new dispensation of the gospel, it is not surprising that the very first revelation given was one that revealed himself and his son jesus christ. a revelation which not only made known the _being_ of god, but the _kind_ of a being he is. the prophet joseph smith, in his account of his first great revelation, declares that he saw "two personages," resembling each other in form and features, but whose brightness and glory defied all description. one of these personages addressed the prophet and said, as he pointed to the other-"_this is my beloved son, hear him_." this was the revelation with which the work of god in the last days began. the revelation of god, the father; and of god, the son. they were seen to be two distinct personages. they were like men in form; but infinitely more glorious in appearance, because perfect and divine. the old testament truth was reaffirmed by this revelation--"god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him." also the truth of the new testament was reaffirmed--jesus christ was shown to be the express image of the father's person, hence god, the father, was in form like the man, christ jesus, who is also called "the son of man." again the old testament truth was revealed--"the _gods_ said let _us_ make man in _our_ image, and in _our_ likeness." that is, more than _one_ god was engaged in the work of creation. also the truth of the new testament was again reaffirmed--the father and the son are seen to be two separate and distinct persons or individuals; hence the godhead is plural, a council, consisting of three distinct persons, as shown at the baptism of jesus, and throughout the conversations and discourses of jesus and his inspired apostles. all this, coming so sharply in conflict with the ideas of an apostate christendom which had rejected the plain anthropomorphism of the old and new testament revelations of god; also the scriptural doctrine of a plurality of gods, for a false philosophy-created god, immaterial and passionless--all this, i say, could not fail to provoke controversy; for the revelation given to joseph smith challenged the truth of the conception of god held by the modern world-pagan, jew, mohammedan and christian alike. it was not to be expected, then, that controversy could be avoided, though it has been the policy of the elders of the church to avoid debate as far as possible--debate which so often means contention, a mere bandying of words--and have trusted in the reaffirmation of the old truths of revelation, accompanied by a humble testimony of their divinity, to spread abroad a knowledge of the true god. still, controversy, i repeat could not always be avoided. from the beginning, "mormon" views of deity have been assailed. they have been denounced as "awful blasphemy;" "soul destroying;" "the lowest kind of materialism;" "destructive of all truly religious sentiment;" "the worst form of pantheism;" "the crudest possible conception of god;" "absolutely incompatible with spirituality;" "worse than the basest forms of idolatry." these are a few of the phrases in which "mormon" views of deity have been described. defense against these attacks has been rendered necessary from time to time; and whenever elders of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints have entered into discussions on the subject of deity, they have not failed to make it clear that the scriptures sustained their doctrine, although they may not always have been successful in stopping the denunciations, sarcasm, and ridicule of their opponents. this, however, is matter of small moment, since making clear the truth is the object of discussion, not superior strength in denunciation, bitterness in invective, keenness in sarcasm, or subtilty in ridicule. in the winter and summer of 1901, unusual interest was awakened in "mormon" views of deity, in consequence of a series of lectures on the subject delivered by a prominent sectarian minister of salt lake city, and other discourses delivered before sectarian conventions of one kind or another held during the summer months of the year named. now it so happened that for that same year the general board of the young men's improvement associations of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints had planned a course of theological study involving consideration of this same subject--the being and nature of god; therefore, when the mutual improvement associations of the salt lake stake of zion met in conference on the 18th of august of that year, and the writer was invited to deliver an address at one of the sessions of the conference, the time to him seemed opportune to set forth as clearly as might be the doctrine of the church of christ as to god. accordingly the discourse, which makes chapter one in this book, was delivered. the discourse attracted some considerable attention, being published both in the _deseret news_ and _improvement era_: in the latter publication, in revised form. through a copy of this magazine the discourse fell into the hands of the reverend c. van der donckt, of pocatello, idaho, a priest of the roman catholic church; and he wrote a reply to it, which by the courtesy of the editors of the _improvement era_ was published in that magazine, and now appears as chapter two in this work. it was very generally conceded that rev. van der donckt's reply was an able paper--a view in which i most heartily concur; and it had the additional merit of being free from offensive personalities or any indulgence in ridicule or sarcasms of those principles which the gentleman sought to controvert. some were of opinion that the rev. gentleman's argument could not be successfully answered. this was a view in which i did not concur; for however unequal my skill in debate might be as compared with that of the rev. gentleman of the catholic church, i had, and have now, supreme confidence in the truth of the doctrines i believe and advocate; and i was sure this advantage of having the truth would more than outweigh any want of skill in controversy on my part. in this confidence the rejoinder was written and published in the _improvement era_, and now appears as chapter three in this work. how successfully the rejoinder meets the criticism upon our doctrines by the rev. gentleman who wrote the reply, will, of course, be determined by the individual reader. the discourse with which this controversy begins appears in chapter one as it did in the _era_; unchanged except by the enlargement of a quotation or two from dr. draper's works, and sir robert ball's writings, and the addition of one or two notes, with here and there a mere verbal change which in no way affects the thought or argument of the discourse, as i recognize the fact that any alteration which would change the argument or introduce new matter in the discourse, would be unfair to mr. van der donckt. the rev. gentleman's reply is, of course, exactly as it appeared in the _improvement era_ for august and september, 1902. in the rejoinder i have felt more at liberty, and therefore have made some few changes in the arrangement of paragraphs, and have here and there strengthened the argument, though even in this division of the discussion the changes in the _era_ copy are but slight. in chapter four i publish another discourse--_jesus christ: the revelation of god_, which i trust will emphasize and render even more clear than my first discourse the belief of the church that jesus christ is the complete and perfect revelation of god;--that such as jesus christ is, god is. in chapters five, six, seven and eight is a collection of utterances from our sacred scriptures, and from some of the prophets in the church, on the doctrine of deity, which i may say without reserve will be found extremely valuable to the student of this great subject; and these passages are so arranged as to make clear the fact that our doctrines on the subject of deity are today what they have been from the commencement; and while there may have been an unfolding of the doctrines, an enlargement of our understanding of them, there is nothing in our doctrines on deity today but what was germinally present in that first great revelation received by the prophet joseph smith, in which god made himself known once more to a prophet, who knew him, as moses did, face to face--as a man knows his friend. b. h. roberts. salt lake city, december, 1903. contents. chapter i. the "mormon" doctrine of deity. form of god. the oneness of god. the plurality of gods. the future possibilities of man. chapter ii. reply to elder roberts' "mormon" view of deity, by rev. c. van der donckt, of the catholic church, pocatello, idaho. philosophical proofs of god's simplicity or spirituality. man can never become as god. the unity of god. chapter iii. a rejoinder to rev. c. van der donckt's reply. the form of god. of god being invisible. of the incarnation of the son of god. mr. van der donckt's "philosophical proofs" of the form and nature of god. of mr. van der donckt's premise. of the doctrine of god's "simplicity" being of pagan rather than of christian origin. of jesus christ being both premise and argument against mr. van der donckt's philosophical argument. more of mr. van der donckt's "philosophy." mr. van der donckt's contrast between man and god. "behold, the man has become as one of us." of the unity of god. of the father alone being god. of the oneness of the father, son and holy ghost. is it physical identity? of the lord our god being one god. of our revelations from god being local. of god being one in a generic sense. of god, the spirit of the gods. concluding reflections. chapter iv. jesus christ: the revelation of god beliefs in india and egypt. the religion of china. religion in northern europe. gods of the greeks and romans. epicureans. the stoics. the jews. god revealed to the world in the person of jesus christ. evidence of christ's divinity from the scriptures. jesus christ is called god in the scriptures. jesus declares himself to be god, the son of god. jesus christ to be worshiped, hence god. jesus christ equal with god the father, hence god. the character of god revealed in the life of jesus christ. the humility of god. the obedience of god. the patience of god under temptation. the compassion and impartiality of god. god's treatment of sinners. the severity of god. god completely revealed through christ. chapter v. a collection of passages from "mormon" works, setting forth "mormon" views of deity. the father and the son are represented as distinct persons, and also as being in the form of men, in the first vision of the prophet of the new dispensation. the doctrine of the godhead according to the book of mormon. the doctrines of the godhead and man according to the book of abraham. the godhead according to the doctrine and covenants. the "mormon" doctrine of deity as set forth in the discourses of the prophet joseph smith and early church publications. the king follett sermon, april 7, 1844. the discourse of june 16, 1844. use of the word elohim. omnipresence of god. chapter vi. the prophet joseph smith's views in relation to man and the priesthood. adam and his relation to the inhabitants of the earth. the living god. materiality. chapter vii. discourses on deity and man. i. president brigham young. ii. elder orson pratt. chapter viii. "i know that my redeemer lives." president joseph f. smith on the "mormon" doctrine of deity. gift of the holy ghost. jesus the father of this world. glorious possibilities of man. man to become like christ. personal testimony. the "mormon" doctrine of deity.[a] [footnote a: a lecture originally delivered before the conference of the mutual improvement associations of the salt lake stake of zion, august 18, 1901.] chapter i. i. form of god. my brethren and sisters, there are two things which conjoin to make this conference of the young men's and young women's improvement associations of salt lake stake of zion an interesting occasion. one is the approaching working season of the young men's associations. they will this winter take up a course of study in "mormon" doctrine--the first principles of the gospel, or at least, some of those principles; and a large division of the manual which has been prepared for their use will deal with the subject of the godhead. for this reason i thought the time opportune to call attention to some of the doctrinal features pertaining to this subject. the prophet joseph smith made this important statement: "it is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of god;" then he added something which to some ears is a little offensive--"and to know that we may converse with him, as one man converses with another." on the same occasion, he also said: "god himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.[a]" since, then, to know the character of god is one of the first principles of the gospel, the subject of the godhead is given a prominent place in the manual for our young men's associations during the coming season. this is one thing which makes this conference an interesting occasion. [footnote a: history of joseph smith: _millennial star_, vol. xxiii, p. 246.] another thing which contributes to the interest of this conference, and also to this subject of the godhead, is the attention which of late has been given to what is called the "mormon view of god" by sectarian ministers among us. the interest found expression in a course of lectures during the past few months by one of the prominent ministers of salt lake city,[a] and also in a discourse delivered by another minister before the teachers' association of the utah presbytery,[b] in which certain strictures were offered concerning our doctrine of god. it will perhaps be well to read the report of what in substance was said on that occasion by the reverend gentleman who thought proper to take up this subject before that association. i read from the synopsis of his discourse published in one of the morning papers: [footnote a: this was rev. alfred h. henry, pastor first m. b. church.] [footnote b: this was dr. paden of the presbyterian church, august 16, 1901.] at this point dr. paden made his address, first taking up some of the standard writings on "mormon" doctrine and reading from them the ideas of god as incorporated in the "mormon" faith. he read from the catechism in relation to the godhead, wherein it is stated that there are not only more gods than one, but that god is a being of parts, with a body like that of a man. he then read from the doctrine and covenants, where it is stated that the words of the priesthood are the words of god. after calling attention to the material view of god as set forth in these teachings, the speaker said that he thought he could see a tendency towards a more spiritual idea of god among the younger and more enlightened members of the dominant church, and noticed this in the writings of dr. talmage especially. referring to the adam-god idea, the speaker said that he had not investigated it much, but thought that the "mormon" church was ashamed of such an idea. he placed special stress on the idea that when men attempted to give god a human form they fashioned him after their own weaknesses and frailties. a carnal man, he said, had a carnal god, and a spiritual man a spiritual god. the teaching of a material god, said he, and of a plurality of gods, i think is heathenish. the material conception of god is the crudest possible conception. i take it that we may classify under three heads the complaints here made against us with reference to the doctrine of deity. first, we believe that god is a being with a body in form like man's; that he possesses body, parts and passions; that in a word, god is an exalted, perfected man. second, we believe in a plurality of gods. third, we believe that somewhere and some time in the ages to come, through development, through enlargement, through purification until perfection is attained, man at last, may become like god--a god. i think these three complaints may be said to cover the whole ground of what our reverend critics regard as our error in doctrine on the subject of deity. the task before me, on this occasion, is to take this subject and present to you what in reality the church of jesus christ of latter day saints teaches with reference to the godhead. very naturally, one stands in awe of the subject, so large it is, and so sacred it is. one can only approach it with feelings of reverential awe, and with a deep sense of his own inability to grasp the truth and make it plain to the understandings of men. in the presence of such a task, one feels like invoking the powers divine to aid him in his undertaking; and paraphrasing milton a little, one could well cry aloud, what in me is dark, illumine; what low, raise and support, that to the height of this great argument i may justify to men the faith we hold of god. here let me say that we are dependent upon that which god has been pleased to reveal concerning himself for what we know of him. today, as in olden times, man cannot by searching find out god.[a] while it is true that in a certain sense the heavens declare his glory, and the firmament showeth his handiwork, and proclaim to some extent his eternal power and godhead, yet nothing absolutely definite with respect of god may be learned from those works of nature. i will narrow the field still more, and say that such conceptions of god as we entertain must be in harmony with the doctrines of the new testament on this subject; for accepting as we do, the new testament as the word of god--at least, as part of it--any modern revelation which we may claim to possess must be in harmony with that revelation. consequently, on this occasion, all we have to do is to consider the new testament doctrine with reference to the godhead. this, i believe, will simplify our task. [footnote a: job ii:7.] start we then with the teachings of the lord jesus christ. it is to be observed in passing that jesus himself came with no abstract definition of god. nowhere in his teachings can you find any argument about the existence of god. that he takes for granted; assumes as true; and from that basis proceeds as a teacher of men. nay more; he claims god as his father. it is not necessary to quote texts in proof of this statement; the new testament is replete with declarations of that character. what may be of more importance for us at the present moment is to call attention to the fact that god himself also acknowledged the relationship which jesus claimed. most emphatically did he do so on the memorable occasion of the baptism of jesus in the river jordan. you remember how the scriptures, according to matthew, tell us that as jesus came up out of the water from his baptism, the heavens were opened, and the spirit of god descended like a dove upon him; and at the same moment, out of the stillness came the voice of god, saying, "this is my beloved son, in whom i am well pleased." on another occasion the father acknowledges the relationship--at the transfiguration of jesus in the mount, in the presence of three of his apostles, peter and james and john, and the angels moses and elias. the company was overshadowed by a glorious light, and the voice of god was heard to say of jesus, "this is my beloved son; hear him." of this the apostles in subsequent years testified, and we have on record their testimony. so that the existence of god the father, and the relationship of jesus to him, is most clearly shown in these scriptures. but jesus himself claimed to be the son of god, and in this connection there is clearly claimed for him divinity, that is to say, godship. let me read to you a direct passage upon that subject; it is to be found in the gospel according to st. john, and reads as follows: in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god. * * * and the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the inly begotten of the father) full of grace and truth.[a] [footnote a: john 1.] the identity between jesus of nazareth--"the word made flesh"--and the "word" that was "with god from the beginning," and that "was god," is so clear that it cannot possibly be doubted. so the son is god, as well as the father is god. other evidences go to establish the fact that jesus had the godlike power of creation. in the very passage i have just read, it is said: all things were made by him [that is, by the word, who is jesus]; and without him was not anything made that was made. in him was life; and the life was the light of men.[a] [footnote a: verses 3, 4.] one other scripture of like import, but perhaps even more emphatic than the foregoing, is that saying of paul's in the epistle to the hebrews: god, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.[a] [footnote a: heb. 1:1-3.] not only one world, but many "worlds," for the word is used in the plural so that we find that the son of god was god the father's agent in the work of creation, and that under the father's direction he created many worlds. there can be no question then as to the divinity, the godship, of jesus of nazareth, since he is not only god the son, but god the creator also--of course under the direction of the father. again, the holy ghost is spoken of in the scriptures as god. i think, perchance, the clearest verification of that statement is to be found in connection with the circumstance of ananias and his wife attempting to deceive the apostles with reference to the price for which they had sold a certain parcel of land they owned, which price they proposed putting into the common fund of the church; but selfishness asserted itself, and they concluded to lie as to the price of the land, and only consecrate a part to the common fund it was an attempt to get credit for a full consecration of what they possessed, on what was a partial dedication of their goods. they proposed to live a lie, and to tell one if necessary to cover the lie they proposed to live. when ananias stood in the presence of the apostles, peter put this very pointed question to him: "why hath satan filled thine heart to lie to the holy ghost?" * * * "thou hast not lied unto men, but unto god."[a] to lie to the holy ghost is to lie to god, because the holy ghost is god. and frequently in the scriptures the holy spirit is spoken of in this way. [footnote a: acts 5.] these three, the father, son, and the holy ghost, it is true, are spoken of in the most definite manner as being god; but the distinction of one from the other is also clearly marked in the scriptures. take that circumstance to which i have already alluded--the baptism of jesus. there we may see the three distinct personalities most clearly. the son coming up out of the water from his baptism; the heavens opening and the holy spirit descending upon him; while out of heaven the voice of god is heard saying, "this is my beloved son, in whom i am well pleased." here three gods are distinctly apparent. they are seen to be distinct from each other. they appear simultaneously, not as one, but as three, each one doing a different thing, so that however completely they may be one in spirit, in purpose, in will, they are clearly distinct as persons--as individuals. in several instances in the scriptures these three personages are accorded equal dignity in the godhead. an example is found in the commission which jesus gave to his disciples after his resurrection, when he sent them out into the world to preach the gospel to all nations. he stood in the presence of the eleven, and said: all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. go ye, therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost.[a] [footnote a: matt. 28:18-20.] each of the three is here given equal dignity in the godhead. again, in the apostolic benediction: may the grace of our lord jesus christ, the love of god, and the communion of the holy ghost be with you all. in one particular, at least, jesus came very nearly exalting the holy ghost to a seeming superiority over the other personages in the godhead; for he said: all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the holy ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. and whosoever speaketh a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the holy ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.[a] [footnote a: matt. 12:31,32.] i take it, however, that this seeming superior dignity accorded to the holy ghost by the son of god, is owing to the nature of the third personage in the trinity, and the kind of testimony he can impart unto the soul of man because of his being a personage of spirit--a testimony that is better than the seeing of the eye, more sure than the hearing of the ear, because it is spirit testifying to spirit--soul communing with soul--it is the soul of god imparting to the soul of man; and if men, after receiving that witness from god shall blaspheme against him, farewell hope of forgiveness for such a sin, in this world or in the world to come! these three personages then are of equal dignity in the godhead, according to the teachings of the new testament, which teachings, i pray you keep in mind, we most heartily accept. this simple christian teaching respecting the godhead, gave birth to what in ecclesiastical history is called "the apostles' creed." a vague tradition hath it that before the apostles dispersed to go into the world to preach the gospel they formulated a creed with respect of the church's belief in god. whether that tradition be true or not, i do not know, and for matter of that, it makes little difference. suffice it to say that the so-called "apostles' creed," for two centuries expressed the faith of the early christians upon the question of god. it stands as follows: i believe in god, the father, almighty; and in jesus christ, his only begotten son, our lord, who was born of the virgin mary by the holy ghost, was crucified under pontius pilate, buried, arose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the father, whence he will come, to judge the living and the dead; and in the holy ghost. this was the first formulated christian creed upon the subject of the godhead, so far as known; and the ancient saints were content to allow this expression of their belief to excite their reverence without arousing their curiosity as to the nature of god. happy, perhaps, for this world, certainly it would have contributed to the honor of ecclesiastical history, had this simple formula of the new testament doctrine respecting god been allowed to stand sufficient until it should please god to raise the curtain yet a little more and give definite revelation with respect of himself and especially of his own nature. but this did not satisfy the so-called christians at the close of the third and the beginning of the fourth century. by a succession of most bitter and cruel persecutions, the great, strong characters among the christians by that time had been stricken down; and, as some of our historians record it, only weak and timorous men were left in the church to grapple with the rising power of "science, falsely so-called."[a] for a long time the paganization of the christian religion had been going on. the men who esteemed themselves to be philosophers must needs corrupt the simple truth of the "apostles' creed" respecting the three persons of the godhead, by the false philosophies of the orient, and the idle speculations of the greeks; until this simple expression of christian faith in god was changed from what we find it in the "apostle's creed" to the "athanasian creed," and those vain philosophizings and definitions which have grown out of it, and which reduce the dignity of the godhead to a mere vacuum--to a "being" impersonal, incorporeal, without body, without parts, without passions; and i might add also, without sense or reason or any attribute--an absolute nonentity, which they placed in the seat of god, and attempted to confer upon this conception divine powers, clothe it with divine attributes, and give it title, knee and adoration--in a word, divine honors! [footnote a: see mosheim's eccl. hist. cent. iv. bk. ii, ch. i, (note.)] let us now consider the form of god. in those scriptures which take us back to the days of creation, when god created the earth and all things therein--god is represented as saying to someone: let us make man in our image, after our likeness. * * * so god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him, male and female created he them. now, if that were untouched by "philosophy," i think it would not be difficult to understand. man was created in the image and likeness of god. what idea does this language convey to the mind of man, except that man, when his creation was completed, stood forth the counterpart of god in form? but our philosophers have not been willing to let it stand so. they will not have god limited to any form. they will not have him prescribed by the extensions of his person to some line or other of limitation. no; he must needs be in his person, as well as in mind or spirit, all-pervading, filling the universe, with a center nowhere, with a circumference everywhere. we must expand the person of god out until it fills the universe. and so they tell us that this plain, simple, straightforward language of moses, which says that man was created in the image of god--and which everybody can understand--means, not the image of god's personality, but god's "moral image!" man was created in the "moral image" of god, they say. it is rather refreshing in the midst of so much nonsense that is uttered upon this subject, in order to hide the truth and perpetuate the false notions of a paganized christianity, to find now and then a christian scholar who rises out of the vagaries of modern christianity and proclaims the straightforward truth. let me read to you the words of such an one--the rev dr. charles a. briggs; and this note will be found in the manual that your improvement associations will use the coming winter. it may be said, of course, by our presbyterian friends, that dr. briggs is a heretic; that he has been cast out of their church. grant it; but with open arms, he has been received by the episcopal church, and ordained into its priesthood; and has an influence that is considerable in the christian world, notwithstanding the door of the presbyterian church was shut in his face. but however heretical dr. briggs' opinions may be considered by his former presbyterian brethren, his scholarship at least cannot be challenged. speaking of man being formed in the image and likeness of god, he says: some theologians refer the form to the higher nature of man [that is, to that "moral image" in likeness of which it is supposed man was created]; but there is nothing in the text or context to suggest such an interpretation. the context urges us to think of the entire man as distinguished from the lower forms of creation,--that which is essential to man, and may be communicated by descent to his seed.--the bodily form cannot be excluded from the representation.[a] [footnote a: messianic prophecy, p. 70.] i say it is rather refreshing to hear one speak like that whose scholarship, at least, is above all question. and yet still another voice; and this time from one who stands high in scientific circles, one who has written a work on the "harmony of the bible and science," which is a most valuable contribution to that branch of literature. the gentleman i speak of is a fellow of the royal astronomical society, and principal of the college at highbury new park, england. on this subject of man being created in the image of god, he says: i think the statement that man was made in the divine image is intended to be more literal than we generally suppose; for judging from what we read throughout the scriptures, it seems very clear that our lord, as well as the angels, had a bodily form similar to that of man, only far more spiritual and far more glorious; but which, however, is invisible to man unless special capabilities of sight are given him, like that experienced by elisha's servant when, in answer to the prophet's prayer, he saw the heavenly hosts surrounding the city of dothan. after discussing this question at some length, and bringing to bear upon it numerous biblical illustrations, this celebrated man--dr. samuel kinns--whose scientific and scholarly standing i have already referred to, speaks of the effect of this belief upon man, and thus concludes his statement on that head: i am sure if a man would only consider a little more the divinity of his human form, and would remember that god has indeed created him in his own image, the thought would so elevate and refine him that he would feel it his duty to glorify god in his body as well as in his spirit. but, as a matter of fact, i care not a fig for the statements of either learned divines or scientists on this subject; for the reason that we have higher and better authority to which we can appeal--the scriptures. and here i pass by that marvelous appearance of god unto abraham in the plains of mamre, when three "men" came into his tent, one of whom was the lord, who conversed with him, and partook of his hospitality, and disclosed to him his intention with reference to the destruction of sodom and gomorrah.[a] [footnote a: gen. 18.] i pass by also that marvelous revelation of god to joshua, when joshua drew near to jericho and saw a person in the form of a man standing with sword in hand. joshua approached him and said: "art thou for us, or for our adversaries?" "nay," replied the person, "but as captain of the host of the lord am i now come." and joshua bowed himself to the very earth in reverence, and worshiped that august warrior. do not tell me that it was an "angel;" for had it been an angel, the divine homage paid by israel's grand old warrior would have been forbidden. do you not remember the time when john, the beloved disciple, stood in the presence of an angel and awed by the glory of his presence he bowed down to worship him, and how the angel quickly caught him up and said: "see thou do it not; for i am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship god!"[b] the fact that this personage before whom joshua bowed to the earth received without protest divine worship from him, proclaims trumpet-tongued that he indeed was god. furthermore, he bade joshua to remove the shoes from his feet, for even the ground on which he stood was holy. [footnote a: joshua 5:13,14.] [footnote b: rev. 22:8,9. also rev. 19:10.] i also pass by that marvelous vision given of the son of god to the pagan king of babylon. this king had cast the three hebrew children into the fiery furnace, and lo! before his startled vision were "_four men_" walking about in the furnace, "and," said he, "the form of the fourth is like the son of god."[a] i pass by, i say, such incidents as these, and come to more important testimony. [footnote a: dan. 3:25.] the great apostle to the gentiles writing to the colossian saints, speaks of the lord jesus christ, "in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins," as being in the "image of the invisible god."[a] again, writing to the hebrew saints, and speaking of jesus, he says: [footnote a: col. 1:15.] who being the brightness of his [the father's] glory, and the express image of his [the father's] person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right band of the majesty on high. [footnote a: heb. 1:1,2.] in the face of these scriptures, will anyone who believes in the bible say that it is blasphemy to speak of god as being possessed of a bodily form? we find that the son of god himself stood among his fellows a man, with all the limitations as to his body which pertain to man's body; with head, trunk, and limbs; with eyes, mouth and ears; with affections, with passions; for he exhibited anger as well as love in the course of his ministry; he was a man susceptible to all that man could suffer, called by way of pre-eminence the "man of sorrows," and one "acquainted with grief;" for in addition to his own, he bore yours and mine, and suffered that we might not suffer if we would obey his gospel. and yet we are told that it is blasphemy to speak of god as being in human form--that it is "heathenism." in passing, let me call your attention to the fact that our sectarian friends are pretending to the use of gentle phrases now. they do not propose to hurt our feelings at all by harshness. we are to be wooed by gentle methods. and yet they denounce a sacred article of our faith as "heathenism." i think if we were to use such language with reference to them, or their creeds, they could not commend it for its gentleness. but i have a text to propose to them: _"what think ye of christ?"_ i suppose that thousands of sermons every year are preached from that text by christian ministers. and now i arraign them before their favorite text, and i ask them, what think ye of christ? is he god? yes. is he man? yes--there is no escaping it. his resurrection and the immortality of his body as well as of his spirit that succeeds his resurrection is a reality. he himself attested it in various ways. he appeared to a number of the apostles, who, when they saw him, were seized with fright, supposing they had seen a spirit; but he said unto them, "why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? behold my hands and my feet, that it is i myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."[a] then, in further attestation of the reality of his existence, as if to put away all doubt, he said, "have ye here any meat?" and they brought him some broiled fish and honeycomb, and "he did eat before them." think of it! a resurrected, immortal person actually eating of material food! i wonder that our spiritually-minded friends do not arraign him for such a material act as that after his resurrection! a scotch presbyterian is particularly zealous for a strict observance of the sabbath. one who was a little liberal in his views of the law pertaining to the sabbath was once arguing with an orthodox brother on the subject, and urged that even jesus so far bent the law pertaining to the sabbath that he justified his disciples in walking through the fields of corn on the sabbath, and rubbing the ears of corn in their hands, blowing away the chaff, and eating the corn. "o weel," says donald, "mebbe the lord did that; but it doesna heighten him in my opeenion." and so this resurrected, second personage of the godhead ate material food after his resurrection; but i take it that the fact does not "heighten" him in the opinion of our ultra spiritually-minded folk. it comes in conflict, undoubtedly, with their notions of what life ought to be after the resurrection. [footnote a: luke 24:36-39.] [footnote b: luke 24:41-43.] but not only did he do this, but with his resurrected hands he prepared a meal on the sea shore for his own disciples, and invited them to partake of the food which he with his resurrected hands had provided.[a] moreover, for forty days he continued ministering to his disciples after his resurrection, eating and drinking with them;[b] and then, as they gathered together on one occasion, lo! he ascended from their midst, and a cloud received him out of their sight. presently two personages in white apparel stood beside them and said: "ye men of galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."[c] what! with his body of flesh and bones, with the marks in his hands and in his feet? shall he come again in that form? the old jewish prophet, zechariah, foresaw that he would. he describes the time of his glorious coming, when his blessed, nail-pierced feet shall touch the mount of olives again, and it shall cleave in twain, and open a great valley for the escape of the distressed house of judah, sore oppressed in the siege of their great city jerusalem. we are told that "they shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son," and one shall look upon him in that day and shall say, "what are these wounds in thy hands and in thy feet?" and he shall answer, "these are the wounds that i received in the house of my friends."[d] [footnote a: john 21:9-13 and acts 10:41.] [footnote b: acts 10:31, and acts 1:2,3.] [footnote c: acts 1:11.] [footnote d: zech. the 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters.] what think ye of christ? is he god? yes. is he man? yes, will that resurrected, immortal, glorified man ever be distilled into some bodiless, formless essence, to be diffused as the perfume of a rose is diffused throughout the circumambient air? will he become an impersonal, incorporeal, immaterial god, without body, without parts, without passions? will it be? can it be? what think ye of christ? is he god? yes. is he an exalted man? yes; in the name of all the gods, he is. then why do sectarian ministers arraign the faith of the members of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints because they believe and affirm that god is an exalted man, and that he has a body, tangible, immortal, indestructible, and will so remain embodied throughout the countless ages of eternity? and since the son is in the form and likeness of the father, being, as paul tells, "in the express image of his [the father's] person"--so, too, the father god is a man of immortal tabernacle, glorified and exalted: for as the son is, so also is the father, a personage of tabernacle, of flesh and of bone as tangible as man's, as tangible as christ's most glorious, resurrected body. ii. the oneness of god. there are some expressions of scripture to consider which speak of the "oneness" of god. speaking of the question which agitated the early christian church about eating meats which had been offered to idols, paul says: "we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other god but one."[a] moreover, jesus himself made this strange remark--that is, strange until one understands it: "i and my father are one;" and so much one are they that he said: "he that hath seen me hath seen the father. * * * believest thou not that i am in the father, and the father in me? the words that i speak unto you i speak not of myself; but the father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. believe me that i am in the father, and the father in me."[b] consequently our philosophers, especially those who lived when the present christian creeds concerning god were forming, thought that by some legerdemain or other they must make the three gods--the father, the son, and the holy ghost--just one person--one being; and therefore they set their wits at work to perform the operation. [footnote a: i cor. 8:4.] [footnote b: john 14.] let us seek out some reasonable explanation of the language used. i refer again to the passage i just quoted from the writings of paul with reference to there being "none other god but one." immediately following what i read on that point comes this language: for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many). but to us there is but one god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord, jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.[a] [footnote a: i cor. 8:4-6.] now i begin to understand. "to us," that is, _pertaining_ to us, "there is but one god." just as to the english subject there is but one sovereign, so "to us" there is but one god. but that no more denies the existence of other gods than the fact that to the englishman there is but one sovereign denies the existence of other rulers over other lands. while declaring that "to us there is but one god," the passage also plainly says that there "be gods many and lords many," and it is a mere assumption of the sectarian ministers that reference is made only to heathen gods. again, we shall find help in the following passage in the 14th chapter of john: at that day ye shall know that i am in the father, and ye in me, and i in you. observe this last scripture, i pray you. "i in you," and "ye in me," as well as jesus being in the father. this oneness existing between god the father and god the son can amount to nothing more than this: that jesus was conscious of the indwelling presence of the spirit of the father within him, hence he spoke of himself and his father as being one, and the father within him doing the works. but mark you, not only are the disciples to know that the father is in him, that is, in christ, and that jesus is in the father, but the disciples also are to be in jesus. in what way? jesus himself has furnished the explanation. when the solemn hour of his trial drew near, and the bitter cup was to be drained to the very dregs, jesus sought god in secret prayer, and in the course of that prayer he asked for strength of the father, not only for himself, but for his disciples also. he said: and now i am no more in the world, but these [referring to his disciples] are in the world, and i come to thee. holy father, keep through thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, _as we are_.[a] [footnote a: john 17.] now i begin to see this mystery of "oneness." what does he mean when he prays that the disciples that god had given him should be one, as he and the father are one? think of it a moment, and while you are doing so i will read you this: neither pray i for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one: as thou, _father, art in me, and i in thee, that they also may be one in us._[a] [footnote a: john 17.] does that mean that the persons of all these disciples, whose resurrection and individual immortality he must have foreknown, shall all be merged into one person, and then that one fused into him, or he into that one, and then the father consolidated into the oneness of the mass? no; a thousand times, no, to such a proposition as that. but as jesus found the indwelling spirit of god within himself, so he would have that same spirit indwelling in his disciples, as well as in those who should believe on him through their testimony, in all time to come; and in this way become of one mind, actuated by one will. it must have been thoughts such as these that prompted paul to say to the ephesians: for this cause i bow my knees unto the father of our lord jesus christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man: that christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in him, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of god.[a] [footnote a: eph. 8:14-19.] so then, this oneness is not a oneness of persons, not a oneness of individuals, but a oneness of mind, of knowledge, of wisdom, of purpose, of will, that all might be uplifted and partake of the divine nature, until god shall be all in all. this is the explanation of the mystery of the oneness both of the godhead and of the disciples for which jesus prayed. iii. the plurality op gods. there are several other items in this branch of the subject that would be of interest to discuss; but i must pay a little attention to the indictment brought against us by sectarian ministers on the question of a plurality of gods. we have already shown that the father, the son, and the holy ghost are three separate and distinct persons, and, so far as personality is concerned, are three gods. their "oneness" consists in being possessed of the same mind; they are one, too, in wisdom, in knowledge, in will and purpose; but as individuals they are three, each separate and distinct from the other, and three is plural. now, that is a long way on the road towards proving the plurality of gods. but, in addition to this, i would like to know from our friends--the critical sectarian ministers who complain of this part of our faith--the meaning of the following expressions, carefully selected from the scriptures: "the lord your god is god of gods, and lord of lords." that is from moses.[a] [footnote a: deut. 10:17.] "the lord god of gods, the lord god of gods, he knoweth, and israel he shall know." that is from joshua.[a] [footnote a: josh. 22:22.] "o give thanks unto the god of gods! * * o give thanks to the lord of lords!" that is david.[a] [footnote a: psalm 137:2,3.] "and shall speak marvelous things against the god of gods." that is daniel.[a] [footnote a: daniel 11:36.] "the lamb shall overcome them: for he is lord of lords, and king of kings." that is the beloved disciple of jesus--john the revelator.[a] [footnote a: rev. 17:14.] had i taken such expressions from the lips of the pagan kings or false prophets who are sometimes represented as speaking in the scriptures, you might question the propriety of making such quotations in support of the doctrine i teach; but since these expressions come from prophets and recognized servants of god, i ask those who criticize our faith in the matter of a plurality of gods to explain away those expressions of the scriptures. furthermore, there is paul's language, in his letter to the corinthians, already quoted, where he says, "that there be gods many and lords many, whether in heaven or in earth." had his expression been confined to those that are called gods in earth it is possible that there might be some good ground for claiming that he had reference to the heathen gods, and not true gods; but he speaks of those that "are gods in heaven" as well as gods in earth. right in line with this idea is the following passage from the psalms of the prophet david: "god standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."[a] these, undoubtedly, are the gods in heaven to whom paul alludes, among whom the god referred to stands; among whom he judges. this is no reference to the heathen gods, but to the gods in heaven, the true gods. [footnote a: psalm 82:1.] in this same psalm, too, is the passage which seems to introduce some telling evidence from the lord jesus christ himself, _viz_: "i have said ye are gods, and all of you are the children of the most high." you remember how on one occasion the jews took up stones to stone jesus, and he called a halt for just a moment, for he wanted to reason with them about it. he said: many good works have i shown you from the father; for which of these works do ye stone me? their answer was: for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself god. what an opportunity here for jesus to teach them that there was but one god! how easily too, had he been so disposed, he could have explained about his "human nature" and his "divine nature," and shown to them the distinction; for these words have become part of the phraseology of christian polemics. but he did not do that. on the contrary, he affirmed the doctrine of a plurality of gods. he said to them: _is it not written in your law, i said, ye are gods?_ if he called them gods, unto whom the word of god came, _and the scripture cannot be broken;_ say ye of him, whom the father hath sanctified and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because i said, i am the son of god? if i do not the works of my father, believe me not. but if i do, though ye believe not me, believe the works. higher authority on this question cannot be quoted than the son of god himself. while there is much more that could and doubtless ought to be said on that branch of the subject, i must leave it here, because i have still another matter to present to you, on another branch of the subject; and that is, our belief that there is a possibility, through development, through growth, through doing what jesus admonished his disciples to do--"be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect"--that the sons of god, somewhere and some time, may rise to a dignity that the father and our elder brother have already attained unto. iv. the future possibilities for man. is there any doubt about men being the sons of god? if i thought there was any in your minds, i would like to read to you the words of an authority upon this question. paul, in speaking of the unknown god to whom the athenians had erected an altar, said to them: god that made the world and all things therein * * * hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring. forasmuch then as we are the offspring of god, we ought not to think that the godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.[a] [footnote a: acts 17:24-29.] why ought they not to think that the godhead is like unto gold or silver, graven by art and man's device? because the very divinity within them, their own kinship with god, ought to have taught them better than to bow down to images of wood and stone, the creation of man's hands. "ye are the offspring of god," said the apostle. and david, as quoted a moment ago, said: "i have said: ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most high." upon which passage, it must be remembered, jesus fixed the seal of his approval, as shown a moment ago, where he quotes it in controversy with the jews. is it a strange and blasphemous doctrine, then, to hold that men at the last shall rise to the dignity that the father has attained? is it "heathenish" to believe that the offspring shall ultimately be what the parent is? my soul, i wonder why men at all conscious of the marvelous powers within themselves should question this part of our faith. think for a moment what progress a man makes within the narrow limits of this life. regard him as he lies in the lap of his mother, a mere piece of organized, red pulp--a new-born babe! there are eyes, indeed, that may see, but cannot distinguish objects; ears that may hear, but cannot distinguish sounds; hands as perfectly fashioned as yours or mine, but helpless, withal; feet and limbs, but they are unable to bear the weight of his body, much less walk. there lies a man in embryo, but helpless. and yet, within the span of three score years and ten, by the marvelous working of that wondrous power within that little mass of pulp, what a change may be wrought! from that helpless babe may arise one like demosthenes or cicero, or pitt, or burke, or fox, or webster, who shall compel listening senates to hear him, and by his master mind dominate their intelligence and their will, and compel them to think in channels that he shall mark out for them. or from such a babe may come a nebuchadnezzar, or an alexander, or a napoleon, who shall found empires or give direction to the course of history. from such a beginning may come a lycurgus, a solon, a moses, or a justinian, who shall give constitutions and laws to kingdoms, empires and republics, blessing happy millions unborn in their day, and direct the course of nations along paths of orderly peace and virtuous liberty. from the helpless babe may come a michael angelo, who from some crude mass of stone from the mountain side shall work out a heaven-born vision that shall hold the attention of men for generations, and make them wonder at the god-like powers of man that has created an all but living and breathing statue. or a mozart, a beethoven, or a handel, may come from the babe, and call out from the silence those melodies and the richer harmonies that lift the soul out of its present narrow prison house and give it fellowship for a season with the gods. out from that pulp-babe may arise a master mind who shall seize the helm of the ship of state, and give to a nation course and direction through troublesome times, and anchor it at last in a haven of peace, prosperity and liberty; crown it with honor, too, and give it a proud standing among the nations of the earth; while he, the savior of his country, is followed by the benedictions of his countrymen. and all this may be done by a man in this life! nay, it has been done, between the cradle and the grave--within the span of one short life. then what may not be done in eternity by one of these god-men? remove from his path the incident of death; or, better yet, contemplate him as raised from the dead; and give to him in the full splendor of manhood's estate, immortality, endless existence, what may we not hope that he will accomplish? what limits can you venture to fix as marking the boundary of his development, of his progress? are there any limits that can be conceived? why should there be any limits thought of? grant immortality to man and god for his guide, what is there in the way of intellectual, moral, and spiritual development that he may not aspire to? if within the short space of mortal life there are men who rise up out of infancy and become masters of the elements of fire and water and earth and air, so that they well-nigh rule them as gods, what may it not be possible for them to do in a few hundreds or thousands of millions of years? what may they not do in eternity? to what heights of power and glory may they not ascend? it is idle today to ask men to be satisfied with the old sectarian notions of man's future life, where at best he is to be but one of a minstrelsy twanging harps and singing to the glory of an incorporeal, bodiless, passionless, immaterial incomprehensible god. such conceptions of existence no longer satisfy the longings of the intelligent or spiritual-minded man.[a] [footnote a: on this subject sir robert ball, the great english astronomer and man of science, and who is feelingly spoken of as "a man with singular capacity for popularizing science without debasing it"--has the following passage: "the popular notion that man, once escaped from the confinement of the body, does nothing except sit on a cloud and sing psalms to the glory of a god, whose glory is so perfect without him that he was content when man was not in being, rests upon no evidence, whether of reason or revelation, and seems to us derived either from man's long experience of overtoil and misery and his enjoyment, therefore, of their absence, or from the inherent asiatic dislike of exertion. why should we not work forever as well as now? if man can live again, and grow in that new life, and exert himself to carry out the always hidden, but necessarily magnificent purpose of the creator, then indeed, his existence may have some importance, and the insignificance of his place of origin be forgotten. for he has an inherent quality which does not belong, so far as the mind can see what must always remain partially dark, even the divine; he is capable of effort, and in the effort and through the effort, not only of growing greater than before, but of adding force to an inanimate thing like his own body. what if that power of effort should be slowly aggrandized until man, now a little higher than the monkey, became a really great being?" ("self culture" for march, 1899.)] growth, enlargement, expansion for his whole nature, as he recognizes that nature in its intellectual, moral, spiritual and social demands, are what his soul calls for; and the systems of theology that rise not to the level of these hopes are unworthy man's attention. keep these thoughts in mind for a moment, i pray you. that is, remember the powers in man, what he has attained to in this life, and what it is conceivable for him to attain unto after the resurrection of the dead, when death shall have been removed from his pathway. keep this in mind, while i bring to bear on the theme under consideration another line of facts. let us consider, just for a moment, and in a very simple manner, the universe in which man lives. and let us start with what we know, and keep well within those lines. first of all, then, as to the earth itself: thanks to the knowledge man now has respecting the earth it is no longer regarded as the center of the universe, around which revolve sun and moon and stars, that in the ages of darkness were thought to have been created for the sole purpose of giving light by day and by night to the earth. no; man has learned the true relation of the earth to these other objects in the universe. he knows that the earth is but one of a number of planets--one of a group of eight major planets, and a larger number of minor ones, that revolve regularly around the sun--and one of the smallest of the group of major planets at that. outside of this group of planets, with whose motions and laws man has become familiar, is a vast host of what are called "fixed stars;" that is, stars that apparently have no motion, but which really do move, only their orbits are so immense that man with the unaided eye can not discern their movements--hence we call them "fixed stars."[a] our astronomers have learned that these "fixed stars" are not like the planets which move in their orbits about our sun, but, on the contrary, are like the sun itself, self-luminous bodies, and doubtless like the sun the center of opaque planetary groups; or at least we may say that reasoning from analogy, that is regarded as a very probable fact. [footnote a: "to the unassisted eye, the stars seem to preserve the same relative positions in the celestial sphere generation after generation. if job, hipparchus, or ptolemy should again look upon the heavens, he would, to all appearance see aldebaran, orion, and the pleiades exactly as he saw them thousands of years ago, without a single star being moved from its place. but the refined methods of modern astronomy, in which the telescope is brought in to measure spaces absolutely invisible to the eye, have shown that this seeming unchangeability is not real, but that the stars are actually in motion, only the rate of change is so slow that the eye would not, in most cases, notice it for thousands of years. in ten thousand years, quite a number of stars, especially the brighter ones, would be seen to have moved, while it would take a hundred thousand years to introduce a very noticeable change in the aspect of the constellations." (newcomb's astronomy, pp. 464-5.)] sir robert ball in speaking of these worlds and the probability of their being inhabited says: we know of the existence of thirty millions of stars or suns, many of them much more magnificent than the one which gives light to our system. the majority of them are not visible to the eye, or even recognizable by the telescope, but sensitized photographic plates--which are for this purpose eyes that can stare unwinking for hours at a time--have revealed their existence beyond all doubt or question, though most of them are almost inconceivably distant, thousands or tens of thousands of times as far off as our sun. a telegraphic message, for example, which would reach the sun in eight minutes, would not reach some of these stars in eighteen hundred years. the human mind, of course, does not really conceive such distances, though they can be expressed in formula which the human mind has devised, and the bewildering statement is from one point of view singularly depressing. it reduces so greatly the probable importance of man in the universe. it is most improbable, almost impossible, that these great centers of light should have been created to light up nothing, and as they are far too distant to be of use to us, we may fairly accept the hypothesis that each one has a system of planets around it like our own. taking an average of only ten planets to to each sun, that hypothesis indicates the existence, within the narrow range to which human observation is still confined, of at least three hundred millions of separate worlds, many of them doubtless of gigantic size, and it is nearly inconceivable that those worlds can be wholly devoid of living and sentient beings upon them. granting the to us impossible hypothesis that the final cause of the universe is accident, a fortuitous concourse of self-existent atoms, still the accident which produced thinking beings upon this little and inferior world must have frequently repeated itself: while if, as we hold, there is a sentient creator, it is difficult to believe, without a revelation to that effect, that he has wasted such glorious creative power upon mere masses of insensible matter. god cannot love gases. the high probability, at least, is that there are millions of worlds--for, after all, what the sensitized paper sees must be but an infinitesimal fraction of the whole--occupied by sentient beings.[a] [footnote a: self culture for march, 1899.] on this subject richard a. proctor, in his "other worlds than ours," also remarks: to sum up what we have learned so far from the study of the starry heavens--we see that, besides our sun there are myriads of other suns in the immensity of space; that these suns are large and massive bodies capable of swaying by their attraction systems of worlds as important as those which circle around our own sun; that these suns are formed of elements similar to those which constitute our own sun, so that the worlds which circle round them may be regarded as in all probability similar in constitution to this earth; and that from these suns all forms of force which we know to be necessary to the existence of organized beings on our earth are abundantly emitted. it seems reasonable to conclude that these suns are girt round by dependent systems of worlds. though we cannot, as in the case of the solar system, actual see such worlds, yet the mind presents them before us, various in size, various in structure, infinitely various in their physical condition and habitudes.[a] [footnote a: "other worlds than ours," p. 240.] with the unaided eye there is ordinarily within the range of our vision some five or six thousand of these "fixed stars." with the aid of the telescope, however, there is brought within the range of man's vision between forty and fifty millions of fixed stars; with the probability existing that all these, as well as those fixed stars of sufficient magnitude to be within the range of our unaided vision, are, like our own sun, the centers of groups of opaque planets, which, because they are opaque, cannot be seen by us. but this is but the beginning of the story of the universe. immense as are the numbers of "fixed stars" to which i have called attention, and their distances so great that in some cases it would take a ray of light a million years to reach us from them, though light moves through space at such speed that it will travel some eight times around the earth in a single second--immense, i say, as are these numbers of "fixed stars" revealed to man by the telescope, they are after all but as the first "street lamps" of god's great universe--but a few of the motes in god's sunbeam. let me explain. you have seen a ray of sunlight dart into a room through the half drawn curtains, and have observed that it reveals the existence of innumerable motes floating about in the sunbeam. you know that if the sunbeam should shift into another part of the room it will reveal the existence of motes in that part of the room also--millions of them. so you know that the atmosphere in the whole room is filled with such motes; that the atmosphere in every room in your house is in the same condition--that is, filled with motes; so all the rooms in all the houses of your friends, or in the city; so also the whole circumambient air of the whole earth. well, what man has discovered in space pertaining to the existence of "fixed stars"--great, selfluminous bodies, unquestionably the centers of planetary systems the same as our sun is--all this, i say, is but as the sunbeam revealing the existence of a few of the motes that exist in some little corner of a room: for out on the farthest edge of space explored by man's vision aided by the most powerful helps he can devise, man in contemplation can stand and conceive of still greater stretches of space filled by still more numerous suns, the centers of planetary systems, than has yet come within the range of his vision. and standing thus in the midst of the universe, he begins to comprehend that great truth uttered by joseph smith when he contemplated the creations of the gods: "there is no space where there is no kingdom [created world], and there is no kingdom where there is no space, either a greater or a lesser space."[a] but this is beside the subject. [footnote a: doc. & cov. sec. 88:36,37.] what i want you to do is to think how small and insignificant this earth of ours is, even in comparison with some of the planets of our own system, some of which are hundreds of times larger than our earth.[a] and then the sun, the center of the system, itself--what a speck it is in the universe! though outweighing the combined mass of all the planets of which he is the center seven hundred and thirty times over, still he is but a point in the universe! to quote the words of an eminent author: [footnote a: the planet jupiter, for example, has a diameter of about 85,000 miles, while the earth's diameter is but about 8,000 miles. in volume jupiter exceeds our earth about 1,300 times, while in mass it exceeds it 213 times. (see "newcomb's astronomy," p. 339.)] as there are other globes like our earth, so, too, there are other worlds like our solar system. there are self-luminous suns exceeding in number all computation. the dimensions of this earth pass into nothingness in comparison with the dimensions of the solar system, and that system, in its turn, is only an invisible point if placed in relation with the countless hosts of other systems which form, with it, clusters of stars. our solar system, far from being alone in the universe, is only one of an extensive brotherhood, bound by common laws and subject to like influences. even on the very verge of creation, where imagination might lay the beginning of the realms of chaos, we see unbounded proofs of order, a regularity in the arrangement of inanimate things, suggesting to us that there are other intellectual creatures like us, the tenants of those islands in the abysses of space. though it may take a beam of light a million of years to bring to our view those distant worlds, the end is not yet. far away in the depths of space we catch the faint gleams of other groups of stars like our own. the finger of a man can hide them in their remoteness. their vast distances from one another have dwindled into nothing. they and their movements have lost all individuality; the innumerable suns of which they are composed blend all their collected lights into one pale milky glow. thus extending our view from the earth to the solar system, from the solar system to the expanse of the group of stars to which we belong, we behold a series of gigantic nebular creations rising up one above another, and forming greater and greater colonies of worlds. no numbers can express them, for they make the firmament a haze of stars. uniformity, even though it be the uniformity of magnificence, tires at last, and we abandon the survey, for our eyes can only behold a boundless prospect and conscience tells us our own unspeakable insignificance.[a] [footnote a: draper's "intellectual development of europe," vol. 2, p. 292.] and the earth itself, then, what of that? what an insignificant thing it is in the creations of god! with all its islands and continents, its rivers, lakes and mighty oceans; its mountains and its valleys; its towns, cities and all the tribes of men, together with all their hopes and fears and petty ambitions--all is but a mote in god's sunbeam--less than a single grain of sand on the sea shore! what i want to ask in the light of these reflections is this: is it such a wonderful thing to believe that at the last, one of god's sons shall preside over this little earth as the god-president or god of it? that our father adam, the "grand patriarch" of our race--the "ancient of days"--"michael, the archangel"--give him what title you will out of the many which are his--is it so hard to believe that he will eventually attain to the dignity of the governorship of this earth, when it is redeemed and sanctified and becomes one of the glorified spheres of god? some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we "mormons" are ashamed of the doctrine announced by president brigham young to the effect that adam will thus be the god of this world. no, friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. if you see any change come over our countenances when this doctrine is named, it is surprise, astonishment, that any one at all capable of grasping the largeness and extent of the universe--the grandeur of existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress, should be so lean of intellect, should have such a paucity of understanding, as to call it in question at all. that is what our change of countenance means--not shame for the doctrine brigham young taught. i feel that i must have wearied you with so long a discourse; i know very well i have wearied myself; and yet i am loth to quit this splendid field for thought. the subject, and our conception of it, must ever be grander than it is within our ability to express. it is beyond our power to grasp it and make it plain in words, i can see in this "mormon" doctrine of god the highest spirituality that the mind of man is capable of grasping. if our sectarian friends think, that in us there is any drifting away from the teachings of our prophets upon this subject, any shadow of turning, and that we of modern days are growing more spiritual than were they, it is not that we are changing, or leaving the old moorings of our faith; but it is because they themselves are giving a little more careful attention to our doctrines, and begin to catch their first sight of the grand spirituality which all the while has pervaded our belief in the gods and their government, and the heights of glory to which men--the offspring of the gods--may finally attain. chapter ii. reply to elder roberts' mormon views of deity,[a] by rev. c. van der donckt, of the catholic church, pocatello, idaho. [footnote a: the following note preceded rev. van der donckt's reply, when published in the _improvement era_: "in the first two numbers of the present volume of the _era_, an article on the characteristics of the deity from a 'mormon' view point, appeared from the pen of elder b. h. roberts. it was natural that ministers of the christian denominations should differ from the views there expressed. shortly after its appearance, a communication was received from reverend van der donckt, of the catholic church, of pocatello, idaho, asking that a reply which he had written might be printed in the _era_. his article is a splendid exposition of the generally accepted christian views of god, well written and to the point, and which we think will be read with pleasure by all who are interested in the subject. we must, of course, dissent from many of the deductions with which we cannot at all agree, but we think the presentation of the argument from the other side will be of value to the elders who go forth to preach the gospel, as showing them what they must meet on this subject. it is therefore presented in full; the _era_, of course, reserving the right to print any reply that may be deemed necessary.--editors."] i. i am very grateful for the privilege of being allowed space in your magazine to reply to mr. b. h. roberts' defense of the "mormon views of the deity." 1. first, mr. roberts asserts: "jesus came with no abstract definition of god." he certainly gave a partial definition of god when declaring: "god is a spirit" (john 4:24). now, although we must believe whatever god reveals to us upon one single word of his, just as firmly as upon a thousand, nevertheless, i will add that st. paul, who solemnly testifies that he _received of the lord that which he delivered unto the christians,_ (i cor. 11:23) also states: "the lord is a spirit" (ii cor. 3:17). i am well aware that the latter-day saints interpret those texts as meaning a spirit clothed with a body, but what nearly the whole of mankind, christians, jews, and mohammedans, have believed for ages cannot be upset by gratuitous assertions of a religious innovator of this last century. again, the context of the bible admits of no such interpretation. and if anyone should still hesitate to accept the universally received meaning of the word _spirit_, our risen savior settles the matter. as his disciples, upon first seeing him after his resurrection, were troubled and frightened, supposing they beheld a spirit, jesus reassured them, saying, "_a spirit hath not flesh and bones_ as you see me to have" (luke 24:37-39). 2. another very strong and explicit statement is: "blessed art thou, simon bar-jona [son of john] because _flesh and blood_ hath not revealed it to thee, but my _father_ who is in heaven" (matt. 16:17). as christ has asked, "what do men say the son of man is" (matt. 16:13). there is an evident antithesis and contrast between the opinion of men and the profession of peter, which is based upon revelation. the striking opposition between _men, flesh and blood,_ and the father, evidently conveys the sense that god hath not flesh and blood like man, but is a spirit. 3. that god is a spirit is proved moreover by the fact that he is called invisible in the bible. all material beings are visible. absolutely invisible beings are immaterial or bodiless: god is absolutely invisible, therefore god is immaterial or bodiless. moses' unshaken faith is thus described by st. paul: "he was strong _as seeing him that is invisible_" (heb. 11:27). "no man hath seen god at any time" (1 john 4:12). "the king of kings--whom no man hath seen nor can see." (i tim. 15:16). in the light of these clear, revealed statements, how shall we explain the various apparitions of god mentioned in the bible? tertullian, (a. d. 160-245), ambrose (330-397), augustine (354-430) and other fathers, whose deep scholarship is acknowledged by protestants and catholics alike, informs us that god the father is called invisible because he never appeared to bodily eyes; whereas the son manifested himself as an angel, or through an angel, and as man after his incarnation. he is the eternal revelation of the father. it is necessary to remark that whenever the eternal son of god, or angels at god's behest, showed themselves to man, they became visible only through a body or a material garb assumed for the occasion (see cardinal newman's "development of christian doctrine," 9th edition, pp. 136 and 138). i am well aware of st. paul's, "we now see as through a glass darkly, but then face to face." (i cor. 12:13.) "in thy light we shall see light." (ps. 35:10.) the first and chief element of the happiness of heaven will consist in the beatific vision; that is, in seeing god face to face, unveiled as he really is. the "face to face" however is, literally true only of our blessed savior who ascended into heaven with his sacred body. otherwise, as god is a spirit, he has no body and consequently no face. in paradise, spirits (angels and our souls) see spirits. we shall see god and angels, not with the eye of the body, nor by the vibrations of cosmic light, but with the spiritual eye, with the soul's intellectual perception, elevated by a supernatural influx from god. as in ordinary vision, the image of an object is impressed on the retina, so in the beatific vision, the perfect image of god will be reflected on the soul, impressing on it a vivid representation of him. we shall thus enjoy an intellectual possession of him, very different from our possession of earthly things. 4. that angels as well as god are bodiless beings, is also clearly proved by holy writ. to which of the angels said he at any time: "sit on my right hand till i make thy enemies thy footstool? are they not all ministering _spirits_ sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?" (heb. 1:13, 14.) again, "_our_ wrestling _is not against flesh and blood_, but against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness" (eph. 6:12). could plainer words be found to teach that angels, both good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies? now, the creator is certainly more perfect than his creatures, and pure minds are more perfect than minds united to bodies (men). ["the corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind" (wis. 9:15.) "who shall deliver me from this body of death?" (st. paul).] therefore, the creator is a pure spirit. 5. it is a well known fact that all men, after the example of the inspired writings, make frequent use of the figure called anthropomorphism, attributing to the deity a human body, human members, human passions, etc.; and that is done, not to imply that god is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man, who, while he tarries in this world, can perceive things and even ideas only through his senses or through bodily organs. that even the latter-day saints thus understand such expressions is evident from their catechism (chapter 5: q. 9). yet it is from certain expressions of the same inspired book that they conclude that god has a body. now i contend that, if we must understand the bible literally in those passages god created man in his own image, (genesis 1:27, and genesis 32:24, etc., and exodus 24:9, etc.) from which they attempt to prove that god has a body, we must interpret it literally in other similar passages: so that if moses, etc., really saw the feet of god (exodus 24:10), then we must hold that the _real hand_ of god is meant by david in (psalm 138) (hebrew bible ps. 139; 13:9; 9; 10): "if i take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost part of the sea, even there shall _thy hand_ lead me, and _thy right hand_ shall hold me." and as the psalmist says also: "whither shall i flee from _thy face_? if i ascend into heaven, thou art there; if i descend into hell, thou art there" (psalm 139:7, 8). have we then according to "mormon" standards, not the right to infer that god has such a long hand as to extend to the uttermost parts of the sea, and such an extremely long face, reaching from heaven to hell? to this, i am sure, even the gloomiest protestants would object. by the way, should we not also conclude that david had wings? ("if i take my wings early in the morning, and fly," etc.) unless we admit that the royal prophet anticipated our modern scientists, the brazilian santos-dumont, professor zahm of notre dame, ind., etc., in experimenting with flying machines. 6. a sixth proof of the truth that god has not a body, and therefore is not an exalted man, is the fact of the incarnation of the son of god. the "mormons" admit that jesus christ is the great i am, (from all eternity to all eternity) therefore, god (doctrine and covenants section 39). by the by, i see no mention of this fundamental christian truth of the incarnation, in the sacred books of the latter-day saints, not even in their catechism. yet what is more capable of winning cold hearted, careless people to the love of god than the exposition of this mystery which has been hidden for ages and generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (col. 1:26) "god so loved the world as to give us his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish but may have everlasting life" (john 3:16.) so the "mormons" admit that jesus christ is god for all eternity. the bible teaches that jesus christ became a man at a specified time; therefore, jesus christ, or god was not man before that specified time. "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god. _and the word was made flesh_ and dwelt among us" (john 1:1-14). it is plain that the son of god became flesh only at the time of his sojourn on earth. now, had he been flesh, or man, before, as "mormons" hold, how could he become what he was already from all eternity? no; not from the beginning of the world, but only now once, at the end of ages, he (jesus) hath appeared for the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of himself. when he came into the world, he said: "sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not, _but a body thou hast fitted to me._" then said i: "behold i come" (heb. 9:26 and 10:5, 7). "let this mind be in you which was also in christ jesus, _who being in the form_ (nature, glory, majesty) _of god_, thought it not robbery to be equal with god (deemed it not fitting to assume to his human nature the glory and majesty due him without labor and suffering) but emptied (stripped) himself, _taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and in habit_ (in his whole exterior) _found as a man_" (philip. 2:5), etc. again: "_in him_ (christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead _corporeally_" (col. 2:9). had god a body (_latin corpus_) what sense would there be in st. paul's corporally or bodily? all save "mormons," understand st. paul to mean that in christ the true god manifested himself in the flesh, or as man. "because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner hath been partaker of the same, that through death he might destroy him who hath the empire of death. for nowhere doth he take hold of the angels, but the seed of abraham, he taketh hold, wherefore, it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren" (heb. 2:14-16). "every spirit which confesseth that jesus christ is come in the flesh is of god" (i john 4:2). "many seducers are gone out into the world who confess not that jesus christ is come in the flesh" (ii john 1:7). why do the new testament writers lay so much stress upon the taking of flesh by jesus christ? evidently we must see in those expressions (the word was made flesh, etc.) more than a hebraism, for "he became man" (gen. 6:12; is. 40:5). the inspired authors want to teach us humility by impressing upon our minds the excessive abasement of the eternal son of god in uniting his divinity, not to the nature of an angel, but to that of an inferior creature, as man is. they have still the further aim of impuning the heretics, of the early days of the church the docetae, cerinthus, ebion, etc., who, attributing the flesh to an evil principle, and therefore holding it as utterly polluted, maintained that christ had not a real body of flesh but only an apparent body. this we learn from ss. irenaeus, jerome, clem. of alex., etc. 7. another proof that god is not an exalted man; that is, that he was not what we are now, and became perfected into god, is the direct statement of the bible: "god is not as a man that he should lie, _nor as the son of man that he should be changed_" (num. 23:19). "i will not execute the fierceness of my wrath because i am god and not man" (psalm 11:19). 8. another most striking proof is to be found in god's immutability. the latter day saints teach that god was once imperfect, as man is; the bible teaches the very opposite: "_thou art always the self-same_" (psalm 101:26). "_i am the lord and i change not_" (mal. 3:6). "_the father of lights with whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration._" (the latin _alter_ means other. so the lord is never other from all eternity.) (james 1:17.) 9. finally, the latter-day saints' theory of the man-god supposes a past and present with god. the bible excludes that succession of time, and speaks of god as the everlasting present "i am who am." "before abraham was, i am." "from eternity and to eternity thou art god" (psalm 89:2). "his power is an everlasting power" (daniel 7:14). philosophical proofs of god's simplicity or spirituality. the "mormons" admit that god existed from all eternity; consequently, there was no time at which god did not exist. therefore, the eternal being, or god, must be simple. a compound is, at least by nature, posterior to its component parts. if god is a compound, he is posterior to his component parts. therefore, he would not be eternal; therefore, not god. illustration. the latter-day saints believe that god creates the souls of men, long before their conception. man is a composite being, spirit and flesh being the component parts. man is evidently posterior to his elements; in other words, before a human being can exist, there must first be a spirit, a soul; and in the second place there must be the embryo (or foetus); and, thirdly, both of these existing elements must be united before a human being comes into existence. no need of more illustration. fancy a clock, an engine, a shoe, or any composite being. the parts must exist before the whole. then to have the compound, some one or something must do the compounding, or put the ingredients or elements together. who then did compound the eternal? not himself, as no one can work before he exists: not another being, as no other being existed before it was created by god. god is the necessary being; _i. e._ who could not not exist. something exists; therefore, there exists the necessary being. everything that exists is produced or unproduced. now all things cannot be produced; for _whatever is produced or made is produced by another,_ (otherwise it would have made itself, which is impossible, as nothing can act before it exists). _this other_ (the producer) _is either a necessary being or a produced being._ if produced, it must have been produced by another. thus we must finally come to a being that was not produced, or a necessary being. that necessary being (who was not made and who always existed) is god. if god were an aggregate of parts, these parts would be either necessary beings or contingent (that do not necessarily exist); or some would be necessary and some contingent. none of these suppositions are tenable, therefore, god is not an aggregate of parts. first supposition: if the parts of god were necessary beings there would be several independent beings, which the infinity of god precludes. god would not be infinite, if there were even one other being independent of him, as his power, etc., would not reach that being. second supposition: the necessary being would be the aggregate of several contingent beings. an unreasonable supposition: contingent beings cannot by their addition or collection lose their essential predicate of contingency; in other words, the nature of the parts clings to the whole. the third supposition is equally absurd, for if some part exit necessarily, it must be infinite in every perfection; therefore, it would of itself be sufficient to constitute god, and could not be improved by the addition of other parts. _the necessary being must be infinite,_ or illimitable. nothing is done without a cause. no cause of limitation to the necessary being can be found. if finite, or limited, he must be limited by his own essence, or by another, or by himself. a. he cannot be limited by his own essence, for his essence, is actual being or existence: _i am who am._ no perfection is repugnant to that essence; for every perfection is some existence, something that _is._ no defect necessarily flows from that essence, for defect is in a thing only in as much as that thing is not in some sense or regard; now in the notion or in the concept of him who is being itself (i am who am) is not contained the concept that he is not in some regard; for something is limited not because it is, but because it is this or that, for instance, a stone, a plant, a man. b. he cannot be limited by another, because he depends on no other, and has not received his being from another. c. he could not be limited by himself as he is not the cause of his existence, but the sufficient reason thereof. _the infinite being is most simple, or not compound._ were he compound, his parts would be either all finite, or infinite, or one infinite and the others finite. none of these suppositions are possible, therefore, he is not compound. 1. several finite things cannot produce an infinite or an illimitable, as there would always be a first and a last. 2. many infinite beings are inconceivable; for, if there were several, they would have to differ from each other by some perfection. now from the moment one would have a perfection, the other one lacks, the latter would not be infinite. therefore, god cannot be a compound of infinite parts. 3. if one is infinite, nothing can be added to it. finite parts could not belong to the infinite essence, else they would communicate their limitations to god. therefore, the infinite being is not composite, but simple or spiritual. therefore, he is not, nor ever was, a man, who is a composite being. ii. above, i proved god's _immutability_ from the bible; now i prove it from philosophy, or the light of reason. mutation or change is the passing from one state into another. the infinite being is not liable to change, as change implies an imperfection in the being susceptible of it, as that being had not in the previous state what it has in the subsequent, or _vice versa_. god having all perfections must be unchangeable. therefore, he is not a man grown into a god. the necessary being is such that he could not exist, nor exist otherwise. he cannot receive his existence, nor lose it. so he cannot change with regard to his existence; nor can he change with regard to his mode of existence. his perfections being infinite cannot increase; nor can they wane or decrease, else there would be an imperfection in him, and he would no longer be infinite, or god. therefore, god is unchangeable. therefore, he never was what we are. god is pure essence (i am who i am), pure actuality or act. change implies potentiality, liability to become what it is not. as god is infinitely perfect, all potentiality is excluded from him; in other words, there is no room for growth or more perfection. consequently, no possibility of change. therefore, god was never without the fullness of the godhead, consequently, never a man. nor can man ever become a god. man is finite or limited in everything, ever changeable and changing, ever susceptible of improvement. what is finite can never become infinite. supposing man grown or improved for billions of years; after that immense period, he could begin over again improving for billions of years, and yet ever remain short of infinite perfection, as no number of finite things can make the infinite. there is and always shall be a first and a last, to which could be added more and more. "when a man hath done, then he shall begin, and when he leaveth off, he shall be at a loss" (ecclesiasticus 18:2). a being cannot be at the same time infinite and finite, necessary and contingent, compound and simple, unchangeable and changeable, eternal and temporary, omnipotent and weak, actual being and potentiality, etc., etc. now if god were an exalted man, he would have all those contradictory attributes at the same time, which is absurd. therefore, it is an utter impossibility that god should be an exalted man. as to man becoming god, the idea is absurd. with far more reason might we contend that the gnat will develop into a lion, and the animalcules which we swallow in a sip of water will grow into gigantic giraffes and colossal elephants, as there is infinitely less distance or difference between those respective animals than between the most perfect creature and the creator, the finite and the infinite. bring all the scientists of the world together, the darwins, the huxleys, the tyndalls, the pasteurs, the kochs, the teslas, the edisons, etc., etc., supply them with the most ingenious machinery, and the most complicated instruments, and with unlimited material, let them make, i will not say an imitation sun or moon, but simply a little worm as we often unconsciously crush under our feet, or let them produce not the magnificent lily or rose, but a tiny blade of grass. before such a task, apparently so insignificant, those profound mathematicians, naturalists and chemists, will throw up their hands in utter impotence. expert mixers can indeed make wines in their laboratories, but will president roosevelt or emperor william, or other sovereigns, ever give them an order to manufacture a little bunch of grapes or a few of the commonest berries? what frequent accidents are there on our railroads, despite most careful and most attentive trainmen! yet a collision never occurred between the millions of suns, stars and planets that whirl, rush, tear and bound wildly along their prescribed pathways for thousands or millions of years, at the rate of over one thousand miles a minute (our earth), and three thousand miles a minute (the planet arcturus). notwithstanding the bewildering speed of their movements, the stars and planets float through space with such regularity and precision, and along such well defined paths, deviating neither to the right nor to the left, that astronomers can foretell to a nicety--to within a minute--at what point in the heavens they may be found at any future time, say, next month, next year, or even next century. they can indeed predict transits and eclipses; but suppose astronomers from new zealand on their way to america to observe this fall's moon eclipse, meet with an accident in mid-ocean, would they at once send this wireless telegram to the united states' star-gazers assembled say at lick observatory: "belated by leak. please retard eclipse two hours that we may not miss it." as well might all the telescopemen in the world combined, attempt to fetch down the rings of saturn for the construction of a royal-race track as pretend to control movements of the heavenly bodies. the helpless babe of yesterday may indeed rival mozart, hayden and paderewski, but tomorrow he may rise with lame hands and pierced ear-drums; and millions of worshipers of the shattered idol are powerless to restore it to the musical world. still jesus healed the blind, the deaf and the palsied, by a mere act of his will, even without speaking a word. "we have this treasure in earthen vessels" (ii cor. 4:7). "seeing i have once begun, i will speak to my lord whereas i am dust and ashes" (genesis 18:27). "in the morning man shall grow up like grass and flourish, in the evening he shall fall, grow dry and wither" (psalm 89:6). "_can man be compared with god_, even though he were of perfect knowledge" (job 22:2). "none is good but god alone" (luke 18:19). "of his greatness there is no end" (psalm 144: 3). "all nations are before him as if they had no being at all, and are counted to him as nothing and vanity. to whom then have you likened god, or what image will you make for him? it is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. all flesh is grass, and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field. the grass is withered, and the flower is fallen because the wind of the lord had blown upon it. indeed, the people is grass" (isaiah 40:17, 18, 22, 6, 7). "he that bringeth the searches of secrets to nothing, that hath made the judges of the earth as vanity--hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and weighed the heavens with his palm? who hath poised with three fingers the bulk of the earth, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance" (isaiah 40:23-12). an ingersoll might sneer and cry out: surely isaias had no idea of the size of the earth. even though he did not know that the globe is such an immense ball, and that the volume of the sun is one million two hundred thousand times greater than the earth, and three hundred thousand times its weight, god who inspired the prophet knew infinitely more about it than our conceited astronomers. i fear mr. b. h. roberts will be inclined to think god jealous because he gives man no show for comparison with him. this would certainly be a less blunder of the utah man ("i will not give my glory to another") (isaiah 42:8) than his contention, which is a mere echo of satan's promise in paradise; "you shall be as gods." (genesis 3:5.) man is indeed capable of progress, but his forward movement is slow, and in some matters his attainments remain stationary; for instance, nothing has been added to philosophy since the days of aristotle, and nothing to geometry since euclid. both of these geniuses lived over three hundred years before christ. conclude we, then, with the psalmist: "all my bones shall say: lord, who is like to thee?" (psalm 34:10). the unity of god. 1. 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.[a] [footnote a: "hours with the bible," by geikie, vol. 1, chapters 1, 2.] 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 folios 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_.[a] [footnote a: "chips from a german workshop," by max muller, vol. 1, pp. 345-372.] 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 q. 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.[a] [footnote a: 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.] 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 to 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. let me premise that the name god, elohim, is applied (1) to the one true god; (2) to false gods and idols; (3) to representatives of god, such as angels, judges, kings; (4) to the devil, at least in this phrase: the god of this world. i beg to observe, first, that whenever the plural _gods_ occurs in holy writ, it is in sense (2) or (3); i. e., it is meant of false gods or representatives of god; secondly, that plural is generally put in opposition to the singular jehovah or lord, who is emphatically mentioned as the sovereign of the gods in every instance, alleged or allegable.[a] [footnote a: "there is none like thee among the gods, o lord" (psalm 85:8). "our god is not like their gods" (deut. 32:31). "who is god besides the lord" (psalm 17:32). "their gods have no sense" (baruch 6:41). "the lord is terrible over all the gods: because all the gods of the gentiles are devils; but the lord hath made the heavens" (psalm 95:4, 5). "neither is there any nation so great that hath gods so nigh them as our god is present to all our petitions" (deut. 4:7).] now, all these bible expressions point to the clear inference that this sovereign or supreme god is the only true god. consequently, these very texts, instead of proving mr. roberts' contention, plainly disprove it, demonstrating that there is but one god. "thou alone art god" (psalm 85:11). two of these texts, for instance, have the significant qualification: being _called_ gods. a man must not be a lawyer to know that the fact that not a few quacks and clowns are _called_ doctors does not make them such. "although there be that are called gods either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many and lords many); yet to us there is but one god" (i corinthians 8:5, 6). jesus answered, referring to psalm 82:6, "is it not written in your law: i said you are gods? if he _called_ them gods to whom the word of god was spoken" * * * (john 10:34, 35). neither christ nor paul say that they _are_ or _were gods_, but simply that they are called gods. bear with me for further quoting: "i have said you are gods, and all of you the sons of the most high. _but you shall die like men_," etc. (psalm 82:6, 7). how unlike the true god, the _immortal_ king of ages. wherever elohim occurs in the bible in sense 1, (meaning the true god) it is employed with singular verbs and singular adjectives. had the "mormon" church leaders known hebrew, the original language of the book of moses, and nearly the whole of the old testament, they would not have been guilty of the outrageous blunders perpetrated by the writers of the pearl of great price and of the catechism, as appears on pages 24, 25, 26, 27, of the latter book: "they organized and formed (that is, the gods,) the heavens and the earth * * * and the spirit of the gods was brooding upon * * * what did the _gods_ do on the second day? etc. the gods said, let there be light * * * _and they [the gods] comprehended the light, for it was bright_." (whoever heard of a dark light? but even had the light lacked brightness, would the gods have been powerless to comprehend it?) the original had singular verbs in all these sentences and, unlike our imperfect english, which has the same form in the singular and in the plural, the hebrew, the greek, the latin, the syriac, etc., have different terminations in the plural from the singular. had joseph smith and his partners not been ignorant of those ancient languages in which were written the original text and the oldest versions of the bible, their revelations would, at least in reference to the creator have tallied with the revelations of moses. one of the strongest and clearest proofs of the unity of god, is god's solemn revelation of himself as jehovah, prefaced by the emphatic statement: "_i am_ who am. thou shalt say to the sons of israel: i am sent me to you, (that is: the one who said, i am who am, sent me to you)" (exodus 3:14). "jehovah, the god of your fathers--i am jehovah" (exodus 6:2). if there ever was an occasion on which god should have disclosed his unity or his plurality, it was certainly then when moses ventured to demand the credentials of his mission. god used singular verbs whenever referring to himself. he said: _i am_, not _we are_. he calls himself by the singular noun _jehovah_, which, unlike the plural _elohim_, is applied only to the one true god. this name jehovah occurs one hundred and sixty times in genesis alone.[a] [footnote a: j. corluy s. j. "_spicilegium_," volume 1. com. 2. see also smith's bible dictionary, word god.] ii. _the father, the son and the holy ghost are one and the same identical divine essence or being_. a. "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 14, 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 5:19). 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 me seeth the father." therefore, he and the father are numerically one being. again, if the speech and the acts of the son are physically the words and the works of the father, the son and the father are physically one; indivisible, inseparably one principle of action, therefore, one being. now christ tells us that his words and works are physically the words and works of his father. therefore, the son and the father are one indivisible, inseparable principle, and therefore identical being: let no one object: is not the word and the deed of the agent, the word and the deed of his master or employer? christ is more than his father's agent. an agent could indeed say that his utterances and his actions are dictated or prompted by his master, but he could never say what christ said: the words i utter are actually, physically spoken by my father while i speak them; and the works i perform are actually, physically, performed by my father. is the son, then, like the phonograph or the machine, the instrument of the father? nay, he is more than that. being together with his father, the one equally intelligent and equally efficient principle of action, the words and works are simultaneously both the son's and the father's. 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 5:8). 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 or 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_.[a] therefore i said: because he will receive of mine and announce it to you" (john 16:13-15). [footnote a: in the old testament, the foreknowledge of future events was ever spoken of as an incommunicable attribute of jehovah (isaiah 41:22, 23; 44:7; 45:11; daniel 2:22, 47; 13; 42, etc.) as whatever the father hath is the son's, therefore, also, the knowledge of the future.] 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 3:11); "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 heard these things _they were baptized in the name of the lord jesus_" (acts 9:2, 5). "all we who are _baptized in christ jesus_" (romans 6:3). b. although the systematic doctrine of the blessed trinity, that is, of three divine persons (not three gods) in one god, is a gradual development in the church, nevertheless the distinction of the human and divine natures in christ is found in the writings of st. ignatius, disciple of the apostle st. john, and bishop of antioch, who, because of his faith, was devoured by lions by order of trajan, a. d. 107. fifty and sixty years later, different fathers, among whom tertullian ("adv. marc" iv. 25, and "adv. wax." 2), athenagoras ("leg" 10: 24, 44), and clement of alexandria ("strom" iii: 12) are the most famous, taught there are three divine persons in one god; that these three, the father, the son and the holy ghost, are equal to each other and are one in substance.[a] [footnote a: the manifestation of the three divine persons at our lord's baptism could be interpreted as if there were three distinct beings in god, or three gods, if such interpretation were not precluded by god's emphatic revelation of his divine unity. there was, on that memorable occasion, a twofold divine witnessing to christ as son of god come in the flesh to redeem mankind. in order to find in that event anything in support of the "mormon" tenets, there should have appeared above the son two glorious exalted men both pointing to him; whereas, only a voice was heard, and a dove was seen. nor can we argue from the voice that the father must have a mouth, and therefore a body; with greater reason might we maintain that the holy ghost is a pigeon, as a dove was visible; whereas, the organ of the voice was not.] iii. _pagan witness to the unity of the christian's god_. as the roman historian tacitus, in his account of the jews, wrote: "the jews have no notion of any more than one divine being, and that known only to the mind." other pagans bore similar testimony concerning the unity of god. in his letter to the emperor trajan, (a. d. 98-117) pliny governor of pontus, said among other things: "they [the christians] assemble on certain days before sunrise to sing hymns of praise to christ, their god. * * they submit to torture and death rather than invoke the gods." and celsus, the forerunner of our modern infidels, thus slandered the early christians: "confessing that these are worthy of _their god_, they desire to convert but fools, and vulgar and stupid and slavish women and boys." one more. caecilius wrote: "what monstrous notions * * * they [the christians] fabricate that that _god_ of theirs, whom they can neither show nor see, should be inquiring diligently into the characters, the acts, nay the words and secret thoughts of all men! * * * most of you are in want, cold, toil, hunger, and _your god_ suffers it." chapter iii. a rejoinder to rev. c. van der donckt's reply. i have read with great interest and i trust with due care the rev. c. van der donckt's reply to my discourse on "mormon doctrine of deity." with regard to his reply in general, i observe three things: first, the reverend gentleman labors with some pains to demonstrate that "mormon" views of deity with respect to the form and nature of god are at variance with the catholic and even the orthodox protestant views on that subject; second, the "mormon" views of deity are in conflict with the accepted christian philosophy; third, that "mormon" doctrines stand in sharp contrast to both catholic and protestant ideas respecting the unity of god. all this is easily proved; and would have been conceded cheerfully without proofs. "mormons" not only admit the variances but glory in them. the foregoing, however, is not the issue between mr. van der donckt and myself. after the variances referred to are admitted, these questions remain: which is most in agreement with what god has revealed concerning his form and nature, "mormon" or orthodox christian doctrine? which is most in harmony with sound reason and the scriptures, "mormon" doctrine, or the commonly accepted christian philosophy? which in their teaching presents the true doctrine of god's unity, "mormons" or orthodox christians? these are the issues; and so far as the reverend gentleman has maintained the orthodox christian doctrine against the "mormon" doctrine, i undertake to controvert his arguments. i. the form of god. following the order of my treatise, the gentleman first deals with the form of god. his first premise is that "_god is a spirit_," quoting the words of the savior (john 4:24;) and paul's words, "the lord is a spirit," (ii cor. 3:17.) he then argues that a spirit is different from a man, and quotes the remark of jesus to his disciples, when he appeared to them after his resurrection: "a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have" (luke 24:37-39). also the words of jesus to peter, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it [that is, that jesus is the christ] unto thee, but my _father_ who is in heaven." (matt. 16:17.) the gentleman in all this sees a striking contrast between _men, flesh and blood,_ and the _father_; which "conveys the sense that god hath not flesh and blood like man, but is a spirit." that god is a spirit mr. v. holds is proved also from his being called "invisible" in the bible; and from this premise argues: "all material beings are visible. absolutely invisible beings are immaterial, or bodiless:" and therefore, to help the gentleman out a little, not like man in form. with reference to the passage--"flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father who is in heaven," and the reverend gentleman's remarks thereon, i wish to say, in passing, that the antithesis between man and god in the passage extends merely to the fact that the source of peter's revelation was god, not man; and is no attempt at defining a difference between the nature of god and the nature of man. here also i may say that the latter-day saints do not hold that god is a personage of _flesh_ and _blood_, but a personage of _flesh and bone_, inhabited by a spirit, just as jesus was after his resurrection. joseph smith taught concerning the resurrection that "all [men] will be raised by the power of god, having _spirit_ in their bodies, and not _blood_."[a] again, in speaking of the general assembly and church of the first born in heaven (heb. 12:23), he said: "flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened by the spirit of god, can."[b] so that it must be remembered throughout this discussion that the latter-day saints do not believe that god is a personage of flesh and blood; but a personage of flesh and bone and spirit, united. [footnote a: discourse delivered at nauvoo, march 20, 1842. _mill. star_, vol. xix, p. 213.] [footnote b: discourse delivered at nauvoo, oct. 9, 1843. _mill. star_, vol. xxii, p. 231.] i would remind the reader, also, that while jesus said, "god is a spirit," and that a spirit "hath nor flesh and bone as ye see me have," he nowhere says that a spirit is immaterial or not substance. that is a conclusion drawn by the theologians from the false philosophy of the ancient pagans. but let us examine these premises and arguments of mr. van der donckt, more in detail. the inspired apostle says: "_our god is a consuming fire_" (heb. 12:29). "now," to use the words of mr. v., "although we must believe whatever god reveals to us upon one single word of his, just as firmly as upon a thousand; nevertheless, i will add" that moses, who solemnly received the word from god which he delivered unto israel, also says, "_the lord thy god is a consuming fire_" (exod. 4:24). is mr. v. ready to believe on these solemn assertions of scripture--hence of the lord--that god is a fire, and therefore that fire is god? or would he insist upon interpreting these passages by others, and by reason? would he not want to quote moses again where he says, "thy god is * * * _as_ a consuming fire" (ex. 9:3), and accept this as a reasonable interpretation of the passage stating so definitely that "god is a fire"? again, "god is light" (i john 1:5). would mr. v. from that definition of god believe and teach that god is light, mere cosmic light? or would he find an interpretation, or explanation necessary? and still again, "god is love" (i john 4:7, 16). love is an attribute of mind, of spirit; must one conclude then from this definition that god is a mere attribute of mind? these reflections will demonstrate that these definitions of god, so far as they are such, together with the one with which mr. v. commences his argument, "god is a spirit," need defining. he endeavors to anticipate the "mormon" answer to this argument by saying: i am well aware that the latter-day saints interpret those texts as meaning a spirit clothed with a body, but what nearly the whole of mankind, christians, jews, and mohammedans, have believed for ages, cannot be upset by the gratuitous assertions of a religious innovator of this last century. at this point i will not appeal to or quote the "gratuitous assertions of a religious innovator of this last century"--meaning joseph smith. there is no need of that. if i were an unbeliever in the true deity of christ, i might take up the gentleman's argument in this way: you say god is a spirit, and hence bodiless, immaterial? his answer must be, "yes." but jesus says, "a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have"--hence jesus is not god, because he is a personage of flesh and bone, in the form of man--not bodiless or immaterial. this, of course, is not _my_ point. i merely refer to it in the beaten way of good fellowship, and by way of caution to my catholic friend, who, i am sure, in his way, is as anxious to maintain the true deity of the nazarene as i am; but his method of handling the text, "god is a spirit," might lead him into serious difficulty in upholding the truth that jesus was and is true deity, if in argument with an infidel. but now for the "mormon" exposition of the text. is jesus christ god? was he god as he stood there among his disciples in his glorious and, to use mr. v.'s own word, "sacred," resurrected body? there is but one answer that the reverend catholic gentleman or any orthodox protestant can give, and that is in the affirmative--"yes, jesus is god."[a] but "god is a spirit!" true, he is; but jesus is a spirit inside a body--inside an immortal, indestructible body of flesh and bone; therefore, if jesus is god, and god is a spirit, he is an embodied spirit, just as the latter-day saints teach. [footnote a: "his acts proved his deity; jesus is jehovah, and therefore we sing unto him as the lord." "treasury of david" (spurgeon). vol. iv, p. 371.] now let it be understood that latter-day saints are not so foolish as to believe that so much phosphate, lime, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen as may compose the body of a perfected man, is god. they recognize the fact that the body without the spirit is dead, being alone; but the spirit having through natural processes gathered to itself a body, and that body having been purified by the power of god--who has promised in holy scripture that he will "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself" (phil. 3:20, 21)--when this is done, even the body takes upon it some of the divine nature. it indeed becomes "sacred," and something more than "sacred"--it becomes incorporated with and forever united to, a spirit that is divine, and henceforth becomes an integral part of god. of which process, of a divine spirit taking on a body of flesh and bone, jesus christ is the most perfect example. at this point, i shall pass for the present a few items that stand next in order in mr. van der donckt's argument, that i may consider some statements and arguments of his made further on in the "reply," because they are immediately related to what has just been said. mr. v. holds that it is proved by holy writ that "angels as well as god are bodiless beings." after quoting passages of scripture in support of this statement, he then adds: "could plainer words be found to teach that angels, both good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies? now, the creator is certainly more perfect than his creatures, and pure minds are more perfect _than minds united to bodies_[a] (men)." in support of which he quotes the following: "the corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind" (wisdom 9:15)[b]; and paul's saying, "who shall deliver me from this body of death?"[c] (rom. 6:24). _therefore the creator is a pure spirit._ [footnote a: italics are mine.] [footnote b: this is a book received by the catholic church on alleged apostolical tradition, but not found in the hebrew bible nor protestant versions of the bible.] [footnote c: quoted thus by mr. v. in both catholic and protestant bibles it stands: "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"] i fear mr. v. in these statements has run into more difficulty. let us see. according to his doctrine, "angels as well as god are bodiless beings." "angels, both good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies. the creator is more perfect than his creatures, _and pure minds_ [minds separated from bodies] _are more perfect than minds united to bodies_. * * * therefore the creator is a pure spirit." but where does this leave jesus? was and is jesus god--true deity? yes. but jesus is a spirit and body united into one glorious personage. his mind was and is now united to and dwelling in a body. our catholic friend says, "pure minds [i. e. minds not united to bodies] are more perfect than minds united to bodies." he also says, "angels, both good and bad, are spirits (i. e. minds) devoid of bodies." therefore, it must follow from his premises and argument that angels are superior to jesus since his spirit is united to a body, while they are minds _not_ united to bodies! i will not press the point, that the same conclusions could be drawn from his premises and argument with reference even to bad spirits, whom he says are bodiless, and hence, upon his theory, superior to minds or spirits united to bodies, for that would be ungenerous upon my part, and would lay upon his faulty argument the imputation of awful blasphemy, which i am sure was not intended and would be as revolting to him as it would be to myself. mr. v., i am sure, would contend as earnestly as i would that jesus is superior to the angels, though it is perfectly clear that he is a spirit united to a body. "when he had by himself purged our sins, [jesus] sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. * * * and again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, and let all the angels of god worship him. and of the angels he saith, who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. _but unto the son he saith, thy throne, o god, is for ever and ever_" (heb. 1:3-8). in this passage the superiority of jesus over the angels is manifested in four ways: first, by the direct affirmation of god, that he was made "better" than the angels; second, that by inheritance he obtained a more exalted name; third, that the angels are commanded to worship him; fourth, god, the father, addressing jesus, said, "thy throne, o god, is for ever and ever." in this passage the father directly addresses jesus by the title "god." and as god is exalted above all angels, jesus must be superior to angels, for he is "god," if we may believe the words of the father--whom to disbelieve would be blasphemy. mr. van der donckt admits in his argument,'of course, that jesus is god; and also admits the persistence of him in the physical condition in which he left the earth with his resurrected body. for in explaining the scripture passage about seeing god "face to face," he remarks: the first and chief element of the happiness of heaven will consist in the beatific vision; that is, in seeing god face to face, unveiled, as he really is. the "face to face," however, is literally true only of our blessed savior, who ascended into heaven with his sacred body. otherwise, as god is a spirit, he has no body, and, consequently, no face. from this it is clear that, in the mind of the reverend gentleman, jesus not only ascended into heaven with his "sacred body," but now dwells there spirit and body united; and the blessed, who shall inherit heaven will see him there literally "face to face."[a] otherwise than this "face to face" view of jesus--according to mr. v.--we shall only see god, since he is a spirit, "with the spiritual eye; with the soul's intellectual perception, elevated by a supernatural influx from god!" this admission with reference to jesus and his existence as an immortal personage of flesh and bone, and our literal view of him in heaven "face to face," draws with it some consequences which my catholic friend evidently overlooked. in the creed usually named after st. athanasius, it is said: "_such as the father is, such is the son._" i take it that this, in the view of those who accept the athanasian creed, has reference to the "substance of the father," as well as to other things pertaining to him; for, according to that creed, the "substance" of the father and son is one and undivided. "we worship one god in trinity, and trinity in unity," says the creed; "neither confounding the persons nor _dividing the substance_." it must be, therefore, according to mr. v.'s creed, that all the "substance" of god there is, is in jesus christ, as well as the attributes of god. the terms of the creed forbid us believing that part of the "substance" of god was enclosed in the flesh and bone body of jesus, and the remainder existed outside of that body; for that would be dividing the "substance" of god, a thing the athanasian creed forbids: therefore, all the "substance" of god inhabits the body of jesus christ, and he is wholly god. in this view of the subject, there is no god except the deity enclosed in the flesh and body of jesus christ. but that would place our catholic friend--after all he has said about god being a spirit, and about the superiority of pure minds (i. e. spirits not united to bodies) over minds united to bodies--under the necessity of accepting as god, the supreme, the almighty, a personage that is a spirit and body united in one glorious personage, and in form like man--a thing most abhorrent to our friend's principles. [footnote a: in an article for the _improvement era_, on the doctrines and claims of the catholic church, bishop scanlan, of salt lake city, also said of the divinity of christ; "the catholic church teaches that jesus christ is not a mere elect child or special creation of god, or in any sense or manner a creature, but that he is the eternal and only son of god, god of god, light of light; the expression of the eternal father, with whom he is one in nature and substance, and to whom he is equal in all divine attributes, power and glory."--_improvement era_, vol. i, p. 14.] on the other hand, if it be contended that besides the son of god, jesus, a personage of flesh and bone and spirit, there exists god, a spirit, then there is likely to arise again the conception of the "substance" being divided, and the existence of two individual gods instead of one. the one a spirit unembodied, and the other a spirit enclosed in a body of flesh and bone--the glorified, exalted man, christ. this danger is also increased by the part of the creed now being considered, _viz_., "such as the father is, such is the son;" for it must follow, if this be true that such as the son is, such is the father also. and this, must hold with reference to god, wholly; to his substance, essence, personality, form, as well as to all attributes possessed, or else it is not true at all. and if true, since we know that jesus is an immortal being of flesh and bone and spirit united into one glorious personage (and mr. v. admits that, and also that the blessed in heaven shall see him as such a personage, literally "face to face"), then god the father must be the same, a personage of flesh and bone and spirit united--a thing most abhorrent to mr. v.'s principles. at this point, i must complain of the gentleman's argument a little. however able and fair his article may be considered on the whole, i think, on the question of the "form of god," i am justified in charging that he has not dealt at all with my strong scripture proofs relative to that matter. he makes but the very slightest reference to the passage: and god said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness. * * * so god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him; male and female created he them (genesis 1:26, 27). and he considered nowhere the very definite passage: god * * hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son. * * * who, being the brightness of his glory _and the express image of his person_, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he hath by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high (heb. 1:3). "now," to use the solemn words of the reverend gentleman himself, "we must believe whatever god reveals to us upon one single word of his, just as firmly as upon a thousand"--i shall hold that it was incumbent upon mr. v. to deal with these passages, and set forth in what way they are to be understood, if _not_ to be understood as they read.[a] i can think of no language that could express the truth more forcibly, that man was created in the form of god and, therefore, that god in form is like man, than the language of these two passages. when the word of god says: "god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him;" and then again, in speaking of jesus, who certainly bore all the semblance, figure and stature of a man--who was a man--when the divine spirit, i say, in speaking of him, says that _he was the express image of god's person_--i shall despair of human language expressing any fact whatsoever, if this language does not say that in form god and man are alike. and what the word of god in plainness teaches--so plain that he who "runs may read," so plain that "wayfaring men though fools need not err therein"--"is not to be set aside by the gratuitous assertions" of "religious innovators" of early christian centuries who corrupted the plain meaning of god's word by their vain philosophies, and oppositions of science, falsely so called. mr. van der donckt makes no reference to this plain passage in hebrews 1:3; and i am under the necessity of thinking that in respect of this passage and the one in genesis, he had no means at his command by which he could satisfactorily explain away their force. they stand, therefore, with their strength unimpaired, in proof of the doctrines taught in the discourse at which mr v. leveled his reply. [footnote a: the meaning of this language from the 26th verse of the first chapter of genesis is made perfectly clear when compared with the third verse of the 5th chapter of genesis where it is written: "and adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name seth." what do these words imply but that seth was like his father in features and also doubtless in intellectual and moral qualities? and if when it is said adam begat a son in his "own likeness, after his image," it simply means that seth in form and features and intellectual and moral qualities was like his father--then there can be no other conclusion formed upon the passage that says god created man in his own image and likeness than that man, in a general way, in form and feature and intellectual and moral qualities was like god.] of god being invisible. mr. van der donckt thinks he sees further proof of god's being a "spirit," and therefore immaterial or bodiless, in the fact that he is spoken of in the bible as being "invisible." moses "was strong as seeing him that is invisible," (heb. 11:27;) "no man hath seen god at any time" (i john 4:12;) "the king of kings--whom no man hath seen nor can see," (i tim. 6:16); are the passages he relies upon for the proof of his contention. of course, mr. v. is aware of the fact--for he mentions it--that these passages are confronted with the explicit statement of scripture that god has been seen by men. moses saw him. at one stage of his experience, the great hebrew prophet was told that he could not see god's face; "for," said the lord, "there shall no man see me and live." but even at that time, moses was placed in a cleft of the rock, "and thou shalt see my back parts," said the lord to him; "but my face shall not be seen" (exodus 23:18-23). on another occasion, moses, aaron, nadab and abihu, and seventy of the elders of israel, saw god. and they saw the god of israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. and upon the nobles of the children of israel he laid not his hand: also they saw god, and did eat and drink (ex. 24:9-11). isaiah saw him: "i saw the lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple." at the same time the seraphims proclaimed his holiness, saying, "holy, holy, holy is the lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory." then said isaiah: "woe is me! for lam undone; because i am a man of unclean lips, and i dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the king, the lord of hosts" (isaiah 6:1-5). to harmonize these apparitions of god to men with his theory of the invisibility of god, mr. v. appeals to the writings of some of the christian fathers, and cardinal newman, from whose teachings he concludes that god the father is called "invisible" because "he never appeared to bodily eyes; whereas the son manifested himself as an angel, and as a man after his incarnation. * * * whenever the eternal son of god, or angels at god's behest, showed themselves to man, they became visible only through a body, _or a material garb assumed for the occasion!_" surely tertullian, ambrose, augustine, the great english cardinal of the roman church, and mr. v. are in sore straits when they must needs take refuge in the belief of such jugglery with matter as this, in order to reconcile apparently conflicting scriptures. and what a shuffling off and on of material garbs there must have been, as from time to time hosts of angels and spirits appeared unto men! it is but the materialization of the spiritualist mediums on a little larger scale. but there is a better way of harmonizing the seeming contradictions; and better authority for the conclusion to be reached than the christian fathers and cardinal newman. i mean the scriptures themselves. take this expression of the scripture, "no man hath seen god at any time" (i john 4:12). standing alone, it seems emphatic and conclusive. and in the same connection this also, from the testimony of john: "no man hath seen god at any time; the only begotten son which is in the bosom of the father, he hath declared him" (st. john 1:18). but consider these texts in connection with what the master himself said on the same subject: "it is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of god. every man, therefore, that hath heard, and hath learned of the father, cometh unto me. not that any man hath seen the father, _save he which is of god, he hath seen the father_" (st. john 6:45, 46). now we have the key to the matter. "no man hath seen god at any time, _save_ [except] _he which is of god, he hath seen the father._" if any one shall contend that this "_he which is of god_" has reference to jesus only, the complete answer to that will be found in the account of the martyr stephen's glorious view of the father and the son together and at one time: "but he [stephen] being full of the holy ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, _and saw the glory or god, and jesus standing on the right hand of god, and said, "behold, i see the heavens opened, and the ton of man standing on the right hand of god_." (acts 7:55-6). undoubtedly, for reasons that are wise, god the father has been "invisible" to men except under very special conditions; for the most part the "only begotten hath declared him," and stood as his representative; and in the absence of those special conditions, no man hath seen god the father; no man in the absence of these conditions can see his face and live. he must be "_of god_," as stephen was, then he may see god, even the father, as that martyr evidently did. here, too, may be cited a passage from one of the revelations of the lord to joseph the prophet, which throws more light upon the subject. speaking of the higher or melchizedek priesthood, the lord says: this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the knowledge of god; therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest; and without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; _for without this no man can see the face of god, even the father, and live_ (doc. and cov. sec. 84:19-22). god, then, in the bible, is called "invisible," not because he is absolutely so by reason of his nature, because he is "immaterial or bodiless," but because he is not to be seen by men except under very special conditions. the special conditions complied with, however, certain holy men have seen god; the father, and have borne witness of the fact. of course, it follows that the "invisibility" of god as here set forth does not carry with it the idea that god is immaterial or bodiless; nor would it follow that god is immaterial, even if absolutely invisible to human eyes in our present existence. mr. v. advances a strange doctrine when he says that "all _material_ beings are visible. absolutely invisible beings are _immaterial_ or bodiless." i take it that his assertion is equivalent to saying that all material things are visible; and that absolutely invisible things, like "invisible beings," are immaterial or bodiless. is that true? is the atmosphere visible? no. but it is material. "it is composed of atoms of matter whose weight is such that the pressure upon every square inch amounts to fifteen pounds; and upon the body of an ordinary-sized man some fourteen tons; but notwithstanding this, man could not construct a microscope sufficiently powerful to render these atoms visible."[a] what of the ether extending throughout the universe, in which millions of suns and their attendant planets move as motes in a sunbeam; is that visible? no; but it is material nevertheless. so with many things that, notwithstanding they are absolutely invisible, are material for all that, and have some of the qualities in common with grosser matter. we know but little of substances, as yet; less of their essence; but since there are many material substances absolutely invisible to us, is it unreasonable to believe that there are also beings consisting of substances more refined, pure and glorious than the material that is visible to our limited and imperfect vision?--beings invisible to us, unless our eyes be quickened by the power of god, yet material, and having form, and limitations and relations to other beings and things; and also possessed of many other qualities common to matter. in view of these facts, is not mr. van der donckt a little reckless, and too dogmatic, in stating the _datum_ from which he argues for the absolute invisibility of god, and hence also his supposed immateriality, or bodiless state? [footnote a: samuel kinns' "harmony of the bible and science," p. 338.] mr. van der donckt argues that angels and spirits are also bodiless or immaterial. was it a bodiless or immaterial angel that wrestled with jacob until the breaking of the day; and who, when he could not prevail against the patriarch, touched the sinew of his thigh that it forthwith shrank? (gen. 32:23-32). were they immaterial or bodiless angels who called at the tent-home of the patriarch abraham, on the plains of mamre, for whom sarah baked cakes, and abraham's servant prepared a roast of veal; and, when all things were made ready, the patriarch stood by, and the three heavenly personages--one of them is called "the lord"--"did eat" (gen. 18)--were they immaterial or bodiless? perhaps the reverend gentleman will say, however, that these cases, and a score of others of similar nature that might be quoted, are answered by his statement--made on the authority of some christian fathers and cardinal newman--that when angels "showed themselves to man they became visible [hence materialized, according to my friend's theory of visible and invisible beings] only through a body, or material garb assumed for the occasion!" for which theory, as whimsical as it is nonsensical, i venture to tell the reverend gentleman there is no warrant of divine authority; nothing but the assumptions and speculations of churchmen seeking to harmonize christian doctrine with the vain speculations of old pagan philosophers. i know nothing that equals this theory for absurdity, except it be the idea of epicurus, who, after affirming that the gods were of human form, explained--"yet that form is not body (i. e. material), but something _like_ body; nor does it contain any blood, but something _like_ blood!"[a] or may i say that mr. van der donckt's absurdity is really equalled by that of heracleitus, who taught that the sun was extinguished every evening and made new every morning? [footnote a: _tuscul. dispt._ cicero, p. 227 (younge's translation).] as for the rest of mr. v.'s theory of immateriality and invisibility of angels and spirits, i shall trust to what i have said on these subjects in dealing with the invisibility of god, to be a sufficient answer. of anthropomorphism and understanding the bible literally. i must say a word upon mr. v.'s remarks respecting the plain anthropomorphism of the bible, and the matter of understanding that sacred book literally. with reference to the first he says: all men after the example of the inspired writings, make frequent use of the figure called anthropomorphism, attributing to the deity a human body, human members, human passions, etc., and that is done, not to imply that god is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man. i would like to know upon what authority mr. v. adjudges the "inspired writings" not to imply that god is really possessed of form, limbs, passions, etc., after attributing them to him in the clearest manner. the "inspired writings" plainly and most forcibly attribute to deity a form like man's, with limbs, organs, etc., but the bible does not teach that this ascription of form, limbs, organs and passions to god, is unreal, and "simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man." on the contrary, the bible emphasizes the doctrine of anthropomorphism by declaring in its very first chapter that man was created in the image of god: "so god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him." the explanation is offered that it was necessary to attribute human form, members and passions, to god, in order to make spiritual things intelligible to man; _but what is the reason for ascribing the divine form to man,_ as in the passage just quoted? was that done to make human beings or certain truths more intelligible to god? or was it placed in the word of god because it is simply true? the truth that god in form is like man is further emphasized by the fact that jesus is declared to have been in "the express image" of the father's person (heb. 1:3); and until mr. v. or some other person of his school of thought, can prove very clearly that the word of god supports his theory of the unreality of the bible's description of form, organs, proportions, passions and feelings, to god and other heavenly beings, the truth that god in form is like man will stand secure on the foundation of the revelations it has pleased god to give of his own being and nature.[a] [footnote a: dean mansel administers a scathing reproof to the german philosophers kant and fichte (and also to professor jowett in his note xxii in lecture 1.) for what he calls "that morbid terror of what they are pleased to call anthropomorphism, which poisons the speculation of so many modern philosophers, when they attempt to be wise above what is written, and seek for a metaphysical exposition of god's nature and attributes." these philosophers, while holding in abhorrence the idea that god has a form such as man's--or any form whatsoever--parts, organs, affections, sympathies, passions or any attributes seen in man's spirit, are, nevertheless, under the necessity of representing god as conscious, as knowing, as determining; all of which, as pointed out by dean mansel in the passage which follows, are, after all, qualities of the human mind as well as attributes of deity; and hence the philosophers, after all their labor, have not escaped from anthropomorphism, but have merely represented deity to our consciousness, shorn of some of the higher qualities of the human mind, which god is represented in the scriptures as possessing in their perfection--such as love, mercy, justice. as orthodox christian ministers, both catholic and protestant alike, including mr. v., are afflicted with the same madness, i see no reason why the dean's reproof should not be made to apply to them, and hence quote the passage _in extenso_: "they may not forsooth, think of the unchangeable god as if he were their fellow man, influenced by human motives, and moved by human supplications. they want a truer, juster idea of the deity as he is, than that under which he has been pleased to reveal himself; and they call on their reason to furnish it. fools, to dream that man can escape from himself, that human reason can draw aught but a human portrait of god. they do but substitute a marred and mutilated humanity for one exalted and entire: they add nothing to their conception of god as he is, but only take away a part of their conception of man. sympathy, and love, and fatherly kindness, and forgiving mercy, have evaporated in the crucible of their philosophy; and what is the _caput mortuum_ that remains, but only the sterner features of humanity exhibited in repulsive nakedness? the god who listens to prayer, we are told, appears in the likeness of human mutability. be it so. what is the god who does not listen, but the likeness of human obstinacy? do we ascribe to him a fixed purpose? our conception of a purpose is human. do we speak of him as continuing unchanged? our conception of continuance is human. do we conceive him as knowing and determining? what are knowledge and determination but modes of human consciousness? and what know we of consciousness itself, but as the contrast between successive mental states? but our rational philosopher stops short in his reasoning. he strips off from humanity just so much as suits his purpose; 'and the residue thereof he maketh a god less pious in his idolatry than the carver of the graven image, in that he does not fall down unto it and pray unto it, but is content to stand off and reason concerning it. and why does he retain any conception of god at all, but that he retains some portions of an imperfect humanity? man is still the residue that is left; deprived indeed of all that is amiable in humanity, but in the darker features which remain, still man. man in his purposes; man in his inflexibility; man in that relation to time from which no philosophy, whatever its pretensions, can wholly free itself; pursuing with indomitable resolutions a preconceived design; deaf to the yearning instincts which compel his creatures to call upon him. yet this, forsooth, is a philosophical conception of the deity, more worthy of an enlightened reason than the human imagery of the psalmist: 'the eyes of the lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers.' surely downright idolatry is better than this rational worship of a fragment of humanity. better is the superstition which sees the image of god in the wonderful whole which god has fashioned, than the philosophy which would carve for itself a deity out of the remnant which man has mutilated. better to realize the satire of the eleatic philosopher, (xenophanes) to make god in the likeness of man, even as the ox or the horse might conceive gods in the form of oxen or horses, than to adorn some half-hewn hermes, the head of a man joined to a misshapen block. better to fall down before that marvelous compound of human consciousness whose elements god has joined together, and no man can put asunder, than to strip reason of those cognate elements which together furnish all that we can conceive or imagine of conscious or personal existence, and to deify the emptiest of all abstractions, a something or nothing, with just enough of its human original left to form a theme for the disputation of philosophy, but not enough to furnish a single ground of appeal to the human feelings of love, of reverence, and of fear. unmixed idolatry is more religious than this. undisguised atheism is more logical." (limits of religious thought, mansel, pp. 56-58). notwithstanding this passage, however, it should be remarked that dean mansel holds on the very next page of this treatise that there is a principle of truth of which this philosophy is the perversion. "surely," he remarks, "there is a sense in which we may not think of god as though he were a man; as there is also a sense in which we cannot help so thinking of him. * * * * * we feel that there is a true foundation for the system which denies human attributes to god; _though the superstructure, which has been raised upon it, logically involves the denial of his very existence_." the position of the dean, as is well known, is that such are the limitations of the human mind--such the limitations of religious thought, that man may not hope to understand the divine nature, but as an act of faith must accept what is revealed concerning that nature.] but the strangest part of the reverend gentleman's contention on the matter now in hand is that the latter-day saints understand the anthropomorphic expressions in the scriptures as he explains them; and cites our catechisms (chapter 5, question 9) in proof of it![a] i quote the reference given: [footnote a: this is a thing so astonishing for mr. van der donckt to say, that lest the reader should think i had misunderstood him. i place before him in this note mr. van der donckt's statement at length. "it is a well known fact that all men after the example of the inspired writings, make frequent use of the figure called anthropomorphism, attributing to the deity a human body, human members, human passions, etc.; and that is done, not to imply that god is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man, who, while he tarries in this world, can perceive things and even ideas only through his senses, or through bodily organs. "that even the latter-day saints thus understand such expressions is evident from their catechism (chapter 5: question 9), etc., etc."] 9. q. if god is a person, how can he be everywhere present? a. his person cannot be in more than one place at the same time, but he is everywhere present by his holy spirit. this is preceded by the following passages from the same book and chapter: 1. q. what kind of a being is god? a. he is in the form of a man. 2. q. how do you learn this? a. the scriptures declare that man was made in the image of god. * * * 3. q. have you any further proof of god's being in the form of a man? a. yes, jesus christ was in the form of a man, and was at the same time in the image of god's person. * * * 4. q. is it not said that god is a spirit? a. yes; the scriptures say so. (john 4:24.) * * * 5. q. how, then, can god be like man? a. man has a spirit, though clothed with a body, and god is similarly constituted. 6. q. has god a body then? a. yes; like unto man's body in figure. 7. q. is the person of god very glorious? a. yes; infinitely glorious. 8. q. is god everywhere present? a. yes; he is in all parts of the universe. then follows, of course, question nine and its answer, quoted above and by mr. v.; and yet the gentleman, in the very face of these explicit statements concerning the reality of god's form in our faith, would have it believed that the latter-day saints understand the expressions of scripture ascribing human forms, limbs and organs to god as he explains them--not to imply that god is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things more intelligible to man! this is a splendid illustration of mr. v.'s ability to misunderstand. mr. v. next takes up the subject of understanding the language of the bible literally. he says it is from anthropomorphic passages of the bible that the latter-day saints conclude that god has a body--such passages as speak of the face, hands feet and other limbs and organs of god. he holds these passages to be figurative. "i contend," he remarks, "that if we must understand the bible literally in those passages ('god created man in his own image') from which they attempt to prove that god has a body, we must interpret it literally in _other similar passages_."[a] i assent to that. it is well known that the language of the bible is highly figurative, almost extravagantly so in places, and much allowance must be made for the inclination to imagery of prophetic natures, which, like poetic temperaments, are given to imagery; and hyperbole is the vice of oriental speech. but mr. v. is not true to this canon of interpretation he lays down, _viz_., _the same rule of interpretation must be applied to passages that are similar in character_. after laying down this principle of interpretation, he proceeds to depart from it by placing for comparison very _dissimilar passages_. what similarity is there, for example, in the plain, matter of fact statement, "god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him;" and the passage he quotes from psalms: "if i take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost part of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me"? and this also: "whither shall i flee from thy face. if i ascend into heaven, thou art there; if i descend into hell thou art there?" has not the reverend gentleman placed for comparison here the most dissimilar passages that perhaps could be found in the whole bible? yet he insists that the prosy passage from genesis must be regarded as equally figurative with david's poetry, and insists that if "mormons" believe literally that god made man in his own image and likeness, or that moses and seventy elders saw the god of israel, as plainly declared by moses, then "they must believe that god had such a very long hand as to extend to the uttermost parts of the sea;" and "such an extremely long face, reaching from heaven to hell;" and "conclude that david had wings!" further remarks on this head are not necessary. one is under no obligation to seriously discuss nonsense. [footnote a: italics are mine--r.] of the incarnation or the son or god. another case of misapprehension of "mormon" ideas will be found in what mr. van der donckt says with reference to the latter-day saints' sacred books not teaching the christian truth of the incarnation of deity in the person of jesus christ. the sacred books of the latter-day saints may not contain the verbiage of so-called christian literature on the subject; but if full recognition of the fact that jesus was in the beginning with the father--was the "word," and, moreover, the "word" that "was god," and afterwards was made flesh and dwelt among men--is to believe in the incarnation of the son of god, then the sacred books of the latter-day saints teach this doctrine, for over and over again in our sacred books will passages to that effect be found (especially section 93 of the doctrine and covenants). moreover, the reverend gentleman should remember that "mormons" include among their sacred books the holy bible, and all the doctrine of incarnation taught in that book is our doctrine. i think the main difference between the latter-day saints and "christians" on the subject of incarnation, is that the latter-day saints believe that incarnation does not stop with the lord jesus christ. our sacred books teach that not only was jesus christ in the beginning with god, but that the spirits of all men were also with him in the beginning, and that these sons of god, as well as the lord jesus christ, became incarnated in bodies of flesh and bone (doctrine and covenants, section 93). but mr. v. thinks he discovers in this doctrine of incarnation a proof that "god has not a body and therefore is not an exalted man," "it is plain," says he, "that the son of god became flesh only at the time of his sojourn on earth. now had he been flesh or man before, as the 'mormons' hold, how could he become what he was already from all eternity?" this is another instance of mr. v.'s misapprehension of what "mormons" teach. we nowhere teach that jesus christ, the son of god, was flesh and bone from all eternity. when seeking to make "mormonism" appear inconsistent with itself, the reverend gentleman is in duty bound to keep in mind our whole doctrine on any particular subject he is treating. he should remember that our theology holds that the father, son and holy ghost are distinct and separate personages, in the sense that they are three distinct individuals; and that the father is a personage of flesh and bone, as jesus now is; but previous to messiah's birth into the world, he was a spirit, the first born of the hosts of the spirits in heaven, and was with the father in the beginning of the creation of our earth and its heavens. indeed, under the direction of the father, he was the creator of them (heb. 1:3; col. 15:17; john 1:3); but he came to the earth to receive a tabernacle, that in all things he might become as his father is--a divine spirit inseparably united to a sacred and glorified body--one glorious spiritual personage. as much of mr. v.'s argument on this head is built on a misapprehension of our doctrine, it will not be necessary for me to follow him through the interminable windings of his argument with reference to it. "there is never a proper ending to reasoning which proceeds on a false foundation" (cicero). mr. v. next brings as proof against god's being an exalted man, what he calls the direct statement of the bible, that god is not man: "god is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should be changed" (numbers 23:19). "i am god and not man" (psalm). these passages simply present the contrast between man as he is now, and with all his imperfections on his head, and god. the latter-day saints do not teach that man in his present state and condition is god; on the contrary, they hold that there is a very, very wide difference between them, all the difference indicated by the bible: but they do believe that through the eternities that will pass over man's head, and with god for guide and teacher, he may become as his father in heaven is, and that such is his destiny.[a] it follows that when man shall attain to that destiny, the contrast now so striking between man and god will not exist. the contrast noted in the scriptures by mr. v. is not between _perfected_ men and god, but between very imperfect men--men who lie, and are changeable--and god; and since the latter-day saints do not hold that man while imperfect is god, or like god, or god like him, the argument of the gentleman, based on the passages quoted, is of no force. it could be said of some grandly developed, noble, high-minded man, such as a gladstone, a bismarck, or a washington: he is not a child that he should halt in reason, or falter in action, or be frightened by phantoms of the dark. but such a contrast does not include the idea that the child may not change his status, and finally become all that the great man is with whom he is now contrasted. clearly, the contrast is one of conditions, more than of natures, and at its very highest value is the contrast between a perfected nature and one not yet perfected. [footnote a: in a discourse in which much of the "mormon" doctrine concerning the deity is unfolded by the prophet joseph smith--the king follett discourse (see chapter 5)--in a passage dealing with the time in which man may attain to some of the contemplated exaltations in the future, he remarks: "when you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel--you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. _but it will be a great while after you have passed through the vail [of death] before you will have learned them. it is not all to be comprehended in this world: it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation, even beyond the grave_."] the same answer applies to the reverend gentleman's contention based on the passage, "thou art always the selfsame;" "i am the lord and change not;" "the father of lights, with whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration." these passages teach what the reverend gentleman calls the "immutability of god," which he holds to preclude the idea that god rose from a state of imperfection to that of perfection--since he is always the "selfsame." before answering at length, i couple with this mr. van der donckt's final argument on this division of the subject--the scriptural evidences and arguments on the form and nature of god--namely, "the latter day saints' theory of the man-god supposes a past and present with god. the bible excludes that succession of time," says the reverend gentleman, "and speaks of god as the everlasting present; 'i am who am,' 'from eternity to eternity thou art god.'" against this argument, based upon god's reputed unchangeableness, and being always as he now is, from all eternity to eternity, i wish to say, first, that the _god-nature_ is doubtless always the same, without reference to those who may attain unto it; and speaking of the god-nature, it is always the "selfsame," from eternity to eternity; but after that statement, against the reverend gentleman's argument bottomed on god's immutability and eternity--and, in fact, against all his arguments, from first to last, respecting the form and nature of god, i place jesus of nazareth, the messiah, the revelation of god to man, i place him as my premises, and my argument against all the reverend gentleman has said, or can say, on this division of the subject. i call attention to the fact that neither in my discourse which brought forth mr. van der donckt's reply nor in this rejoinder, have i turned to those numerous passages of the bible that speak of the face, limbs or organs of god. not that i mistrust the force of those passages as evidence, but because i have thought it unnecessary to appeal to them, so long as i had in jesus, the messiah, a full length and complete representation of god, not only as to the _reality_ of his being, but as to the _kind_ of being god is. and now i ask, as i did in my discourse, _is jesus god_? is he a manifestation of god--a revelation of him? if so, there must be in him an end of controversy; for whatever jesus christ was and is god must be, or jesus christ is no manifestation, no revelation of god. is jesus christ in form like man? is he possessed of a body of flesh and bone which is eternally united to him--and now an integral part of him? does he possess body, parts and passions? there can be but one answer to all these questions, and that is, "yes; he possessed and now possesses all these things." then god also possesses them; for even according to both catholic and orthodox protestant christian doctrine, jesus christ was and is god, and the complete manifestation and revelation of god the father. also the specific points of argument based upon god's unchangeability, and there being no succession of time with god--that, too, is answered in the person and experience of jesus christ. according to catholic teaching, jesus was a spirit, identical with god the father in substance, before he became man; but at a certain time he became man, was not that a change? by it, he became something he was not before. his humanity, according to their teaching, was _added_ to the son of god when he received his tabernacle of flesh and bone; and he was certainly changed from an unembodied state to an embodied one; and there was a "before and after"--in reference to this great event, in the god jesus' experience. is it thinkable that this change was a deterioration? was the son of god's divinity debased to the human, or was so much of humanity as he took on raised to the divine nature, and henceforth made an integral part of it? the orthodox doctrine of christianity is--catholic and protestant alike--that jesus christ is god; that he always was and is god, according to both orthodox theology and christian philosophy. yet it is said of this jesus that he "_increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with god and man_" (luke 2:52). here is certainly a change in condition; here is succession of time with god--a before and after; here is being and becoming; for whereas, he was a spirit, he became man; and in becoming man, he passed through all the phases in life from infancy to manhood. it is significant also that it was not until jesus had arisen from the tomb and stood in the presence of his disciples, a glorified personage, body and spirit united, that he exclaimed, "_all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth_." if "_given_," there must have been a time when he did not possess all power in heaven and in earth; and hence, a change from possessing some power to the condition of possessing "all power," a fullness of power--"for it pleased the father that in him should all fullness dwell" (col. 1:19). but more of this when i come to deal with mr. van der donckt's philosophical proofs on the subject, i shall close this part of my rejoinder with the following summary of the facts maintained thus far in my argument: _first:_--while the scriptures declare that god is a spirit, it does not follow that he is necessarily an unembodied spirit; on the contrary, it is clear that he is an embodied spirit; for jesus christ is god, and he, we know, is a spirit and body united; and he is said to be the express image of his father's person; therefore, the father of jesus christ, or god the father, must be just what jesus is--a spirit embodied in a tabernacle of flesh and bone. _second:_--although the bible says that god is a spirit, and speaks of angels as spirits also, and points out some differences between the nature of men and spirits, it does not follow that spirits are immaterial beings, and therefore without form. on the contrary, the evidence of scripture is to the effect that angels are very substantial personages. one wrestled bodily with jacob and lamed him; while three others "did eat" of the substantial meal provided by abraham; and there are many other proofs of angels being substantial, material personages. _third:_--it is an assumption absolutely unwarranted by authority of the word of god to say that when spirits, or angels, or jesus--before his incarnation--showed themselves to men, they merely assumed the material garb for the occasion. _fourth:_--although the bible in sundry passages speaks of god the father as "invisible," it does not follow that he is absolutely so, nor invisible from the nature of his being; on the contrary, it is clear from what has been set forth that under certain special conditions, god the father as well as jesus--before his incarnation--and certain angels, have been seen; and hence, the invisibility of god the father, arises from his being invisible to men in their normal condition, unquickened by, and unclothed with, the power of god. _fifth:_--the doctrine that all absolutely invisible beings are immaterial is simply untrue, being contradicted by the fact that a number of absolutely invisible things are known to be material, and yet possess some of the properties of grosser matter; and it is reasonable to believe that the same truth holds as to spiritual beings. _sixth:_--the bible distinctly ascribes to god and angels the form, limbs, organs, feelings and passions of men; and the bible nowhere leads us to believe that this ascription of bodily form and organs and passions to god is simply to "make spiritual things, or certain truths more intelligible to man;" nor does it follow because _some_ passages of the bible are figurative, and hence not to be taken literally, that _all_ the passages ascribing human form, organs and feelings to god are figurative, and hence not to be taken literally. it is only when anthropomorphic passages and expressions are similarly used as other clearly figurative passages and expressions are, that they are to be adjudged as figurative and _not_ to be taken literally. _seventh:_--and lastly, beside all premises and arguments to the effect that god is an unembodied spirit, without form, without limbs, organs, features, human feelings, or passions, such as love, compassion, pity, etc., etc,--beside all this, i place the lord jesus, the image of god the father's person, the full length representation and revelation of god to men, as an all sufficient answer, and say that whatsoever jesus christ was and is, so, too, has been and is god, the father; for such is the teaching of holy scripture. ii. mr. van der donckt's "philosophical proofs" of the form and nature of god. mr. van der donckt, at the beginning of his argument under his "philosophical proofs of god's simplicity or spirituality," again exhibits the fact that he misapprehends the doctrines of the latter-day saints. he says: "the latter-day saints believe that god created the souls of men long before their conception." that is not the belief of the latter-day saints; and his misapprehension of what their doctrine is relative to man and god leads the gentleman to make statements, and indulge in lines of argumentation he would not have followed had he apprehended aright the teachings of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. since his philosophical argument has proceeded from a wrong basis, it becomes necessary to state what the "mormon" doctrine is relative to the subject in hand, and then consider so much of his argument as may apply to the facts. latter-day saints believe that the "soul of man" consists of both his spirit and his body united. "the spirit and the body is the soul of man; and the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul" (doc. and cov. sec. 88:15, 16). this, i am aware, is not the usually accepted sense of the word "soul;" for it generally stands for what is regarded as the incorporeal nature of man, or the principle of mental and spiritual life of him. it is used variously in the scriptures. in one place, the savior uses it in contrast with the body: "fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (matt. 10:28). but the word as used in the passage above quoted from the doctrine and covenants also has warrant of scriptural authority: "and the lord god formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (gen. 2:7). here body and "breath of life," the spirit, constitute the soul of man. of course, mr. van der donckt uses the phrase "souls of men" as we perhaps would use the phrase "spirits of men," and evidently makes reference to our doctrine of the pre-existence of spirits, that is, the doctrine of the actual existence of the spirits of men long ages before they tabernacled in the flesh, when he says: "the latter-day saints believe that god creates the souls of men long before their conception." but again explanation is necessary, as that statement does not quite meet our belief. our doctrine is that "intelligences are begotten spirits," which spirits are in form like men, and are really, substance, that is, matter, but of a more subtle and finer nature than the matter composing man's tabernacle of flesh and bone.[a] christians believe that "the word," that is, jesus christ, was in the beginning with god; and not only that "the word" was with god, but also that "the word was god" (john 1:1, 2), latter-day saints not only believe jesus was in the beginning with god, but it is their doctrine that man was "also in the beginning with the father, that which is spirit" (doc. and cov. sec. 93:23). and again: "man was also in the beginning with god. intelligence, or the light of truth _was not created or made, neither indeed can be._ * * * * every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation _for man is spirit_. the elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy. the elements are the tabernacle of god; yea man is the tabernacle of god, even temples" (doc and cov. sec. 93:29, 32-35). the point to be observed is that intelligences--whence the spirits of men--are not created or made, nor indeed can they be, for they are eternal--eternal as god the father, and god the son are. "the mind of man--the immortal spirit--where did it come from?" asks the prophet joseph smith, in a discourse delivered at nauvoo;[b] and then answers: [footnote a: the prophet joseph teaches that "all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure [than the gross matter tangible to our senses] and can only be discerned by purer eyes. we cannot see it, but when our bodies are purified, we shall see that it is all matter." (doc. and cov. sec 137.)] [footnote b: april 7th, 1844, mill. star, vol. xxiii p. 245, et seq.] all learned men, and doctors of divinity, say that god created it in the beginning; but it is not so; the very idea lessens man in my estimation. i do not believe the doctrine. i know better. hear it, all ye ends of the world, for god has told me so. if you don't believe me it will not make the truth without effect. * * * * we say that god himself is a self-existent being. who told you so? it is correct enough, but who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principle? god made a tabernacle and put his [man's] spirit into it, and it became a living soul. how does it read in hebrew? it does not say in hebrew that god created the spirit of man. it says, "god made man out of earth and put in him adam's spirit, and so became a living body." the mind, or the intelligence which man possesses is co-eternal with god himself. * * * * * i am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? the intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. that is good logic. that which has a beginning may have an end. there never was a time when there were not spirits, for they are co-eternal with our father in heaven. i want to reason more on the spirit of man; for i am dwelling on the body and spirit of man--on the subject of the dead. i take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man--the immortal part, because it has no beginning. suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. so with the spirit of man. as the lord liveth, if it has a beginning it will have an end. all the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end: and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. but if i am right, i might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that god never had the power to create the spirit of man at all, god himself could not create himself. intelligence is eternal, and exists upon a self-existent principle. it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. * * * * the spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. anything created cannot be eternal: and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity. mr. van der donckt will recognize quite a difference between the doctrine here stated as to the spirits of men, and the one he states for us when he says, "latter-day saints believe that god creates the souls of men long before their conception." there is that in man, according to our doctrine, which is not created at all; there is in him an "ego"--a "spirit" uncreated, never made, a self-existent entity, eternal as god himself; and of the same kind of substance or essence with him, and, indeed, part of him, when god is conceived of in the generic sense. with the doctrine of "mormonism" relative to man and god thus stated, the question is, what part of mr. van der donckt's philosophical argument touches it? mr. van der donckt, it must be remembered, bases his philosophical argument upon the absolute "simplicity or spirituality" of god. "i am who am," is the definition of god about which circle all his arguments. god is "the necessary being," is his contention; infinite, illimitable; not limited by his own essence, by another, or by himself. from which i understand him to mean, after the philosophers of his school, that god, the very essence of him, is pure being-"actual being or existence" are his own words. (page 53). this his premise; and the part of his argument which affects our doctrine is the following: if god were an aggregation of parts, these parts would be either necessary beings or contingent (that do not necessarily exist), or some would be necessary and some contingent. none of these suppositions are tenable, therefore god is not an aggregate of parts. * * * * if the parts of god were necessary beings, there would be several independent beings, which the infinity of god precludes. god would not be infinite, if there were even one other being independent of him, as his power, etc., would not reach that being. the infinite being is most simple, or not compound. were he compound, his parts would be either all finite, or all infinite, or one infinite and the others finite. none of these suppositions are possible, therefore he is not compound. several finite things cannot produce an infinite or an illimitable, as there would always be a first and last. many infinite beings are inconceivable, for, if there were several they would have to differ from each other by some perfection. now, from the moment one would have a perfection the other one lacks, the latter would not be infinite. therefore, god cannot be a compound of infinite parts. if one is infinite, nothing can be added to it. finite parts could not belong to the infinite essence, else they would communicate their limitations to god. therefore, the infinite being is not composite, but simple or spiritual. therefore he is not, nor ever was, a man, who is a composite being. of mr. van der donckt's premise. i have to do first of all with mr. van der donckt's premise--"the simplicity or spirituality" of god. so far as it is possible to make language do it, the gentleman teaches that god is "pure being," "most [therefore absolutely] simple--not compound." he is not only infinite, then, but infinity. it follows that he is without quality, other than being--mere existence--"i am who am;" without attributes; not susceptible of division, or of relation; for if he possessed quality or attribute or was susceptible of division or of relation, his absolute simplicity--that tremulously precarious thing on which, according to mr. v.'s philosophy, his very existence and all his excellence depends--would be destroyed. it was doubtless these considerations that led the church of england--which, by the way, is at one with the roman catholic church in the doctrine of god--to say of the "one true and living god," that he is _without body, parts or passions_.[a] with which also the westminster confession of faith agrees, by saying: "there is but one only living and true god, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, _without body, parts or passions_, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible," etc.[b] [footnote a: bk. com. prayer, articles of religion, art. 1.] [footnote b: westminster confession, art. 2, sec. 1.] the german school of philosophy of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which ends in inevitable agnosticism, went but one step further than these creeds; a step made inevitable by the creeds themselves. the creeds postulate god as "pure being"--"existence" "the one who could not _not_ exist," mr. v.'s interpretation of "i am who am." but "existence," says fichte, "implies origin," and "god is beyond origin"--i. e. beyond "being," "existence." schelling reached substantially the same conclusion when, by a pathway but little divergent from that followed by fichte, he was led to regard god as neither "real or ideal;" "neither thought nor being." while hegel, by similar subtleties, established the identity of "being and non-being." this german philosophy, which but extends the philosophy of the orthodox creeds to its legitimate conclusion, leaves us with the paradox on our hands of regarding god at once as the most real existence, and as the most absolute non-existence. the conclusions from the premise are just; and mr. v.'s "most simple," "infinite being," he who is "pure existence itself," vanishes amid the metaphysical subtleties of the learned germans.[a] [footnote a: "existence itself, that so-called highest category of thought, is only conceivable in the form of existence modified in some particular manner. strip off its modification, and the apparent paradox of the german philosopher becomes literally true;--_pure being is pure nothing_. we have no conception of existence which is not existence in some particular manner; and if we abstract from the manner, we have nothing left to constitute the existence. those who, in their horror of what they call anthropomorphism, or anthropopathy, refuse to represent the deity under symbols borrowed from the limitations of human consciousness, are bound in consistency, to deny that god exists; for the conception of existence is as human and as limited as any other" (limits of religious thought, mansel, pp. 95, 96).] let us examine the effect of this deity-destroying postulate in england. mr. van der donckt's "infinite being," "most simple or not compound," is identical with the "absolute," the "unconditioned;" the "first cause," hence the "uncaused." these terms, it is well known, mr. herbert spencer seized upon, in his volume on "first principles," and ran them down to logical absurdity, showing them to be "unthinkable," and that ultimate religious ideas (arising from the postulates of orthodox creeds) lead to the "unknown!" in reaching this conclusion he was wonderfully helped by henry l. mansel, some time dean of st. paul's, who in his celebrated bampton lecture arrives at substantially the same conclusion--with an exception to be noted later.[a] indeed, so nearly at one are the churchman and the philosopher, in their methods of thought, in their deductions, that the latter reaches his conclusions from the data and reasoning of the former, whom he quotes with approval and at great length. i select from these writers a few typical passages tending to show the absurdity of god's "simplicity," or "spirituality," as held by mr. van der donckt, reminding the reader that mr. v.'s "infinite being," "most simple or not compound," is identical with the "absolute," "unconditioned," the "first cause," the "uncaused" of both mr. mansel and mr. spencer. [footnote a: page 109.] mr. spencer, after showing that the first cause cannot be finite, nor dependent, reaches the conclusion that it must be infinite and independent; and then proceeds: but to think of the first cause as totally independent is to think of it as that which existed in the absence of all other existence; seeing that if the presence of any other existence is necessary, it must be partially dependent on that other existence, and so cannot be the first cause. not only, however, must the first cause be a form of being which has no necessary relation to any other form of being, but it can have no necessary relation within itself. there can be nothing in it which determines change, and yet nothing which prevents change. for if it contains something which imposes such necessities or restraints, this something must be a cause higher than the first cause, which is absurd. thus the first cause must be in every sense perfect, complete, total; including within itself all power, and transcending all law. or to use the established word, it must be absolute.[a] [footnote a: first principles (spencer) pp. 29, 30; 1896 edition, d. appleton & co., n. y.] thus far the philosopher; and even mr. van der donckt, i think, could not complain that he has not stated the "simplicity" of the first cause most clearly. but at this point the philosopher, mr. spencer, introduces the churchman, dean mansel, to abolish the structure of the "first cause," the "simple" or "spiritual being," or "god," as held by mr. v. and all orthodox christians. i quote mr. mansel: but these three conceptions--the cause, the absolute, the infinite--all equally indispensable, do they not imply contradiction to each other, when viewed in conjunction, as attributes of one and the same being? a cause cannot, as such, be absolute: _the absolute cannot as such be a cause_. the cause, as such, exists only in relation to its effect; the effect is an effect of the cause. on the other hand, the conception of the absolute implies a possible existence out of all relation. we attempt to escape from this apparent contradiction by introducing the idea of succession in time. the absolute exists first by itself, and afterwards becomes a cause. but here we are checked by the third conception, that of the infinite. how can the infinite become that which it was not from the first? if causation is a possible mode of existence, that which exists without causing is not infinite; that which becomes a cause has passed beyond its former limits. * * supposing the absolute to be a cause, it will follow that it operates by means of free will and consciousness. for a necessary cause cannot be conceived as absolute and infinite. if necessitated by something beyond itself, it is thereby limited by a superior power: and if necessitated by itself, it has in its own nature a necessary relation to its effect. the act of causation must therefore be voluntary, and volition is only possible in a conscious being. but consciousness again is only conceivable as a relation. there must be a conscious subject and an object of which he is conscious. the subject is a subject to the object; the object is an object to the subject; and neither can exist by itself as the absolute. this difficulty, again, may be for the moment evaded, by distinguishing between the absolute as related to another and the absolute as related to itself. the absolute, it may be said, may possibly be conscious provided it is only conscious of itself. but this alternative is, in ultimate analysis, no less self-destructive than the other. for the object of consciousness, whether a mode of the subject's existence or not, is either created in and by the act of consciousness, or has an existence independent of it. in the former case the object depends upon the subject, and the subject alone is the true absolute. in the latter case, the subject depends upon the object, and the object alone is the true absolute. or, if we attempt a third hypothesis, and maintain that each exists independently of the other, we have no absolute at all, but only a pair of relatives; for coexistence, whether in consciousness or not, is itself a relation. the corollary from this reasoning is obvious. not only is the absolute, as conceived, incapable of a necessary relation to anything else, but it is also incapable of containing, by the constitution of its own nature, an essential relation within itself; as a whole, for instance composed of parts, or as a substance consisting of attributes, or as a conscious subject in antithesis to an object. for, if there is in the absolute any principle of unity, distinct from the mere accumulation of parts or attributes, this principle alone is the true absolute. if, on the other hand, there is no such principle, then there is no absolute at all, but only a plurality of relatives. the almost unanimous voice of philosophy, in pronouncing that the absolute is both one and simple, must be accepted as the voice of reason also, as far as reason has any voice in the matter. but this absolute unity, as indifferent and containing no attributes, can neither be distinguished from the multiplicity of finite beings by any characteristic feature, nor be identified with them in their multiplicity. thus we are landed in an inextricable dilemma. the absolute cannot be conceived as conscious, neither can it be conceived as unconscious: it cannot be conceived as complex, neither can it be conceived as simple; it cannot be conceived by difference, neither can it be conceived by the absence of difference: it cannot be identified with the universe, neither can it be distinguished from it. the one and the many, regarded as the beginning of existence, are thus alike incomprehensible. let us, however, suppose, for an instance, that these difficulties are surmounted, and the existence of the absolute securely established on the testimony of reason. still we have not succeeded in reconciling this idea with that of a cause: we have done nothing towards explaining how the absolute can give rise to the relative--the infinite to the finite. if the condition of causal activity is a higher state than that of quiescence, the absolute, whether acting voluntarily or involuntarily, has passed from a condition of comparative imperfection to one of comparative perfection; and, therefore, was not originally perfect. if the state of activity is an inferior state to that of quiescence, the absolute, in becoming a cause, has lost its original perfection. there remains only the supposition that the two states are equal, and the act of creation one of complete indifference. but this supposition annihilates the unity of the absolute, or it annihilates itself. if the act of creation is real, and yet indifferent, we must admit the possibility of two conceptions of the absolute--the one as productive, the other as non-productive. if the act is not real, the supposition itself vanishes. * * * again, how can the relative be conceived as coming into being? if it is a distinct reality from the absolute, it must be conceived as passing from non-existence into existence. but to conceive an object as non-existent is again a self-contradiction; for that which is conceived exists, as an object of thought, in and by that conception. we may abstain from thinking of an object at all; but, if we think of it, we cannot but think of it as existing. it is possible at one time not to think of an object at all, and at another to think of it as already in being; but to think of it in the act of becoming, in the progress from not being into being, is to think that which, in the very thought, annihilates itself. * * * to sum up briefly this portion of my argument: the conception of the absolute and the infinite, from whatever side we view it, appears encompassed with contradictions. there is a contradiction in supposing such an object to exist, whether alone or in conjunction with others; and there is a contradiction in supposing it not to exist. there is a contradiction in conceiving it as one; and there is a contradiction in conceiving it as many. there is a contradiction in conceiving it as personal; and there is a contradiction in conceiving it as impersonal. it cannot, without contradiction, be represented as active, nor, without equal contradiction, be represented as inactive. it cannot be conceived as the sum of all existence; nor yet can it be conceived as a part only of that sum.[a] [footnote a: first principles (spencer) pp. 40-44. limits of religions thoughts, lecture ii, first american edition, 1875.] after thus running to absurdity the prevalent conceptions of the "infinite," the "absolute," the "uncaused," mr. v.'s "most simple or not compound" "being," the churchman does what all orthodox christians do, he commits a violence against all human understanding and good sense--he arbitrarily declares, in the face of his own inexorable logic and its inevitable deductions, that, "_it is our duty to think of god as personal; and it is our duty to believe that he is infinite_;" that is, it is our duty to think of the infinite as at once limited and unlimited; as finite and infinite--"which," to use a phrase dear to mr. van der donckt, "is absurd," and therefore not to be entertained. at this point, the philosopher and the churchman reach the parting of the ways, and this is the exception, in the conclusion of the two, noted a few pages back.[a] [footnote a: page 105.] some do indeed allege [says mr. spencer] that though the ultimate cause of things cannot really be thought of by us as having specified attributes, it is yet incumbent upon us to assert these attributes. though the forms of our consciousness are such that the absolute cannot, in any manner or degree, be brought within them, we are nevertheless told that we must represent the absolute to ourselves under these forms! * * * that this is not the conclusion here adopted, needs hardly be said. if there be any meaning in the foregoing arguments, duty requires us neither to affirm nor deny personality. our duty is to submit ourselves with all humility to the established limits of our intelligence, and not perversely to rebel against them. let those who can, believe there is eternal war between our intellectual faculties and our moral obligations. i, for one, admit no such radical vice in the constitution of things.[a] [footnote a: first principles, p. 110.] yet mr. mansel, in the inconsistent and illogical course he pursues, is not more inconsistent, illogical, and unphilosophical than all orthodox christians. the postulates of their creeds concerning the nature of god leads them to affirm what they call his "spirituality," "infinite being," "simplicity," etc. (which are but the equivalents of the philosopher's "absolute," "infinite," and the "uncaused"); and yet the necessities of their faith in revelation make it imperative that they regard him as existing in some relation to the universe and to man, which destroys his alleged "simplicity." to ascribe to him attributes is to destroy that simplicity[a] which orthodox creeds affirm, and for which mr. van der donckt so stoutly argues. nor does it help matters when it is said that these attributes are existences--the attitude of mr. v., for he says: "every perfection [goodness, mercy, justice, etc.--attributes of god] is some existence, something that is." if this be granted, then it follows that god must be the sum of all these existences, therefore a compound, not "simple." and not only does orthodox belief in revelation compel those who follow it to concede the existence of attributes in god, but personality also. but if god be conceived as a personality, his "simplicity" or "spirituality," as held by mr. v., vanishes, because, when recognized as personality, god is no longer "being"--but _a_ being. [footnote a: "the rational conception of god is that _he is_, nothing more. to give him an attribute is to make him a relative god. * * * we cannot attribute to him any quality, for qualities are inconceivable apart from matter." "_origin and development of religious beliefs--christianity_."--(s. baring-gould, p. 112.) it was held by well nigh the whole medieval school of theologians that god was unknowable because "the absolute simplicity of the divine essence was incompatible with the existence of distinctions therein." (see art. "theism," _ency. brit._, and the references there given.)] mr. van der donckt himself says: "something is limited, not because it _is_ [i. e. exists]: but because it is _this or that_; for instance, a stone, a plant, a man"--_or a person_, i suggest. for if god has personality, he is a person, a some-thing, and hence limited, according to mr. v.'s philosophy; if limited, as he must be when conceived of as _this or that_, as a person, for instance, then of course not infinite being; and thus my friend's doctrine of god's "simplicity" is destroyed the moment he ascribes personality to deity. nor does the difficulties of mr. van der donckt and all orthodox christians end here. not only does revelation as they view it demand belief in the personality of god, but it demands the belief that in god are _three persons_--the father, the son and the holy ghost. this further complicates the matter, and removes orthodox christians still further from the postulate of "simplicity" they affirm of god; for if there are three persons in god, by no intellectual contortions whatsoever can this conception of "three" be harmonized with the orthodox christian postulate of god's "simplicity." for the son, if he exists at all, must exist in virtue of some distinction from the father; so also the holy ghost must exist in virtue of some distinction from both the father and the son. each must have something distinct from the other; must be what the other is not, in some particular;* and if each one has something the other has not, and each lacks something which the other has, how can it be said that each of these persons is god, and each infinite as he must be in order to be god, under mr. v.'s doctrine? [footnote a: "distinction is necessarily limitation; for, if one object is to be distinguished from another, it must possess some form of existence which the other has not, or it must not possess some form which the other has." dean mansel, "limits of religious thoughts."] if the three be conceived as one god--yet each with that about him which distinguishes him from the other--how can god be regarded as "simple," "not compound?" the orthodox creeds of christendom, moreover, require us to believe that while the father is a person, the son a person, and the holy ghost a person, yet there are not three persons, but one person. so with each being eternal and almighty. so with each being god: "the father is god, the son is god, the holy ghost is god: and yet there are not three gods but one god"[a] no wonder the whole conception is given up as "incomprehensible." "their mode of subsistence [i. e., the subsistence of the three persons] in the one substance," says the _commentary on the confession of faith_, "_must ever continue to us a profound mystery, as it transcends all analogy_."[b] so the douay catechism (catholic), ch. i: [footnote a: see the creed of st. athanasius, a copy is published in the history of the church, vol. i, introduction, p. 87.] [footnote b: this commentary is by rev. a. a. hodges, d.d., ll.d., p. 58.] q. in what do faith and law of christ consist? a. in two principal _mysteries_, namely, _the unity and trinity of god_, and the incarnation and death of our savior. "to think that god _is_, as we _think_ him to be, is blasphemy," is the lofty assertion behind which some of the orthodox hide when hard pressed with the inconsistency of their creed; and if i mistake not, "a god understood is a god dethroned," has long been an aphorism of the church of which mr. van der donckt is a priest. but what is the sum of my argument thus far on mr. van der donckt's premise of god's absolute "simplicity" or "spirituality?" only this: first, his premise is proven to be unphilosophical and untenable, when coupled with his creed, which ascribes qualities, attributes and personality to god. either the gentleman must cease to think of god as "infinite being," "most simple," "not compound," or he must surrender the god of his creed, who is represented by it to be three persons in one substance; and, moreover, persons possessed of attributes and qualities which bring god into relations with men and the universe, a mode of being which destroys "simplicity." either one or the other of these beliefs must be given up; they cannot consistently be held simultaneously, as they destroy each other. if mr. v. holds to the god of his creed, what becomes of all his "philosophy?" if he holds to his "philosophy," what becomes of the god of his creed. second, as affecting this discussion, the matter at this point stands thus: since the gentleman's premise of god's absolute simplicity is proved to be illogical and unphilosophical, it affords no sound basis of argument against the latter-day saints' views of deity, wherein they hold him to be something different from absolute "being"--more than a mere, and, i may say, bare and barren "existence," a metaphysical abstraction. mr. v.'s premise of absolute simplicity affords no consistent basis of argument against our view that god is a person in the sense of being an individual, in form like man, and possessed of attributes which bring him within the nearest and dearest relations to men that it is possible to conceive. of the doctrine of god's "simplicity" being of pagan rather than of christian origin. the next step in my argument is to prove that this doctrine of god being "most simple," "not compound," "pure being"--without body (i. e., not material), parts or passions--hence, without attributes, is not a doctrine of the christian scriptures, but comes from the old pagan philosophies. clearly the data for this doctrine of god's absolute "simplicity" did not come from the old testament, for that teaches the plainest anthropomorphic ideas respecting god. it ascribes to him a human form, and many qualities and attributes possessed by man, which, in the minds of philosophers of mr. v.'s school, limit him who must be, to their thinking, without any limit whatsoever; and ascribes relativity to him who must not be relative but absolute. the data for the doctrine of god's absolute "simplicity"--contended for by mr. v.--does not come from the new testament, for the writers of that volume of scripture accept the doctrine of the old testament respecting god, and even emphasize its anthropomorphic ideas, by representing that the man christ jesus was in the "express image" of god, the father's, person; was, in fact, god manifest in the flesh (i tim. 3:16); "the image of the invisible god" (col. 1:5); "god, the word, who was made flesh, and dwelt among men, who beheld his glory" (st. john 1:1-14). hence mr. van der donckt's doctrine of god's "simplicity" cannot claim the warrant of new testament authority. plato, in his _timaeus_, (jowett's translation, page 530,) incidentally referring to god, in connection with the creation of the universe, says: we say indeed that "he was," "he is," "he will be;" but the truth is that "_he is_" alone truly expresses him, and that "was" and "will be" are only to be spoken of generation in time. here, then, is mr. v.'s "pure being," "most simple," "not compound." again: we must acknowledge that there is one kind of being which is always the same, uncreated and indestructible, never receiving anything into itself from without, nor itself giving out to any other, but invisible and imperceptible by any sense, and of which the sight is granted to intelligence only (ibid. p. 454). here mr. v. may find his god, "who cannot change with regard to his existence, nor with regard to his mode of existence." also his god who can only be seen with the "soul's intellectual perception, elevated by a supernatural influx from god." dr. mosheim, in his account of plato's idea of god, says: "he considered the deity, to whom he gave the supreme governance of the universe, as a being of the highest wisdom and power, and _totally unconnected with any material substance_."[a] [footnote a: mosheim's "historical commentaries on the state of christianity, during the first three hundred years", vol. 1. p. 37.] to the same effect, also, justin martyr (second christian century) generalizes and accepts as doctrine what may be gathered from the sixth book of plato's "republic," with reference to god. to the jew, trypho, justin remarks: the deity, father, is not to be viewed by the organs of sight, like other creatures, but he is to be comprehended by the mind alone, as plato declares, and i believe him. * * * * plato tells us that the eye of the mind is of such a nature, and was given us to such an end, as to enable us to see with it by itself, when pure, that _being_ who is the source of whatever is an object of the mind itself, _who has neither color, nor shape, nor size, nor anything which the eye can see_, but who is above all essence, who is ineffable, and undefinable, who is alone beautiful and good, and who is at once implanted into those souls who are naturally well born, through their relationship to and desire of seeing him. athanasius (third christian century) quotes the same definition (contra gentes, ch. 2), almost _verbatim_. turning again to the _timaeus_ of plato, this question is asked: what is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and has never any being? that which is apprehended by reflection and reason [god] always is; and is the same; that on the other hand which is conceived by opinion, with the help of sensation without reason [the material universe], is in a process of becoming and perishing but never really is. * * * was the world [universe], always in existence and without beginning? or created and having a beginning? created, i reply. in this, the orthodox christians and mr. v. may find their god of pure "being," that never is "becoming," but _always is_; also the creation of the universe out of nothing. the fact is that orthodox christian views of god are pagan rather than christian. in his great work on the "history of christian doctrine," mr. william g. t. shedd says:[a] "the early fathers, in their defenses of christianity against their pagan opponents, contend that the better pagan writers themselves agree with the new religion in teaching that their is one supreme being. lactantius (institutiones, 1, 5), after quoting the orphic poets, hesiod, virgil, and ovid, in proof that the heathen poets taught the unity of the supreme deity, affirms that the better pagan philosophers agree with them in this. 'aristotle,' he says, 'although he disagrees with himself, and says many things that are self-contradictory, yet testifies that one supreme mind rules over the world. plato, who is regarded as the wisest philosopher of them all, plainly and openly defends the doctrine of a divine monarchy, and denominates the supreme being, not ether, nor reason, nor nature, but as he is, _god_; and asserts that by him this perfect and admirable world was made. and cicero follows plato, frequently confessing the deity, and calls him the supreme being, in his treatise on the laws.'" [footnote a: vol 1, p 56.] it is conceded by christian writers that the christian doctrine of god is not expressed in new testament terms, but in the terms of greek and roman metaphysics, as witness the following from the very able article in the _encyclopedia britannica_ on theism, by the rev. dr. flint, professor of divinity, university of edinburgh: "the proposition constitutive of the dogma of the trinity--the propositions in the symbols of nice, constantinople and toledo, relative to the immanent distinctions and relations in the godhead--were not drawn directly from the new testament, and could not be expressed in new testament terms. _they were the product of reason speculating on a revelation to faith_--the new testament representation of god as a father, a redeemer and a sanctifier--with a view to conserve and vindicate, explain and comprehend it. they were only formed through centuries of effort, _only elaborated by the aid of the conceptions, and formulated in the terms of greek and roman metaphysics_." the same authority says: "the massive defense of theism, erected by the cambridge school of philosophy, against atheism, fatalism, and the denial of moral distinctions, was avowedly built on a platonic foundation." in method of thought also, no less than in conclusions, the most influential of the christian fathers on these subjects followed the greek philosophers rather than the writers of the new testament.[a] "platonism, and aristotelianism," says the author of the _history of christian doctrine_, "exerted more influence upon the intellectual methods of men, taking in the whole time since their appearance, than all other systems combined. they certainly influenced the greek mind, and grecian culture, more than all the other philosophical systems. they re-appear in roman philosophy--so far as rome had any philosophy. we shall see that plato, aristotle, and cicero, exerted more influence than all other philosophical minds united, upon the greatest of the christian fathers: upon the greatest of the schoolmen; and upon the theologians of the reformation, calvin and melanchthon. and if we look at european philosophy as it has been unfolded in england, germany and france, we shall perceive that all the modern theistic schools have discussed the standing problems of human reason, in very much the same manner in which the reason of plato and aristotle discussed them twenty-two centuries ago. bacon, des cartes, leibniz, and kant, so far as the first principles of intellectual and moral philosophy are concerned, agree with their grecian predecessors. a student who has mastered the two systems of the academy and lyceum will find in modern philosophy (with the exception of the department of natural science) very little that is true, that may not be, found for substance, and germinally, in the greek theism."[b] [footnote a: especially compare plato's methods of arising from the conception of the finite and variable, to the infinite and unchangeable; from the relatively beautiful and good, to the absolutely beautiful and good, in the sixth and seventh books of the "republic," with st. augustine's manner of arriving at the conception of "_that which is_"--god.--_confessions st. augustine_, book seven.] [footnote b: history of christian doctrine, by william g. t. shedd; vol. i, p. 52.] it is hoped that enough is said here to establish the fact that the conception of god as "pure being," "immaterial," "without form," "or parts or passions," as held by orthodox christianity, has its origin in pagan philosophy, not in jewish nor christian revelation. of jesus christ being both premise and argument against mr. van der donckt's "philosophical argument." and now as to the whole question of god being "existence," "pure being," "most simple," "not compound;" also his "immutability," as set forth in mr. van der donckt's "philosophical argument." what of it? this of it: whatever "simplicity," "immutability," or other quality that is ascribed to god, _must be in harmony with what jesus christ is_: i meet mr. v.'s "philosophical argument" as i meet his scriptural argument. i appeal to the being and nature of jesus christ, as a refutation of his philosophical conclusions. is jesus christ god? "yes," must be my friend's answer. very well, this is my premise. jesus is god in his own right and person, and he is a revelation of what god the father is. he is not only a revelation of the _being_ of god, but of the _kind_ of being god is. and now i test mr. v.'s argument by the revelation of what god is, as revealed in the person and nature of the son of god. while i am doing so, let it be remembered that jesus is now and will ever be what he was at the time of his glorious ascension from the midst of his disciples on mount olivet--god, possessed of all power in heaven and in earth, a glorious personage of flesh and bone and spirit. and now, is jesus christ without form? no; he is in form like man. is jesus christ illimitable? not as to his glorious body; that has limitations, dimensions, proportions. is jesus christ without parts? not as to his person; his body is made up of limbs, trunk, head; and parenthetically i may remark, a whole without parts is inconceivable. then it follows that god's "infinity," so far as it is spoken of in scripture, does not refer to his person, but evidently to the attributes of his mind--to his intelligence, wisdom, power, patience, mercy, and whatsoever other qualities of mind or spirit he may possess. if it is argued that it is illogical and unphilosophical to regard god in his person as finite, but infinite in faculties, that is finite in one respect and infinite in another, my answer is that it is a conception of god made necessary by what the divine wisdom has revealed concerning himself, and it is becoming in man to accept with humility what god has been pleased to reveal concerning his own nature, being assured that in god's infinite knowledge he knows himself, and that which he reveals concerning himself is to be trusted far beyond man's philosophical conception of him. but to resume our inquiry: is jesus christ immutable, unchangeable? is he plato's "that which always is and has no becoming?" or mr. van der donckt's "necessary being * * * that cannot change with regard to his existence, nor can he change with regard to his _mode_ of existence," and therefore could never be anything other than he was from eternity? it is inconceivable how any being can be a son and not have a beginning as such. whatever of eternity may be ascribed to the existence of the lord jesus, he must have had a beginning as a son; that term implies a relation, let it be brought about how it may, and that relation must have had a beginning. while there may never have been a time when jesus was not in respect of his existence as an intelligence, there must have been a time when he was not as "son." so that he doubtless became "son," hence changed his relation from not son to son; hence changed in his relations, in his mode of existence. we know there was a time when he was not man, that is, not man of flesh and bone made of the materials of this world; and he became man; another change. there was a time when he was mortal man, by which i mean, man subject to death; and he became, and is now, immortal man; another change. there was a time when all power in heaven and in earth was "_given_" to him; (matt. 28:18) hence, there must have been a time when he did not possess it; hence another change, a change from the condition of holding _some_ power to that of possessing _all_ power. these facts attested by holy writ are against mr. v.'s doctrine of god's "immutability," so far at least as relates to the impossibility of changing his mode of existence. and if mr. v.'s doctrine of the "immutability" of god means that god cannot change in his relations, then i put these facts in the career of the lord jesus against his argument, and say that not only did jesus pass through these changes of conditions and relations, but that god the father could, and very likely did, pass through similar relations and changes. else of what significance are the following passages? the son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the son likewise (st. john 5:19). the prophet joseph smith quoting the substance of st. john 5:26, also says: "as the father hath power in himself, even so hath the son power"--to do what? why, what the father did. the answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. "jesus, what are you going to do?" "to lay down my body as my father did, and take it up again." do you believe it? if you do not believe it, you do not believe the bible.[a] [footnote a: _millennial star_, vol. 23: p. 247.] it is the accepted doctrine of the orthodox christian creeds that jesus christ, the son of god, is as the father is--(creed of st. athanasius) that is, of the _same_ nature and essence. very well, then; as god, the father, begot jesus, the son, may not the son in time also beget a son or sons? or, after ascribing to the son the _same_ nature and the _same power_ as is ascribed to the father, will our orthodox friends insist upon limiting the son by denying him productive virtue, and contend that jesus must endure without the exercise of it? if the existence of the son was essential to the perfection of god, the father--and it cannot be thought of in any other light--may it not be, since the son is of the same nature as the father, that the fact of fatherhood is necessary to the perfection of the son? to deny him the power of attaining it would be to limit his power, which may not be done even according to orthodox christian doctrine. is it not likely, nay, would it not be so? that the same cause or impulse, or necessity, or what influence or consideration soever it was that led god, the father, to beget a son, create a world, and provide for its redemption, would impel the son, since he is of the same nature as the father, to do these same things? and where was the beginning of such proceedings? and where will be the end of them? but now, to resume again our measuring of mr. v.'s philosophy by jesus christ as god. is jesus christ without passions? no; his deathless love for his friends, so beautifully manifested by word and deed throughout his mortal life, together with his love for mankind, which led him to give his life for the world, as also his explicitly declared hatred of that which is sin and evil, forbid us thinking of him as without passions.[a] as in him dwelt "all the fulness of the godhead bodily," so in him necessarily are gathered all these qualities, attributes and perfections that go to the making of god. does possession of these qualities, together with messiah's mode of existence in the form and person of jesus christ, come in conflict with the notion of god's "simplicity," "immutability," and "eternity," as conceived by philosophers? so much the worse, then, for the faulty and merely human conceptions of those qualities, as relating to god. better mistrust the accuracy of metaphysical reasoning; better throw aside plato and his philosophy as untrustworthy, than to be moved ever so slightly from the great truth of revelation that jesus, the messiah, is god; and that such as he is, god is, as to essence, attributes, existence, and the mode of existence. jesus christ, then, once accepted as god, and the manifestation of god to men, is a complete answer to mr. van der donckt's philosophical argument for the absolute "simplicity" or "spirituality" or "immutability" of god. [footnote a: god is angry with the wicked every day (ps 7:11.)] more of mr. van der donckt's "philosophy." i must not neglect mr. van der donckt's "philosophy" that forbids us believing that "several finite things" can "produce an infinite, or an illimitable, as there would always be a first and last." also his "finite parts could not belong to the infinite essence, else they would communicate their limitations to god." also, his "many infinite beings are inconceivable; for, if there were several, they would have to differ from each other by some perfection." and his "from the moment one would have a perfection, the other one lacks, the latter would not be infinite. therefore, god cannot be a compound of infinite parts." can any one, can mr. van der donckt himself, be quite sure of all this? who knows how the infinite is constituted? when men speak of the infinite, are they not treating of that which is beyond the comprehension of the mind of man, at least in his present state of limited intellectual powers; for whatever may be the heights to which the mind of man may rise, when freed from his present earth-bound conditions, here and now he must recognize his intellectual limitations: for, as in christ's humiliation (i. e. in his earth-life) his judgement was taken away (acts 8:33), that is, his divine, supreme, intellectual and spiritual powers were veiled--so with man, in this same world of trial and limitations. whatever his power as an eternal intelligence may have been, or what it may be hereafter, he is now compelled to admit that he sees but as through a glass darkly, and therefore imperfectly. men, i hold, though they be philosophers, cannot comprehend the infinite, much less say how it is constituted. but let us reflect a little upon the several propositions mr. v. submits to us: 1--"_several finite beings cannot produce the infinite_." so far as it is possible for the human intellect to conceive the infinite, the material universe is infinite, eternal, without beginning and without end. it is inconceivable that the universe could have had a beginning, could have been produced from nothing. "all the apparent proofs," remarks herbert spencer, "that something can come out of nothing, a wider knowledge has one by one cancelled. the comet that is suddenly discovered in the heavens and nightly waxes larger, is proved not to be a newly created body, but a body that was until lately beyond the range of vision. the cloud which in course of a few minutes forms in the sky, consists not of substance that has just begun to be, but of substance that previously existed in a more diffused and transparent form. and similarly with a crystal or precipitate in relation to the fluid depositing it" (first prin., p. 177.) mr. spencer holds it "impossible to think of _nothing_ becoming _something_," for the reason that "nothing" cannot become an object of consciousness (_ibid_ pp. 161-2.) in like manner, he holds that matter is indestructible, and hence, that the universe cannot be annihilated. "the doctrine that matter is indestructible has become a common-place," he remarks. "the seeming annihilations of matter turn out, on close observation, to be only changes of state. it is found that the evaporated water, though it has become invisible, may be brought by condensations to its original shape." the indestructibility of matter, mr. spencer holds to be a datum of consciousness, which he thus illustrates: conceive the space before you to be cleared of all bodies save one. now imagine the remaining one not to be removed from its place, but to lapse into nothing while standing in that place. you fail. the place that was solid you cannot conceive becoming empty, save by the transfer of that which made it solid * * * however small the bulk to which we conceive a piece of matter reduced, it is impossible to conceive it reduced into nothing. while we can represent to ourselves the parts the matter as approximated, we cannot represent to ourselves the quantity of matter as made less. to do this would be to imagine some of the constituent parts compressed into nothing; which is no more possible than to imagine compression of the whole into nothing. our inability to conceive matter becoming non-existent, is immediately consequent on the nature of thought. thought consists in the establishment of relations. there can be no relation established, and therefore no thought framed, when one of the related terms is absent from consciousness. hence, it is impossible to think of something becoming nothing, for the same reason that it is impossible to think of nothing becoming something. (first prin., p. 181.) the material universe, then, is eternal, it always existed, and how many changes soever it may pass through, it will never be annihilated. not one atom can be added to the sum total of its substance, nor one blotted out of existence--it is everywhere existing, and, so far as the mind of man can conceive "infinity," it is infinite. yet we know that this whole is made up of a great variety of substances and objects which are finite; and our philosophers, for the most part, hold that matter is divisible into ultimate atoms. not that such a fact has been demonstrated or is demonstrable; but granted the existence of matter, its existence as an aggregation of such ultimate things as atoms seems to be a necessary truth. i say necessary truth, because the mind of man cannot conceive to the contrary, and hence, science assumes matter to be composed of atoms. but atoms are things--material things; and in the mind must necessarily be thought of as having dimensions--an upper and lower part, also a hither and thither side; or if spherical then a circumference and diameter; in other words, atoms are finite, material things, and in the aggregate constitute the material universe, which, so far as the wit of man can conceive, is infinite; and hence, we may say the infinite universe is composed of finite atoms; or, several finite things--mr. v.'s philosophy to the contrary notwithstanding--produce the infinite. 2--"_many infinite beings are inconceivable; for if there were several, they would have to differ from each other by some perfection. now, the moment one would have a perfection the other one lacks, the latter would not be infinite_." that may be true in relation to absolute "infinity." but we have already seen that god cannot be considered as absolutely infinite, because we are taught by the facts of revelation that absolute infinity cannot hold as to god; as a person, god has limitations, and that which has limitations is not absolutely infinite. if god is conceived of as absolutely infinite, in his substance as in his attributes, then all idea of personality respecting him must be given up; for personality implies limitations. if the idea of personality in respect of god be retained, then the idea of absolute infinity regarding him must be abandoned. that "infinite" which does not include all things and all qualities is not absolutely infinite. the only persons who consistently hold to the absolute infinity of god are those who identify god with the universe--regarding god and the universe as one and the same. so long as orthodox christians regard god as distinct from what they call the "material universe," that long they teach but a modified infinity respecting god. they really mean that god is only infinite "_after his kind_." one of spinoza's definitions may help us here. he says a thing is _finite_ after its kind "_when it can be limited by another thing or the same nature_," as one body is limited by another (ethics def. ii.) is not a thing _infinite_ after its kind, then, when it is _not_ limited by anything of the same nature? is not this the necessary corollary of spinoza's definition of the "finite after its kind?" and do not those who regard god as distinct from the universe, and at the same time ascribe infinity to him, mean only that he is infinite "after his kind?" there may be, then, many infinites after their kind; and this view is sustained by the fact that such infinites do exist. duration or time is infinite after its kind, because not limited by anything of the same nature. space is infinite after its kind, for the same reason; so, too, are force and matter. if there may be two or four things infinite after their kind, because not limited by anything of the same nature, are many infinites inconceivable? moreover, when _infinity_ is thus understood--and it can be understood when relating to god in no other way--the difficulty raised by the latter part of mr. v.'s proposition, __viz__., that, if there were several infinite beings, they would differ from each other by some perfection, and when one would have a perfection that the other lacked, the latter would not be infinite, etc.--disappears; for when beings are infinite after their kind, they are only limited by things of a different nature, and therefore the perfections possessed by those beings of a different nature will constitute no limitation to their infinity. 3--"_if one is infinite nothing can be added to it_." this maybe true of the absolutely infinite; for that which is absolutely infinite must be the sum total of all existence. to say, therefore, that something existed in addition to this sum total, and could be added to it, would be illogical. but infinity in this conception cannot be ascribed to god; for we have seen that god is only infinite in faculties and power, not in person, hence not absolutely infinite; therefore, this statement in the gentleman's philosophy can have no bearing on the controversy in which we are engaged. 4--"_finite parts could not belong to the infinite essence, else they would communicate their limitations to god_." when the son of god, jesus, took on a human body of flesh and bone, was not that which is finite, his body, added to the infinite in jesus christ? did the finite body, taken on by the spirit of jesus, communicate its limitations to god? and is jesus, now in his resurrected, immortal body of flesh and bones, less "infinite" than before his spirit was united to his body? if one accepts mr. v.'s doctrine of the absolute infinity of god, then one must believe that jesus "the word," who "was in the beginning with god," who "was god"--was not "made flesh;" that is, did not take on a body of flesh and bone; for the body of jesus was finite; it had, in fact, all the limitations of a man's body, and mr. v.'s doctrine tells us that "_if one is infinite, nothing can be added to it_"--therefore the "word," who "was god," could not have been made flesh. if, on the other hand, one accepts the fact, so well attested by holy scriptures, _viz_., that jesus, "the word," "who was god," _was_ made flesh, _did_ take on a body that was flesh and bones, even though that body was finite, then one must reject the philosophy of mr. v., which says the infinite may not take on finite parts, for the reason that they would communicate their limitations to the infinite, and thus destroy its infinity. it is not difficult to see that something is wrong with the philosophy of mr. van der donckt, which thus constantly brings us in conflict with the revelations of god in the scriptures, and especially in the revelation of god in jesus christ. in what state do these considerations leave the argument? mr. van der donckt reaches the conclusion, from the premise that _several finite things cannot produce the infinite_, that god cannot be a compound of finite parts. yet we have seen that what is called the material universe, so far as it is possible for the mind of man to apprehend infinity, answers to his conception of the infinite; and we know that the universe is made up of finite parts; and that in its last analysis, it is but the aggregation of finite atoms. from the premise that _many infinite beings are inconceivable_, mr. v. reaches the conclusion that god cannot be a compound of infinite parts. but upon principles of sound reason, we have seen that things are infinite after their kind when not limited by anything of the same nature; and his premise of a number of infinites being inconceivable is destroyed by the actual existence of a number of infinites after their kind, such as duration, space, matter, spirit, and hence the absolute infinite, if existing at all, must be composed of an aggregation of infinities after their kind. from the premise that _if one is infinite nothing can be added to it_, the gentleman implies the conclusion that god is infinite and therefore nothing can be added to him. still, since jesus was the word, and the word was and is god, we have seen that something was added to whatever of infinity there was in god, the word, _viz_., what orthodox christians call his "humanity"--that is, the pre-existent, divine spirit of jesus took on a tabernacle of flesh--something finite was added to the infinite of god, the word, and that, too, let me say, without communicating any limitations to the infinity possessed of god. on these several premises, mr. van der donckt bases his general conclusion:- therefore, the infinite being is not composite, but simple or spiritual. therefore, he is not, nor ever was, a man, who is a composite being. but since the premises themselves have been shown to be utterly untenable, as relating to god, as revealed in the scriptures, and in the person and nature of jesus christ, the conclusions are wrong; and the facts established are that while god in mind, faculties and in power is doubtless infinite, in person he is finite; and as his spirit is united to a body, he is composite, not simple; and as jesus christ was god manifested in the flesh, the express image of god the father's person, the counterpart of his nature, and yet at the same time was a man--it is neither unscriptural, nor unphilosophical to hold that god, even the father, is also a perfected, exalted man. iii. mr. van der donckt's contrasts between man and god. of the intellectual powers of man. mr. van der donckt insists that man can never become a god, because he "is finite or limited in everything; ever changeable and changing, ever susceptible of improvement." granting that man is ever susceptible of improvement, ought not the gentleman to proceed with some caution before dogmatically asserting that there are to be limitations to man's enlargement, to his progress, and to his attainments? given the susceptibility to improve, never ending duration through which the processes of improvement shall continue, and god to direct such processes, who can dogmatize upon the limitations of the intelligences now known as men? it is not enough to say in reply to this that the "finite can never become infinite;" nor to argue that if god were an exalted man he would possess contradictory attributes, such as being both finite and infinite, compound and simple. we have already seen that when one undertakes to treat of the infinite, he is dealing with the unknown, dealing with terms that stand for the names of things of which the mind can form no adequate or satisfactory conception. but so far as the father and the son are concerned--personages held out to us in the scriptures as gods--we have seen that absolute infinity may not be predicted of them. in person, form and the general nature of their physical being, they have limitations; and whatever of infinity or simplicity is ascribed to them must be ascribed to mind and attributes, not to personality. seeing then, that the revelation of god in the scriptures, and especially in the revelation of god in the person and character of jesus christ, forces upon us a conception of god that represents him as concrete rather than abstract, finite in some respects, and infinite in others; and as compound rather than simple--it follows that urging the apparent absurdity of such characteristics in deity as these is of no avail against the facts in the revelations god has given of himself. and now, as the limitations found in man, as to his physical person, nature, etc.,--and which are supposed by mr. v. to forever bar man from attaining divinity--are found also in god the father and in god the son, it is quite clear that these physical limitations may not be urged as insuperable obstacles to man attaining divinity. as for the spirit of man--the mind--who can say what its metes and bounds are, much less what they shall be? who comprehends its powers? who dare say that it is not potentially infinite? and shall be hereafter actually infinite after its kind? i have already called attention to the fact that it is said of messiah that in his humiliation, his judgment was taken away, which doubtless means that in his earth-life his intellectual and spiritual powers were somewhat veiled; and with man doubtless it is the same; in his earth-life that intellectual excellence which he enjoyed as a spirit in the mansions of the father is veiled; but veiled as it is, there is of its manifestations sufficient to inspire one with awe, and make him hesitate ere pronouncing dogmatically upon its nature or its limitations. to illustrate my thought: i am this moment sitting at my desk, and am enclosed by the four walls of my room--limited as to my personal presence to this spot. but by the mere act of my will, i find i have the power to project myself in thought to any part of the world. instantly i can be in the crowded streets of the world's metropolis. i walk through its well remembered thoroughfares, i hear the rush and roar of its busy multitudes, the rumble of vehicles, the huckster's cries, the cab-man's calls, sharp exclamations and quick retorts in the jostling throngs, the beggar's piping cry, the sailor's song, fragments of conversation, broken strains of music, the blare of trumpets, the neighing of horses, ear-piercing whistles, ringing of bells, shouts, responses, rushing trains and all that mingled din and soul-stirring roar that rises in clamor above the great town's traffic. at will, i leave all this and stand alone on mountain tops in syria, india, or overlooking old nile's valley, wrapped in the awful grandeur of solemn silence. here i may bid fallen empires rise and pass in grand procession before my mental vision and live again their little lives: fight once more their battles; begin again each petty struggle for place, for power, for control of the world's affairs; revive their customs: live again their loves and hates, and preach once more their religions and their philosophies--all this the mind may do, and that as easily and as quickly as in thought it may leave this room, cross the street to a neighbor's home, and there take note of the familiar objects within his habitation. nor does this begin to indicate all the power of the mind in these respects. though the sun is ninety-two millions of miles away, on the instant, in thought, one may stand upon it within its resplendent atmosphere. in the same manner and with equal ease, one may project himself to the pole star, though it is so distant that it requires forty years for a ray of light to pass through the intervening space between that star and our earth, and still light travels at the rate of one hundred and eighty-six thousand miles per second! nor is the end yet. in like manner and with equal ease one may instantly project himself in thought from within the four walls of his room to those more distant constellations of stars known to exist out in the depths of space, whence it would require a ray of light a million years to reach our earth; yet standing there in a world so distant from ours, one would find himself still centered in the universe, and out beyond him, in a straight line from the earth whence he has traveled, would extend other realms in splendor no less magnificent. from the vasty deep of these realms, he could call up other worlds, and people them with creatures of his thought, as one may call up empires to pass in mighty procession before him in the nile or in the ganges valley. distance, then, to the mind of man, is as nothing. the infinity of extension, and of duration also, is matched by the infiniteness of man's mind, though that mind has a local habitation and a name within a tabernacle of flesh and bone. this is but a glimpse at the infinite powers of the mind of man in one direction, and under circumstances that somewhat veil the splendor of his intellectual and spiritual glory; what those powers may be in all particulars when man shall be made free from the restricting and depressing environment of the present earth-life, no one may say; but enough may be seen from what is here pointed out to establish the firm belief that, as the intellectual powers in man rise to match the infinitudes of extension and duration, as indicated, so, too, in all other respects shall the mind of man, when free, rise to the harmony of all the infinities that make up the universe. and it is not inconceivable (in view of the great spiritual and intellectual powers even now discernible in him) that the time will come when man will not only be able to project himself in thought to any part of the universe, no matter how distant, but in his future immeasurably exalted state he may project both thought and consciousness equally to all points of the universe at once, steadfastly maintain them there, and thus be all-knowing, everywhere present in thought, in consciousness--in spirit in fact--as god now is; and if, as it is reasonable to believe will be the case, his power equals his knowledge; and his freedom of volition equals his knowledge and his power--then, indeed, will man be a spiritual and intellectual force immanent in the universe, both to will and to do, even as god. jesus prayed that his disciples might be one with each other even _as_ he and the father are one (st. john 17:11); that they all might be one; and as the father was in christ, and as christ was in the father, so also would messiah have the disciples to be one in him and in the father, that they might all be one with the father and the son, and with each other, even as the father and the son are one (st. john 17; 21,22.) but for the disciples to be "one" with the father and the son, in the complete sense in which the messiah here prayed for that "oneness," necessarily means to be "like" the father, and that "likeness" can rise to the full height of its perfection only when it reaches equality with those with whom the disciples are to be "one" or "like." if man may not rise to the height of divinity, how shall this prayer of the christ be realized? or must we believe that the divine wisdom in the son of god exercised itself in praying for that which is unattainable, that which is not only absurd but impossible? it is unthinkable that the divine nature shall be brought down to be "one" with men; so that if the "oneness" which also involves "likeness," be realized, in fulfilment of messiah's prayer, it must be by men rising to divinity, mr. van der donckt's "impossibilities" to the contrary notwithstanding. "behold the man has become as one of us." to illustrate his contention that man can never rise to the quality of divinity, mr. van der donckt indulges in comparisons between man and god; and, to emphasize that contrast, challenges well-known men of science to the exercise of creative powers, contrasts the frequent collisions upon our railroads with the order, regularity, and safety of the movements among the planetary systems where never a collision occurs; and then indulges in such folly as this: they (astronomers) can indeed predict transits and eclipses; but suppose astronomers from new zealand, on their way to america to observe this fall's moon eclipse, meet with an accident in mid-ocean, would they at once send this wireless telegram to the united states' stargazers assembled say at lick observatory: "belated by leak. please retard eclipse two hours that we may not miss it." as well might all the telescope men in the world combined, attempt to fetch down the rings of saturn for the construction of a royal race track, as pretend to control movements of the heavenly bodies. the gentleman also points out how precarious are the powers of man: the helpless babe of yesterday may indeed rival mozart, haydn, and paderewski, but tomorrow he may rise with lame hands and pierced ear-drums; and millions of worshipers of the shattered idol are powerless to restore it to the musical world. this part of the gentleman's argument sinks far below the general high level of his reply, and is unworthy of his intelligence. i have already pointed out, that latter-day saints do not teach that man in his present state and condition is a god. on the contrary, they admit man's narrowness, weakness, imperfections and limitations; and also recognize the great gulf stretching between man in his present state and that dignity of divinity to which somewhere and sometime in the eternities it is within his province and power to attain. mr. van der donckt's comparisons, therefore, between god and man, in the latter's present condition, are not in point, for the reason that the latter-day saints do not claim that man is now a deity, only as he may be thought potentially one. taking the highest type of man to start with, consider him as raised from the dead and hence immortal; give him gods for guides, teachers, and companions, with the universe for the field of his operations, then let mr. v. or anyone else, say what man's attainments will be one thousand millions of years hence; and that period, let it be remembered, long as it may seem to man's petty methods of computing duration, is but as a moment in the existence of an immortal being. let mr. van der donckt institute his comparisons from that point of man's career, instead of from the present point of man's weakness and mortality, and then say if ultimately divinity seems so unattainable as now. if he shall say he is unable to institute his comparisons at the point proposed, because what man will then be is unknown, i shall agree with him; but let him acknowledge, as perforce he must, that man will be immeasurably advanced beyond what he is now; also let him admit the injustice he does our doctrine by insisting upon making his comparisons between god and man as the latter now stands, under the effects of the fall, and in his humiliation and weakness. after indulging in the aforesaid comparisons, mr.v. further remarks: i fear mr. b. h. roberts will be inclined to think god jealous because he gives man no show for comparison with him. this would certainly be a less blunder of the utah man, ("i will not give my glory to another"--isaiah 42:8) than his contention, which is a mere echo of satan's promise in paradise: "you shall be as gods." (genesis 3:5.) to which i answer, not so; the contention of the "utah man" is not the echo of satan's promise, "ye shall be as gods." on the contrary, the "utah man's" contention is bottomed on the august and sure word of god, uttered in eden, when he said of the man adam--"_behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil_" (genesis 3:22)--a passage which the reverend gentleman seems to have overlooked. of the unity of god. there remains to be considered 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,[a] is more in harmony with the revelations of god on the subject than the theory that there is but one only 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. [footnote a: 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).] 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,[a] "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." [footnote a: this is rev. r. 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.] 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. thus, dr. elliott, professor of hebrew in lafayette college, easton, pennsylvania, says: "the name _elohim_ (singular eloah) is the generic name of god, and, being _plural_ in form, is probably a plural of excellence and majesty."[a] dr. havernick derives the word _elohim_ from a hebrew root now lost, _coluit_, and thinks that the plural is used merely to indicate the abundance and super-richness contained in the divine being.[b] rabbi jehuda hallevi (twelfth century) found in the usage of the plural _elohim_ a protest against idolators, who call each personified power _eloah_ and all collectively _elohim_. "he interpreted it as the most general name of the deity, distinguishing him as manifested in the exhibition of his power without reference to his personality or moral qualities, or any special relations which he bears to man."[c] a number of christian scholars attempt to account for the use of the plural _elohim_ by saying that it foreshadows the doctrine of the christian trinity, that is, it recognizes the existence of the three persons in one god. "it is expressive of omnipotent power; and by its use here (first chap. genesis) in the plural form is obscurely taught at the opening of the bible, a doctrine clearly revealed in other parts of it, viz., that though god is one, there is a plurality of persons in the godhead--father, son and spirit, who were engaged in the creative work."[d] this view was maintained at length by rev. h. highton, in the christian jewish periodical, _the voice of israel_, before quoted. "but calvin, mercer, dresius and ballarmine," says dr. hackett,[e] of the theological institution of newton, massachusetts--editor of smith's bible dictionary--"have given the weight of their authority against an explanation so fanciful and arbitrary." [footnote a: "vindication of mosaic authorship of pentateuch," p. 65.] [footnote b: see "kitto's biblical literature," art. "god," vol. 1, p. 777.] [footnote c: smith's bible dict. (hackett edition), art. jehovah, p. 1242.] [footnote d: "critical and explanatory commentary" (jamieson, faussett and brown) gen. 1:1, 2.] [footnote e: smith's bible dictionary (hackett edition), art. jehovah, vol. 2, p. 1242.] others explain the use of the plural "we" or "us," by saying that in the first chapter of genesis moses represents god as speaking of himself in that manner, in imitation of the custom of kings, who speak of themselves as "we," instead of in the singular, "i." in other words, it is the royal "we," or "us." this theory, however, is answered, as pointed out by rev. h. highton, by the fact that the use of what is called the "royal plural" is a modern, not an ancient, custom; and reference to the usage of the kings of the bible discloses the fact that they always speak of themselves as "i" or "me," not as "we" or "us."[a] [footnote a: _voice of israel_, p. 95.] modern bible criticism, usually denominated "the higher criticism," is to a great extent--so far as criticism of the five books of moses is concerned--based upon the exclusive use of the plural _elohim_ in one section, and the use of _jehovah_, singular, in another. "the pentateuch, therefore, it is asserted, is composed of two different documents, the one elohistic, and the other jehovistic, consequently it cannot be the work of a single author."[a] [footnote a: "vindication of mosaic authorship of the pentateuch" (elliott) p. 64.)] with the various devices for accounting for the use of the plural form _elohim_ in the first chapter of the bible, i have nothing to do here. they are simply pointed out as showing the wide recognition that is given to the fact of the use of the plural form _elohim_ that should be rendered in english "gods;" and also the perplexity the use of this plural occasions among those whose principles call upon them to harmonize its use with the belief in "one only god." mr. van der donckt admits the use of the plural _elohim_, but undertakes to explain away the force of its use as follows: whenever _elohim_ occurs in the bible, in sense 1, (meaning the true god) it is employed with singular verbs and singular adjectives. relative to this, a friend[a] directs my attention to genesis 1:26: "let _us_ make man in _our_ image," etc., which in hebrew is _maach_--"we will make," first person plural future of the verb _asah_: _betsalmaun_--_be_ "in;" _tselem_, "image;" _nu_, "our," possessive adjective, first person plural. so that in genesis 1:26, we have a case where _elohim_ is used in connection with a plural verb and also a plural possessive adjective, and mr. van der donckt will not say that _elohim_ does not, in genesis 1:26, refer to true gods. again in genesis 3:22--"man is become as one of _us_," mr. ramseyer suggests that here, again, the pronoun used is in the first person plural. i find this view of both these passages sustained by rev. h. highton in the lecture before quoted. first he says: [footnote a: prof. a. ramseyer, of the latter-day saints' university.] the hebrew word meaning god, is itself a plural word, implying thereby, as we contend, a plurality of persons in the godhead * * we find the plural word _elohim_, or god, most usually, _though not always_, coupled with a singular verb or adjective. * * * but lest from the constant use of the word _elohim_ with the singular number, we should be led to suppose that god is in no sense a plurality, it has pleased him by the inspiration of his holy spirit, to cause that it should be sometimes used with a plural verb or adjective. i will mention some of the clearest passages in which it is so used, that you may be enabled to refer to them in the hebrew. you will find it used in a plural verb in genesis 20:13. "and it came to pass, when god caused me to wander from my father's house," etc.; and again in genesis 35:7, "and he built there an altar, and called the place _el-bethel_: because their god appeared unto him." and with a plural adjective in joshua 34:19, and again in deut. 5:26 (in the original hebrew, 5:23). but we have not merely the plural use of the word _elohim_ to mention in this part of the argument; we have some very distinct passages, still more directly implying the plurality of persons. there is a very remarkable place of the kind in eccle. 12:1, where it says: "remember now thy creator in the days of thy youth." in the original hebrew the word is in the plural, and if translated literally, would be "remember now thy creators," etc. * * * in connection with this expression of solomon about man's creators, it is a very remarkable circumstance, that in the account of the creation of man, given by moses in the book of genesis, the plural is also directly used, for it is there recorded, genesis 1, 26, "_and god said let us make_" etc., or "_we will make_," etc., so that moses as well as solomon very emphatically declares that the great creator of man consists of more than one person; for whom could god have been addressing when he said, "_let us make_," etc.? i know that in order to escape the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the passage, it has been asserted that god was here addressing and taking counsel with the angels but this explanation cannot in any degree bear the test of an accurate examination of the passage; for is there the slightest ground for supposing that the angels took any part in the creation of man, when god said, "_let us make_"? or shall we say that man was made in the image and likeness of the angels, when god said, "_let us make_" etc., "_in our image_?" surely not, for moses expressly adds, (v. 27) "_so god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him, male and female created he them_." but there are some other passages which we ought to examine, where god in the same way speaks of himself in the plural number. thus in genesis 3:22, "and the lord god said, "behold the _man is become as one of us_, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever," etc. there are no words which i know which could more distinctly assert the plurality of persons in god than these, where he says "one of us." m. leeser, of philadelphia, the editor of the _occident_, which is the american jewish magazine, in his sermon on the messiah, explains this passage as spoken to the angels--"one of us," meaning himself and the angels;--but never can i believe that the great everlasting creator could thus put himself on a level with the created angels, and say "one of us," * * * he would either have said to the angels, "behold, man has become as one of you," or else have said, "behold, the man has become like me, to know good and evil." this view of genesis 1:26 is also maintained by prof. w. h. chamberlin, of brigham young college, logan, utah, in the _era_ for november, 1902. he says: that _elohim_ was used in the plural sense is shown in the twenty-sixth verse, where the _elohim_, in referring to themselves use the plural suffix _nu_ "our," twice, and they also use the plural form of the verb _naaseh_, "let us make." the professor also adds the illustration of genesis 11:7: where _nerdhah_, "let us descend," and _nabhlah_, "let us confuse," two verbs in the plural, proceed from the mouth of god.[a] [footnote a: i commend professor chamberlin's whole article to the reader as most worthy of his attention at this point; and personally, i wish to thank the professor for it as a most timely contribution to the controversy. the whole article is published in chapter v.] in the light of these facts, the statement of mr. v. that whenever _elohim_ occurs in the bible, as meaning the true god, it is employed with singular verbs and singular adjectives, seems to have been made without that careful consideration which the importance of the declaration required. the facts adduced in the foregoing stand also against mr. v.'s contention that whenever the plural "gods" occurs in holy writ, it applies only "to false gods and idols;" or "to representatives of god, such as angels, judges, kings." they were not false gods nor representatives of god merely, who said: "let _us_ make man in _our_ image" (genesis i:26); nor false gods, or mere representatives of god merely, who said: "the man has become as one of _us_" (genesis 2:7); and so also with other passages in the quotation from rev. highton's lecture. here it may be as well to note the remarks of mr. van der donckt with reference to the "mormon" church leaders' knowledge of hebrew. the rev. gentleman is of the opinion that, had the "mormon" church leaders known hebrew, the original language of the book of moses and nearly the whole of the old testament, they would not have been guilty of the outrageous blunders of the pearl of great price and of the catechism. mr. v. then quotes from our catechism the account of the creation taken from the pearl of great price, in which the plural "gods" is used instead of the singular form "god." it is probable that the "mormon" church leaders were better acquainted with hebrew than mr. v. gives them credit for. a number of years ago (1870) a certain chaplain of the united states senate presumed not a little on the ignorance of a "mormon" church leader--elder orson pratt--respecting hebrew, and ventured, in the notable debate held by them in the "mormon" tabernacle, at salt lake city, to parade the few hebrew stem-words, and their derivatives, which he had conned with care before leaving washington, with a view of making them effective in support of the marginal reading of _leviticus_ 18 and 18 in our common english version. to the chaplain's surprise, the "mormon" apostle was able to follow him in the discussion of the original hebrew text, and demonstrated that he had a knowledge of hebrew which made his opponent's special preparation of a few hebrew words and passages look very much like a cheap bid for a reputation for learning, which the chaplain's knowledge of hebrew, at least, did not warrant. nor is that all the story. elder pratt--having observed the stress which the chaplain had laid upon the marginal rendering of _leviticus_ 18:18, in a discourse delivered in washington, d. c., before president grant, members of his cabinet, and members of congress--to call dr. newman out, to give him confidence to introduce his defense of the marginal rendering of the passage in the debate at salt lake city--elder pratt quoted the marginal reading of an unimportant passage, and thus invited the discussion of the text in the hebrew. the elder's bait took, the discussion largely turned, after that, upon the text in question, much to the chagrin of the senate's chaplain; and _leviticus_ 18:18 has been somewhat historical hereabouts, and in washington, ever since. but how came orson pratt acquainted with hebrew? the fact is, that in the winter of 1835-6 a school of languages was established by the church, at kirtland, which many of the leading elders of the church attended, joseph smith and orson pratt being among the number; and professor joshua seixas, of hudson, ohio, was employed as teacher. the elders were enthusiastic in their study of hebrew, and after prof. seixas' term as teacher had expired, the class was continued with joseph smith as instructor, orson pratt continuing in attendance on the school. the "mormon" church leaders, i repeat, were better acquainted with hebrew than mr van der donckt gives them credit for; besides, the blunders which mr. van der donckt has made in his assertions concerning the use of the plural _elohim_, in the old testament, makes it rather clear that he is scarcely competent to be a judge of anybody's hebrew. moreover, the passage he quotes from our catechism, where, in the account of creation, the plural "gods" is used, is not a quotation from the bible at all; but a translation from a record called the "book of abraham," which came into the hands of the prophet joseph smith from the catacombs of egypt. so that mr. v.'s attempted criticism of what he evidently takes to be extracts of translations from parts of the bible, is not in point at all, since they are translated extracts from a book that forms no part of the bible. and is it not evident throughout that mr. van der donckt has rushed into the discussion without being sufficiently informed concerning the doctrines upon which he undertakes to animadvert? of the father alone, being god. referring to the admission in my discourse that conceptions of god, to be true, must be in harmony with the new testament, mr. van der donckt proceeds to quote passages from the new testament, in support of the idea that there is but one god: one is good, god (matt. 19:17). thou shalt love the lord thy god (luke 10:27). my father of whom you say that he is your god (john 8:54). here christ testified that the jews believed in only one god. the lord is a god of all knowledge (i kings 2). ("mormon" catechism v. q. 10 and 2.11). of that day and hour no one knoweth, no not the angels of heaven, but the father alone (matthew 24:36). no one knoweth who the son is but the father (luke 10:22). therefore, no one is god but one, the heavenly father. in another form: the all-knowing alone is god. the father alone is all-knowing. therefore, the father alone is god. in the conclusion of the syllogism, "therefore, _the father alone is god_," mr. v. himself seems to have become suddenly conscious of having stumbled upon a difficulty which he ineffectually seeks to remove in a foot note. if it be true, as mr. v. asserts it is, that _the father alone is god_, then it must follow that the son of god, jesus christ, is _not_ god; that the holy ghost is _not_ god! yet the new testament, in representing the father as addressing jesus, says--"thy throne, o god, is forever and forever" (heb. 1:8). here is the positive word of the father that jesus, the son, is god; for he addresses him as such. to say, then, that _the father alone is god_, is to contradict the father. slightly paraphrasing the rather stern language of mr. v., i might ask: if god the father so emphatically declares that jesus is god, has any one the right to contradict him by affirming that the father alone is god? but mr. v. insists that the bible contradicts the bible; in other words, that god, the author of the bible, contradicts himself: "to say such a thing, is downright blasphemy!" but mr. v. will say he has explained all that in his foot note. has he? let us see. "therefore the father alone is god," is the conclusion of his syllogism; and the foot note--"to the exclusion of another or separate divine being, but not to the denial of the distinct divine personalities of the son and the holy ghost _in_ the one divine being." but that is the mere assumption of my catholic friend. when he says that _the father alone is god_, it must be to the exclusion of every other being, or part of being, or person, and everything else, or language means nothing. mr. v.'s foot note helps him out of his difficulty not at all. the creed to which mr. van der donckt subscribes--the athanasian--says: "so the father is god, the son is god, and the holy ghost is god." now, if the quality of "all-knowing" is essential to the attributes of true deity, then jesus and the holy ghost must be all-knowing, or else not true deity. but what of the difficulty presented by mr. v.'s contention: "the all-knowing alone is god, the father alone is all-knowing, therefore, the father alone is god?" mr. v. constructs this mighty syllogism upon a very precarious basis. it reminds one of a pyramid standing on its apex. he starts with the premise that "the lord is a god of all knowledge:" then he discovers that there is one thing that jesus, the son of god does not know--the day and hour when jesus will come to earth in his glory--"of that day and hour no one knoweth; no, not the angels of heaven, but the father alone (matt 24:36)--therefore, the father alone is god!" in consideration of facts such as are included in mr. v.'s middle term, one is bound, in the nature of things, to take into account time, place and circumstances. in the case in question, the twelve disciples had come to jesus, and among other questions asked him what should be the sign of his own glorious coming to earth again. the master told them the signs, but said of the day and hour of that coming no one knew, but his father only. hence, jesus did not know, hence jesus did not possess all knowledge, hence, according to mr. v., jesus was not god! but jesus was referring to the state of matters at the particular time when he was speaking; and it does not follow that the father would exclude his son jesus forever, or for any considerable time, from the knowledge of the time of the glorious advent of the son of god to the earth. as jesus rose to the possession of all power "in heaven and in earth" (matt. 28:18), so also, doubtless, he rose to the possession of all knowledge in heaven and in earth; "for the father loveth the son, and showeth him all things that he himself doeth" (john 5:20), and, in sharing with the son his power, and his purposes, would doubtless make known to him the day and hour of the glorious advent of christ to the earth. of the oneness of the father, son and holy ghost. is it physical identity? i next consider mr. van der donckt's argument concerning the father, the son and the holy ghost being "the same identical divine essence." mr. v. bases this part of his argument on the words of messiah--"i and my father are one" (john 10:30); and claims that here "christ asserts his _physical_, not merely moral, union with the father." he holds also that in the latin translation of the words of jesus is better exhibited the construction he contends for: hence, i give the latin and his remarks upon it, that we may have his contention before us at its very best. _ego et pater unum sumus_--i and my father are one. if christ had meant one in _mind or one morally_ and not _substantially_, he would have used the masculine gender, greek _eis_, (_unus_)--and not the neuter _en_, (_unum_)--as he did. no better interpreters of our lord's meaning can be found than his own hearers. had he simply declared his moral union with the father, the jews would not have taken up stones in protest against him making himself god, and asserting his identity with the father. far from retracting his statement or correcting the jews' impression, jesus insists that, as he is the son of god he had far more right to declare himself god than the scripture had to call mere human judges gods, and he corroborates his affirmation of his _physical_ unity with his father by saying: "the father is in me, and i am in the father," which evidently signifies the same as verse 30: i and the father are one and the same individual being, the one god. it is amusing sometimes to observe how the learned disagree about the meaning of words--especially in the languages called dead. it must be admitted in favor of mr. v.'s contention that the fathers of the council of sardica, a. d. 347, expressly scouted the opinion that the union of the father and son consisted in consent and concord only, and apprehended the oneness of the father and the son to be a strict unity of substance;[a] still, before that time, a number of the so-called christian fathers, some among the most influential, too, held to a contrary opinion, as the following from dr. priestley's _history of the corruptions of christianity_, with the accompanying references to the works of the christian fathers themselves, will show: [footnote: theodoret, book ii, chap. 8.] notwithstanding the supposed derivation of the son from the father, and therefore their being of the same substance, most of the early christian writers thought the text, "i and my father are one," was to be understood of an unity or harmony of disposition only. thus tertullian[a] observes, that the expression is _unum_, one thing, not one person; and he explains it to mean unity, likeness, conjunction, and of the love that the father bore to the son. origen says, let him consider the text, "_all that believe were of one_ [unum] _heart and of one_ [unum] _soul_," and then he will understand this, "_i and my father are one_,"[b] [unum]. novatian says: "one thing (_unum_) being in the neuter gender, signifies an agreement of society, _not an unity of person_," and he explains it by this passage in paul: "he that planteth and he that watereth are both one" [unum][c]. [footnote a: against prexas, chap. 22, p. 513.] [footnote b: against celsum, lib. 8, p. 386.] [footnote c: _ibid_, chap. 27, p. 99.] relative to messiah's hearers being the best interpreters of our lord's meaning in this case, i suggest that mr. v. has limited himself too exclusively to this one passage for their interpretation of messiah's meaning. mr. v.'s argument is that if jesus had only declared his moral not his physical union with god, the jews would not have taken up stones in protest against his making himself god, and asserting his identity with the father. let us see. the passage quoted by mr. v. is not the only one in which jesus asserts his divinity. jesus healed a man on the sabbath. the jews sought to slay him because he had done this thing on the sabbath day. "but jesus answered them, my father worketh hitherto, and i work. therefore the jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath day, but said also that god was his father, _making himself equal with god_" (john 5:15-18). observe that this is the same witness that mr. v. quotes--st. john; and the offense for which they seek to kill jesus is not because he asserts his _identity_ with the father, but because he makes himself "_equal_ with god." hence, the argument of mr. v., based on the assumption that jesus asserted not his moral but his physical union or identity with god; and his claim that the jews would not have sought messiah's life but for the reason that he claimed physical identity with the father, falls to the ground, for the reason that we find that the jews were eager to kill him for asserting not his _physical union_ with god, but his _equality_ with god. but i shall test mr. v.'s exegesis of the passage in question by the examination of another passage involving the same ideas, the same expressions; and this in the latin as well as in the english. jesus prayed for his disciples as follows: holy father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, _that they may be one, as we are_. * * * * neither pray i for these [the disciples] alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; _that they all may be one: * * * that they may be one, even as we are one_.[a] [footnote a: st. john 17:11, 20, 21, 22.] in latin, the clauses written in _italics_ in the above, stand: _ut sint unum, sicut et nos_ (verse 11), "that they may be one, just as we." so in verse 22: _ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus_; "that they may be one in us, even as we one are." here _unum_, "one," is used in the same manner as it is in st. john, 10:30--"ego et pater _unum_ sumus." "i and father one are." mr. v. says that _unum_ in the last sentence means, one thing, one essence; hence, christ's physical union, or identity of substance, with the father; not agreement of mind, or concord of purpose, or moral union. very well, for the moment let us adopt his exposition, and see where it will lead us. if _unum_ in the sentence, _ego et pater unum sumus_, means "one thing," "one substance, or essence," and denotes the physical union of the father and son in one substance, then it means the same in the sentence--_ut sint unum, sicut et nos_; that is, "that they [the disciples] may be one [unum] just as we are." so in the other passage before quoted where the same words occur. again, to messiah's statement: "_ego et pater unum sumus_"--"i and my father are one."--mr. v. thinks his view of this passage--that it asserts the identity or physical union of the father and the son--is strengthened by the fact that it is followed with these remarks of jesus: "the father is in me, and i am in the father." "which evidently signifies," says mr. v., "the same as verse 30 (john 10): i and the father are one and the same individual being, the one god." but the passage from the prayer of jesus concerning the oneness of the disciples with the father and the son, is emphasized by well-nigh the same words in the context as those which occur in john 10:30, and upon which mr. v. lays so much stress as sustaining his exposition of the physical union, _viz_: "the father is in me, and i in him" (verse 38). "which evidently signifies," mr. v. remarks, "the same as verse 30: i and my father are one." good; then listen: "holy father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one _as we are: * * as thou father, art in me, and i in thee, that they may be one in us_." there can be no doubt now but what the union between the disciples and the father and son is to be of the same nature as that subsisting between the father and son. if the father and son are physically one substance or essence, so, too, if the prayer of jesus is to be realized--as surely it will be--then the disciples are to be physically united with god, in one essence or substance--not just the twelve disciples, either, for whom jesus immediately prayed, but those, also, in all generations who shall believe on christ through the words of his first disciples; that is, all the faithful believers through all generations are to become physically united with god, become the same substance or essence as god himself! is mr. van der donckt prepared to accept the inevitable conclusion of his own exposition of john 10:30? if so, then what advantage has the christian over the hindoo whom he has called a heathen for so many generations? the sincerest desire of the hindoo is to be "physically united with god," even if that involve "a blowing out," or the attainment of nirvana--annihilation--to encompass it. of course, we had all hoped for better things from the christian religion. we had hoped for the immortality of the individual man; for his persistence through the ages, as an individual entity, associated with god in loving converse and dearest relations of moral union; but not absorbed, or lost in absolute physical union with him. but if mr. v.'s exposition of john 10:30 be correct, and a physical union is meant by the words--"i and my father are one," then all christians are to be made physically one with god under the prayer of christ--"that they may be one, _as we are_"--i. e. as the father and son are one. if, however, this doctrine of physical union should be defended up to the point of asserting the physical union of all christians with each other and with god--and my comparison of this position with that of the heathen hindoo resented, because that in the case of the christian after his physical union with, or absorption into god, god would still remain, whereas, with the hindoo nothing would remain, for his _nirvana_ is but annihilation--i could still ask, what is the difference? for the terms that describe the _nirvana_ of the hindoo describe also the god of the christian. "_nirvana_ is represented as something which has no antecedent cause, no qualities, no locality. it is something of which the utmost we may assert is, '_that it is_.'"[a] in all of which one may see mr. v.'s "_that which is_;" "i am who am;" "infinite being;" god, "most _simple, or not compound_"--whose "essence is actual being or existence." [footnote a: max muller, "chips from a german workshop," vol. i, p. 285.] _my_ point is, that the text, "i and my father are one," refers to a moral union--to a perfect union of purpose and will--not to a unity or identity of substance, or essence: and any other view than this is shown from the argument to be absurd. but mr. van der donckt would cry out against the physical union of man with god. both his interpretation of scripture and his philosophy--especially the latter--would require it. man and god, in his philosophy, are not of the same nature. god is not physical, while man is. god is not material, but spiritual, that is, according to mr. v., immaterial, while man is material. man is finite, god infinite; nothing can be added to the infinite, therefore, man cannot be added to the infinite in physical union. "the nature of the parts would cling to the whole," and the infinity of god would be marred by the physical union of finite parts to him; hence, the oneness of christians with christ and god the father is not a physical oneness. but if the union of the christians with christ and god is not to be physical, then neither is the union of christ and god the father physical, for the oneness in the one case, is to be the same as the oneness in the other--"that they all may be one; _as_ thou father, art in me, and i in thee, that they may also be one in us * * * * that they may be _one even as we are one_" (john 17:21, 22). the doctrine of physical union between the father and the son, contended for by mr. v., must be abandoned. there is no help for it, unless he is prepared to admit also the physical union of all the disciples with god--a thing most repugnant to mr. v.'s principles. with the doctrine of physical identity gone, the "oneness" of the father and the son, that mr. v. contends for, goes also, and two separate and distinct personalities, or gods, are seen, in the father and the son, whose oneness consists not of physical identity, but of agreement of mind, concord of will, and unity of purpose; a oneness born of perfect knowledge, equality of power and dominion. but if a perfect oneness, as above set forth, may subsist between two persons, it may subsist with equal consistency among any number of persons capable of attaining to the same degree of intelligence and power, and thus there would appear some reason for the prayer of christ, that all his disciples might be one, even as he and the father are one. and thus one may account for the saying of david: "god standeth in the congregation of the mighty: he judgeth among the gods" (psalm 82:1); for such congregations existed in heaven before the foundations of the earth were laid; and such a congregation may yet be made up of the redeemed from our own earth, when attaining to perfect union with god and christ. of the lord our god being one god. but i shall be asked how all this is to be reconciled with the scriptures quoted by mr. v., and relied upon as the basis of his argument in this part of the discussion--"hear, o israel: the lord our god is one lord" (deut. 6:4); and "i alone am, and there is no other god beside me" (deut. 32:39); and, also coming to the new testament, "there is none good but one, that is god" (matt. 19:17). the whole apparent difficulty is explained by paul, who, i think, will be accepted as a remarkably good theologian. he says: "for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there _be_ gods many and lords many), _but to us there is but one god, the father_" (i cor. 8:5, 6). that is, "_pertaining to us_," as joseph smith explains, "_there is but one god_." ah, but mr. v. has explained all that, and destroyed all the force of "mormon" argument, based upon this corinthian letter passage, by saying that "a man must not be a lawyer to know that the fact that not a few quacks and clowns are _called_ doctors does not make them such;" and then follows this--"neither christ nor paul say that they _are_ or _were_ gods, but simply that they were _called_ gods!" one wonders at this, when he takes into account the evident carefulness of mr. v. as a writer. jesus, whom he quotes as saying, the beings referred to as gods are but _called_ gods, not that they _are_ so, really fails to give due weight to the psalm which jesus quotes: "_i have said ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most high_" (psalm 82:6). of this scripture, jesus says: "is it not written in your law, i said, _ye are gods_," and he quotes with evident approval these inspired words of david, for he adds--"_the scripture cannot be broken_" (john 10:33); that is, the scripture of david saying, "ye are gods," is true, it cannot be gainsaid. nor is this indorsement of david's utterance weakened by the subsequent remark of jesus, "if he _called_ them gods unto unto whom the word of god came," etc.; for, when considered in the light of all the psalmist said, and all that jesus said, the "_called them gods_" by no manner of means signifies that they were _not_ gods. david said, "ye _are_ gods, and all of you are _children of the most high_" (psalm 82:6). the jews accused jesus of blasphemy, because he had said he was the son of god (john 10:36); in defense, jesus quoted the passage from the psalms where it is said of men, "ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most high"--as showing that he was but claiming for himself the relationship that in the law of the jews was accorded to men--sons of god, children of the most high, and hence, he was not a blasphemer. in other words, if the psalmist could say to those he addressed, "all of you are children of the most high," why should he, the christ, be considered a blasphemer because he called himself the son of god? surely, also, the gentleman has overlooked paul's very emphatic declaration in the parenthetical part of the sentence he quotes: _viz_., "there be gods many and lords many; yet to us there is but one god." now, consider with this explanation of paul's the following: "hear, o, israel: the lord _our_ god is one lord."--_moses_. "the head of the gods appointed _one_ god for us."--joseph smith.[a] [footnote a: from discourse delivered 10th june, 1844. _mill. star_, vol. 24, p. 108 _et seq_.] "he [aaron] shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of god."--_the lord to moses_ (exodus 4:16). "see, i have made thee a god unto pharaoh."--the lord unto moses (exodus 7:1). "i believe those gods that god reveals as gods, to be sons of god, and all can cry 'abba, father.'"--joseph smith.[a] [footnote a: sixteenth of june sermon, 1844. _mill. star_, vol. 24, p. 140.] it is evident from the above passages (exodus 4:16, and exodus 7:1) that god does appoint men to be gods, even in this world. why then should it be considered error to believe that from "the congregation of the mighty," where "god judgeth among the gods" (psalm 82:1), there should be appointed _one_ who should be _our_ god? and is it strange that from henceforth, the true servants of god should stand up for the dignity and honor and exclusiveness of the power and authority of that one god over this earth against the claims, and to the exclusion of all gods and powers, that men in their vain imaginings set up against this god of heaven and earth, as did moses, paul and joseph smith? no wonder that moses sent ringing down through the centuries that clarion sentence: "hear, o israel, _our_ god is one lord;" that the hebrew race stood as the witness of that one god, and fashioned their nomenclature accordingly; or that paul said, "though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth--as _there_ be _gods many, and lords many_--but _to us_ there is but one god;" or that joseph smith, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, should take up the same refrain as these ancient servants of god, and say, "pertaining to us, there is but one god;" "those gods whom god reveals as gods, are sons of god, and all can cry _abba_, father!" of our revelations from god being local. i suggest, as a further evidence, that the view here presented concerning our god, and the assertion of his oneness, that the revelations in the bible are revelations, in the main, concerning _our_ earth and the heavens pertaining to it; that these revelations do not attempt to deal with or furnish an explanation of conditions that obtain throughout the universe; that they do not attempt to give us any explicit information concerning conditions in the constellations of the pleiades, orion, cassiopeia, or ursa major, to say nothing of those galaxies of worlds which lie beyond the vision of men, even when aided by the mightiest telescope. in other words, the revelations of the bible are, in the main, local;[a] it is only here and there that a glimpse of things is given outside of _our_ heaven and _our_ earth. that being the case, the revelation of god to the hebrew race was made in a nomenclature accordant with the facts to be expressed, hence--"hear, o, israel: _our_ god is one lord." this idea is emphasized in the book of moses, found in the pearl of great price. the lord revealed to joseph smith some of the writings of moses in which the hebrew prophet makes known the source of his knowledge concerning the creations of god, but it was concerning _our_ earth and its heavens of which moses was commanded to write: [footnote a: in support of this view i may here quote the prophet joseph smith. "everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth: these personages, according to abraham's record, are called god the first, the creator; god the second, the redeemer; and god the third, the witness or testator" (see richards' and little's compendium, gems, 289).] worlds without number have i created, * * * but only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give i unto you. for behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. and there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine, and i know them. and it came to pass that moses spake unto the lord, saying: be merciful unto thy servant, o god, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. and the lord spake unto moses, saying: the heavens, they are many, and cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. * * * and now, moses, my son, i will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which i shall speak. and again the lord said to moses: and it came to pass that the lord spake unto moses, saying: behold, i will reveal unto you concerning _this_ heaven, and _this_ earth; write the words which i speak. so far as the hebrews were concerned, however, they permitted the truth of the one god idea committed to them to degenerate into mere superstition. through race pride, and vain glory in their guardianship of the name of the one god, they hedged it about with such secrecy and superstition that, under the pretext of not using the name of god in vain, they prohibited its pronounciation except by the high priest (and he was to pronounce it but once a year, and that on the day of atonement, when he entered the holy of holies); finally they lost the true pronunciation of the name entirely. the historian of the jews, josephus, when writing the antiquities of his people for the information of the gentiles, stated that it was not lawful for him, though a priest, to utter it.[a] it is a singular fact, but abundantly demonstrated in the history alike of individuals and nations, that when the adversary of men's souls fails in keeping the truth from mankind, he seeks to destroy the effect of that truth by converting it into a mere human superstition. the late erastus snow, an elder in the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, used to present this truth by a very effective figure. addressing himself to a congregation that had been carried into some excesses of superstitious observances, he said: "we will suppose that drawn immediately in front of you is the line of your exact duty. satan will make every effort to hold you back from that line. when he discovers that it is impossible to hold you back, his next effort will be to push you as far beyond it as possible; and, being forced beyond the line of duty into superstitious observances, is liable to get you into as much difficulty as being held back from toeing it squarely." [footnote a: smith's "dictionary of the bible" (hackett edition), vol. 2, art jehovah. also antiquities of the jews (josephus), book 2, chap. 12.] such was the case with the jews, with reference to their being made witnesses of the one god idea for our earth. when lucifer could no longer blind their eyes by the false polytheism of the pagan world, he rushed them over the line of the truth to the other extreme--into the superstitions that have gathered about monotheism, until finally, through such teachers as aristobulus (150 b. c.) and philo (contemporary with messiah), they were brought to accept many of the vagaries of the grecian pagan philosophy, which, afterwards, as we have seen, were engrafted into the christian theology. of god being one in the generic sense. there is also another sense in which the "oneness" of god may be apprehended; and yet be in harmony with the doctrines contended for in this "rejoinder," and the discourse it defends. i have already stated the doctrines of the church of christ respecting the immortality of the _ego_, the intelligence of man; saying that it is self-existent, uncreated, and as eternal as god is; indeed, it is the divine in man, it is part of the eternal; and now the time has come to say something further in reference to this matter. i find a word on the subject fitly spoken by the late orson pratt, in a discourse delivered in 1855, in salt lake city. he said: there is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. i think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the church history. it is given in questions and answers. the first question is, "what is the name of god in the pure language?" the answer says, "ahman." "what is the name of the son of god?" answer, "son ahman, the greatest of all the parts of god, excepting ahman." "what is the name of men?" "sons ahman," is the answer. "what is the name of angels in the pure language?" "anglo-man." the revelation goes on to say that sons ahman are the greatest of all the parts of god excepting son ahman, and ahman, and that anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of god excepting sons ahman, son ahman and ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man.[a] what is the conclusion to be drawn from this? it is that these intelligent beings are all parts of god.[b] [footnote a: it may be thought, at the first reading of this statement, "the angels are a little lower than man," is in conflict with the scripture, "thou madest him [man] a little lower than the angels" (heb. 2:7). but i call attention to the marginal rendering of the passage in king james' translation, "thou madest him _a little while inferior to_ the angels." without stopping here to consider which is the better translation of the passage, it may be said of the latter that it is in better harmony with the context of the passage as it stands here, in hebrews, and also in psalms, than the preferred rendering of it in the regular text; for in both places it says of man, "thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. for in that he put all things in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. but now we see not yet all things put under him." moreover, we see the same thing is said of jesus that is said of man: "we see jesus _who was made a little lower than the angels_, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor" (heb. 2:9). surely "made a little lower than the angels," when said of jesus could be but for "a little while inferior to," etc.; and that only in the matter of "the suffering of death." so, too, with man; he is made "a little while inferior to the angels," after which period he would rise to the dignity of his place, when it would be seen, as said in the text with which this note deals, "the angels are a little lower than man;" that is, of course, when man shall have attained unto his exaltation and glory.] [footnote b: journal of discourses, vol. 2, p. 342.] this, it will be said, is a bold doctrine; and indeed it is bold. i love it for its boldness, but not so much for that, as for the reason that it is true. it is in harmony with another revelation given through joseph smith, wherein it is said: man was also [as well as jesus] in the beginning with god. intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. * * * for man is spirit. the elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy. the elements are the tabernacle of god; yea, man is the tabernacle of god, even temples (doc. and cov., sec. 93:29-35). nor is the doctrine less in harmony with the jewish scriptures: for it became him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering. _for both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren._ in this same chapter of hebrews, jesus, as well as man, is spoken of as being made "a little while inferior to the angels" (verses 7 and 9 marginal reading); and he is spoken of by the same apostle in another place as being but "the first born among many brethren" (rom. 8:29). also in his great discourse in mars hill, paul not only declares that god "hath made of one blood all nations of men"--but he also quoted with approval the greek poet aratus[a], where the latter says: "for we are also his [god's] offspring;" and to this the apostle adds: "for as much, then, as we are the offspring of god [hence of the same race and nature], we ought not to think that the godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art after man's device" (acts 17:26-30). the nature of our own being, one might add, in continuation of the apostle's reasoning, should teach those who recognize men as the offspring of god, better than to think of the godhead as of gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art after man's device, since the nature of the offspring partakes of the nature of the parent; and our own nature teaches us that men are not as stocks and stones, though the latter be graven by art after the devices of men. [footnote a: he was a poet of cilicia, of which province tarsus, paul's native city, was the capital. he wrote about four hundred years before paul's time.] paul might also have quoted the great hebrew poet: "god standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. * * * _i have said ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most high_" (ps. 82:1, 6, 7); and though he adds, "but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes," it does not detract from the assertion, "and all of you are children of the most high;" for jesus died, even as men die; but he was the son of god, nevertheless, and he himself a deity. the matter is clear, then, men and gods are of the same race; jesus is the son of god, and so, too, are all men the offspring of god, and jesus but the first born of many brethren. eternal intelligences are begotten of god, spirits, and hence are sons of god--a dignity that never leaves them. "beloved," said one of old, "now are we the sons of god, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he [christ] shall appear, _we shall be like him_; for we shall see him as he is" (i john 3:2). here, in the way of anticipating an objection, i shall pause to remark, parenthetically, that i am not unmindful of the array of evidence that may be massed to prove that it is chiefly through adoption, through obedience to the gospel of christ, that man in the scripture is spoken of as being a son of god. but this does not weaken the evidence for the fact for which i am contending, _viz_., that man is by nature the son of god. he becomes alienated from his father and the father's kingdom through sin, through the transgression of the law of god; hence the need of adoption into the heavenly kingdom, and into sonship with god. but though alienated from god through sin, man is nevertheless by nature the son of god, and needs but the adoption that awaits him through the gospel of jesus christ to cry again in renewed and perfect fellowship, _abba, father!_ return we now from this brief digression. man being by the very nature of him a son of god, and a participant in the divine nature--he is properly a part of god; that is, when god is conceived of in the generic sense, as made up of the whole assemblage of divine intelligences that exist in all heavens and all earths. of god, the spirit of the gods. from the presence of the gods goes out the influence and power men sometimes call god, or the spirit of god; from whose presence david could not flee: if i ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if i make my bed in hell, behold thou art there. if i take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. yea the darkness hideth not from thee; but the light shineth as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to thee (ps. 139:7-12). this spirit is that "something sacred and sublime," which men recognize as moving "wool-shod" behind the worlds; "weighing the stars; weighing the deeds of men."[a] this that spirit that permeates all space; that makes all presence bright; all motion guides; the power "unchanged through time's all-devastating flight;" that upholds and sustains all worlds. hence it is said, in one of the most beautiful of the revelations god has given in this last dispensation: [footnote a: edward markham.] as also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made, as also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made. and the earth also, and the power thereof; even the earth upon which you stand. and the light which now shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; which light proceedeth forth from the presence of god to fill the immensity of space. the light which is in all things; which giveth light to all things; which is the law by which all things are governed: even the power of god who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things; * * * the earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of god. * * * behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these, hath seen god moving in his majesty and power (doc. and cov., sec. 88:8-13 and 45, 47). this, then, is god, who is not far removed from every one of us; in whom we live, and move, and have our being. this is god immanent in nature. and as we dwell in him, so, too, dwells he in us; and, as man more expands towards divinity, more and more of the divine enters into his being, until he attains unto a fullness of light and truth; of power and glory; until he becomes perfectly one in god, and god in him. this the meaning of the messiah's prayer, made for all those who become his disciples--"that they all may be one, _as_ thou, father, art in me, and i in thee: that they also may be one in us" (john 17:21). to the same effect paul also prayed: for this cause i bow my knees unto the father of our lord jesus christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man; that christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fullness of god (eph. 3:14-19). then again he said: let this mind be in you which was also in jesus christ: who being in the form of god, thought it not robbery to be equal with god (philippians 2:5, 6). it is possible for the mind of god to be in man, to will and to do, as seemeth him [god] good. the nature of the whole clings to the parts, and they may carry with them the light and truth and glory of the whole. moreover, by appointment, any one or three of the unit intelligences may become the embodiment and representative of all the power and glory and authority of the sum total of the divine intelligences; in which capacity either the one or the three would no longer stand only in their individual characters as gods, but they would stand also as the sign and symbol of all that is divine--and would act as and be to all intents and purposes _the one god_. and so in every inhabited world, and in every system of worlds, a god presides. deity in his own right and person, and by virtue of the essence of him; and also by virtue of his being the sign and symbol of the collectivity of the divine intelligences of the universe. having access to all the councils of the gods, each individual deity becomes a partaker of the collective knowledge, wisdom, honor, power, majesty, and glory of the body divine--in a word, the embodiment of the spirit of the gods whose influence permeates the universe. this doctrine of deity teaches a divine government for the world that is in harmony with our modern knowledge of the universe; for, as i have remarked elsewhere in effect:[a] an infinitude of worlds and systems of worlds rising one above another in ever-increasing splendor, in limitless space and eternal duration, have, as a concomitant, an endless line of exalted men to preside over and within them, as priests, kings, patriarchs, gods! nor is there confusion, disorder, or strife in their vast dominions; for they all govern upon the same righteous principles that characterize the government of god everywhere. the gods have attained unto the excellence that jesus prayed for in behalf of his apostles, and those who might believe on their word, when he said: "holy father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, _that they may be one as we are_." i say the gods have attained unto the excellence of oneness that jesus prayed his disciples might possess, and since the gods have attained unto it, and all govern their worlds and systems of worlds by the same spirit, and by the same principles, there is a unity in their government that makes it one even as they are one. let worlds and systems of worlds, galaxies of systems and universes, extend as they may throughout limitless space, joseph smith has revealed the existence of a divine government which, while characterized by unity, is co-extensive with all these worlds and world-systems. [footnote a: new witness for god, pp. 473-5.] concluding reflections. the subject enlarges as one enters into it; but i feel that here i may let the matter rest. i do not fear the effect of mr. van der donckt's criticism of our doctrine of deity. placed side by side with the few positive truths which god has so clearly revealed through the great prophet, seer and revelator, in these last days--joseph smith--yet to be recognized by the world as one of god's choicest and greatest of prophets--the vagaries of an apostate christendom will have no attraction for the youth of israel. it was generous in the editors of the _era_, to give place to the really able article of mr. van der donckt. i am glad they did so, for several reasons: _first_, because it was a courteous and generous act in itself; _second_, it stands out in marked contrast to the treatment accorded us in sectarian religious periodicals; _third_, because it must demonstrate to our youth, that we have no fear of placing our principles where they may be tested by the religious doctrines and philosophies of men; and although the elders of the church of christ may not be equal in learning and polemical skill with the champions of other systems, yet we have the truth, and our confidence is that it will hold its own in the conflicts that may beat upon it. we have the truth, i repeat, on this subject; that is, we have the truth so far as god has been pleased to reveal it. all truth respecting god is not yet revealed, even to the church of christ; but so much as he has revealed is true. our feet in the matter have been set in the right path; we have lines of truth placed in our hands, which, if we and our children but follow patiently and with becoming humility, i am sure will lead us into that fullness of truth wherein is no incompleteness, but all is truth--god's truth, and all the truth about god. chapter iv. i. jesus christ: the revelation of god.[a] [footnote a: a discourse delivered in the tabernacle, ogden, utah, tuesday evening, april 22, 1902, under the auspices of the young men's mutual improvement association of the weber stake of zion.] _and this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true god, and jesus christ, whom thou hast sent (st. john's gospel 17:3)._ _and we know that the son of god is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that it true, and we are in him that is true, even in his son jesus christ. this is the true god, and eternal life (i john 5:20)._ it will be taken for granted, i have no doubt, that the primary object in the earth-mission of the lord jesus christ was to redeem mankind, to be the savior of the world. we have the warrant of scripture for that. it is shadowed forth in the words that god spoke in eden to the "serpent," and having in mind the lord jesus: and i will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.[a] [footnote a: gen. 3: 15.] turning to the new testament, we read: for god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. for god sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. [a] [footnote a: st. john 3:16, 17.] i say to be the savior of the world was the primary purpose of christ's mission. but there is another purpose spoken of in scripture concerning the mission of the lord jesus. to one of the old prophets in israel it was said: "behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and shall 'call his name immanuel."[a]--"which," says matthew in his gospel, "being interpreted, is god with us."[b] [footnote a: isaiah 7:14.] [footnote b: matt. 3:23.] in connection with this there is one more scripture to which i desire to call your attention: great is the mystery of godliness: god was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.[a] [footnote a: i tim. 3:16.] that this passage has direct reference to the lord jesus christ no one can doubt; for to none but to him does the language apply. here let me say with reference to the bible statement that christ was god "manifest in the flesh," that some scholars hold that the greek word translated "manifest," in our english bible, should be rendered "manifested," a stronger word; so that jesus christ, if this rendering of the greek be true, according to the teachings of paul, was god "manifested" in the flesh. with this brief scriptural introduction to the subject, and with the statement clearly before you that jesus christ is god, and, moreover, is god manifested in the flesh, i desire to call your attention to the ideas prevailing in the world respecting deity at the time of messiah's advent among men; and this to show you there certainly was a very great necessity for a revelation of god being given; for men knew him not; nor had they by searching been able to find him out. men were without the knowledge of god, when it pleased god to reveal himself to them through his only begotten son, jesus, the christ. beliefs in india and egypt. i first direct your attention to india and egypt. in these two countries what is commonly called pantheism prevailed. now, i know that word represents complex rather than simple ideas to you, and needs a little explanation. pantheism, speaking in a general way, is of two kinds: first, the pantheism that sinks all nature into one substance, one essence, and then concludes that that one substance or essence is god. such pantheism as this is the purest monism--that is, the one substance theory; and is spoken of by some of our philosophers as the purest theism--that is, faith in one god. indeed, pantheism, in this aspect of it, is looked upon as a sort of exaggerated theism; for it regards "god" as the only substance, of which the material universe and man are but ever-changing manifestations. it is the form of pantheism which identifies mind and matter, the finite and infinite, making them but manifestations of one universal being; but in effect it denies the personality, by which i mean the individuality, of god. this was, and, for matter of that, is now, the general belief of many millions in india. the pantheism which expands the one substance into all the variety of objects that we see in nature, is the second kind of pantheism referred to a moment since, and regards those various parts as god, or god expanded into nature. this leads to the grossest kind of idolatry, as it did in egypt, at the time of which i am speaking. under this form of pantheism men worshiped various objects in nature; the sun, moon, stars; in fact, anything and everything that bodied forth to their minds, some quality, or power, or attribute of the deity. this was the pantheism of egypt, and led to the abominable and disgusting idolatry of that land. the religion of china. turn your attention now northward from india, and take into account those great masses of our race inhabiting china; and you will find there, according to the statement of max muller, a colorless and unpoetical religion; a religion we might almost venture to call monosyllabic, consisting of the worship of a host of single spirits, representing the sky; the sun, storms and lightning, mountains and rivers; one standing by the side of the other without any mutual attraction, without any higher principle to hold them together. in addition to this we likewise meet in china with the worship of ancestral spirits, the spirits of the departed, who are supposed to retain some cognizance of human affairs, and to possess peculiar powers which they exercise for good or evil. this double worship of human and natural spirits constitutes the old and popular religion of china, and it has lived on to the present day, at least in the lower ranks of society, though there towers above it a more elevated range of half religious and half philosophical faith, a belief in two higher powers, which, in the language of philosophy, may mean form and matter, in the language of ethics, good and evil, but which in the original language of religion and mythology are represented as heaven and earth.[a] [footnote a: science of religion (muller) pp. 61, 62.] such was the ancient religion of china; and such, to a very large extent, is the religion of china to this day. it must be remembered that the great chinese philosopher confucius did not disturb this ancient religious belief. he did not, in fact, profess to be a teacher of religion at all, but was content if he could but influence men to properly observe human relations. on one occasion he was asked how the "spirits could be served," to which he made answer, "if we are not able to serve men, how can we serve the spirits?" on another occasion he said to his followers, "respect the gods, and keep them at a distance."[a] [footnote a: ibid p. 87.] religion in northern europe. let us now enter northern europe, among the germanic tribes, and make inquiry as to what conceptions of god they held. here you find a shadowy, undefined, and not well understood belief in the existence of an all-pervading influence, or spirit; a supreme being, to whom the goths, at least, gave the name of "alfader," meaning the father of all; yet, strange to say, they paid him no divine honors, gave him no worship, but contented themselves in worshiping inferior deities, their old war heroes in the main, whom they had apotheosized and who, it must be acknowledged, represented the national qualities of that people at that time. gods of the greeks and romans. having thus briefly mentioned the faith of the people of north europe--and i can do no more than this in each instance--i next invite your attention to the ideas about god that obtained among the highly civilized romans. and, by the way, the romans accepted, for the most part, the mythology and the religion of the greeks, so that when we consider the ideas that prevailed among the romans about god, it must be remembered that we are at the same time considering the views of god that were entertained by the greeks--a people noted for the subtlety of their intellect, for their powers both of analysis and of synthesis: and for intuition of intellect which made them well nigh prophets, at least of an intellectual, if not of a spiritual order. the romans for the most part were divided into the two great schools of philosophy, the epicurean and the stoic. some of our young students will be telling me perhaps that i have overlooked the academics. i do not mention them as a school of philosophy for the reason that, in my judgment, they had no philosophy; they advocated nothing; they were the agnostics of their time--that is, they were people who did not know, and like our modern agnostics, had a strong suspicion that nobody else knew. they represented merely the negative attitude of mind in their times. still they numbered in their following some of the most considerable men of rome, cicero being among the number. by the way, it is through the writings of cicero--especially through his tusculan disputations--that we become best acquainted with the theories of the two chief schools of philosophy i have mentioned. and it is from his writings that i shall here condense what i have to say of the creeds of these schools of philosophy, or at least that part which concerns us here--the part relating to their conceptions of deity, and first as to the doctrine of epicurus. epicureans. the epicureans held that there were gods in existence. they accepted the fact of their existence from the constant and universal opinion of mankind, independent of education, custom or law. "it must necessarily follow," they said, "that this knowledge is implanted in our minds, or, rather, innate in us." their doctrine was: "that opinion respecting which there is a general agreement in universal nature must infallibly be true; therefore it must be allowed that there are gods." "of the form of the gods, they held that because the human body is more excellent than that of other animals, both in beauty and for convenience, therefore the gods are in human form. all men are told by nature that none but the human form can be ascribed to the gods; for under what other image did it ever appear to anyone either sleeping or waking?" ye these forms of the gods were not "body," but "something like body;" "nor do they contain blood, but something like blood." "nor are they to be considered as bodies of any solidity, or reducible to number." "nor is the nature or power of the gods to be discerned by the senses, but by the mind." they held, moreover, that the universe arose from chance; that the gods neither did nor could extend their providential care to human affairs. the duty of worshiping the gods was based upon the fact of their superiority to man. "the superior and excellent nature of the gods requires a pious adoration from men, because it is possessed of immortality, and the most exalted felicity; for whatever excels has a right to veneration." yet "all fear of the power and anger of the gods should be banished; for we must understand that anger and affection are inconsistent with the nature of a happy and immortal being. these apprehensions being removed, no dread of the superior power remains." on the same principles that the existence of the gods was allowed, that is, on the pre-notion and universal belief of their existence, it was held that the gods were happy and immortal, to which the epicurians added this doctrine: "that which is eternally happy cannot be burdened with any labor itself, nor can it impose any labor on another; nor can it be influenced by resentment or favor; because things which are liable to such feelings must be weak and frail." it was generally held by the opponents of epicurus that, as a matter of fact, he did not believe in the existence of the gods at all; but dared not deny their existence for fear of the athenian law against impiety, and because such denial would render him unpopular. but after becoming acquainted with his views as to the nature of the gods, one is prepared to accept the criticism of his doctrines which cicero puts in the mouth of cotta, in his tusculan disputations, viz., "epicurus has allowed a deity in words but destroyed him in fact." he rendered his gods as intangible, as useless, as far removed from exciting adoration, or of controlling the universe, as have the orthodox christian sects their deity, who is said to be without body, or parts, or passions; which, if such be his nature, leaves him without quality through which he may affect humanity or the universe either for good or evil. the stoics. i next take up the school of stoics. the stoics believed (1) that there were gods; (2) they undertook to define their character and nature; (3) they held that the universe is governed by them, and (4) that they exercise a superintendency over human affairs. the evidence for the existence of the gods they saw primarily in the universe itself. "what can be so plain and evident," they argued, "when we behold the heavens, and contemplate the celestial bodies, as the existence of some supreme, divine intelligence by which these things are governed?" "were it otherwise," they added, "ennius would not with universal approbation have said, look up to the refulgent heavens above which all men call unanimously jove- * * * of gods and men the sire. of the nature of the deity they held two things: first of all, that he is an animated though impersonal being; secondly, that there is nothing in all nature superior to him. "i do not see," says one well versed in their doctrines, "what can be more consistent with this idea and pre-conception than to attribute a mind and divinity to the world, the most excellent of all beings." the god of the stoics is further described as a corporeal being, united to matter by a necessary connection; and, moreover, as subject to fate, so that he can bestow neither rewards nor punishments. that this sect held to the extinction of the soul at death, is allowed by all the learned. the stoics drew their philosophy mainly from socrates and aristotle. their cosmology was pantheistic, matter and force being the two ultimate principles, and god being the working force of the universe, giving it unity, beauty and adaptation. the jews. i shall finish this brief review of the prevailing ideas about deity at the advent of messiah by reference to the state of belief respecting god among the jews at this period. i have reserved the consideration of their views upon the subject until the last advisedly, chiefly for the reason that to their ancestors, in very ancient times, a knowledge of the true god was revealed. their ancestors constituted a nation, a people, peculiarly related to god; chosen by him, it would seem, to stand as his witnesses among the nations of the earth. but at the time of the advent of jesus christ, the jews were in an apostate condition, and ready to reject their god when he should come. moreover, their leading teachers, especially in the two centuries preceding the coming of the messiah, were taking every step that their ingenuity could devise for harmonizing the truths which god had made known to them with the more fashionable conceptions of god as entertained by one or the other of the great sects of philosophy among the romans. the way had been prepared for the achievement of this end, in the first place, by the translation of the hebrew scriptures into the greek language, which version of the old testament is usually called the septuagint, or the lxx. this latter name is given to it because of a tradition that the translation was accomplished by seventy, or about seventy, elders of the jews. the most generally accepted theory concerning it, however, is that it was a work accomplished at various times between 280 b. c. and 150 b. c. the books of moses being first translated as early as the time of ptolemy philadelphus, 284-246 b. c, while the prophets and psalms were translated somewhat later. it is not, however, the time or manner in which the translation was accomplished that we are interested in, but the character of the translation itself; and of this, alfred edersheim, in his "life and times of jesus, the messiah," in the division of his work which treats of the preparation for the gospel, says of the septuagint: putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the greek version. it bears evident marks of its origin in egypt, in its use of egyptian words and references, and equally evident traces of its jewish composition. by the side of slavish and false literalism there is great liberty, if not license, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of some able scholars. distinct jewish elements are undeniably there, which can only be explained by reference to jewish tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed. this we can easily understand, since only those traditions would find a place which at the early time were not only received, but in general circulation. the distinctly grecian elements, however, are at present of chief interest to us. _they consist of allusions to greek mythological terms, and adaptations of greek philosophical ideas_. however few, even one well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others, and in general give to the version the character of jewish hellenising. in the same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristics of the lxx version, which, for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and apologetic. difficulties--or what seemed such--are removed by the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. more especially, a strenuous effort is made to banish all anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of the deity.[a] [footnote a: "jesus, the messiah," by edersheim,vol. i, pp. 27-8, eighth edition. later the same authority points out the fact that the septuagint version of the hebrew scriptures became really the people's bible to that large jewish world through which christianity was afterwards to address itself to mankind. "it was part of the case," he adds, "that this translation should be regarded by the hellenists as inspired like the original. otherwise it would have been impossible to make final appeal to the very words of the greek; still less to find in them a mystical and allegorical meaning."[a] [footnote a: ibid, p. 29.] the foundation thus laid for a superstructure of false philosophy there was not wanting builders who were anxious to place a pagan structure upon it. about the middle of the second century b. c., one aristobulus, a hellenist jew of alexandria, sought to so explain the hebrew scriptures as "to bring the peripatetic philosophy out of the law of moses, and out of the other prophets." following is a sample, according to edersheim, of his allegorizing: "thus, when we read that god stood, it meant the stable order of the world; that he created the world in six days, the orderly succession of time; the rest of the sabbath, the preservation of what was created. and in such manner could the whole system of aristotle be found in the bible. but how was this to be accounted for? of course, the bible had not learned of aristotle, but he and all other philosophers had learned from the bible. thus, according to aristobulus, pythagoras, plato, and all the other sages, had really learned from moses, and the broken rays found in their writings were united in all their glory in the torah."[a] [footnote a: "jesus, the messiah," edersheim, vol. 1, p. 36.] following aristobulus in the same kind of philosophy was philo, the learned jew of alexandria, born about the year 20 b. c. he was supposed to be a descendant of aaron, and belonged to one of the wealthiest and most influential families among the merchants of egypt; and he is said to have united a large share of greek learning with jewish enthusiasm. he followed most worthily in the footsteps of aristobulus. according to him, the greek sages had learned their philosophy from moses, in whom alone was all truth to be found. "not indeed, in the letter," says edersheim, "but _under_ the letter of holy scripture. if in numbers 23:19 we read 'god is not a man,' and in deut. 1:31 that the lord was 'as a man,' did it not imply on the one hand the revelation of absolute truth by god, and on the other, accommodation to those who were weak? here then, was the principle of a two-fold interpretation of the word of god--the literal and the allegorical. * * * to begin with the former: the literal sense must be wholly set aside, when it implies anything unworthy of the deity--anything unmeaning, impossible, or contrary to reason. manifestly this canon, if strictly applied, would do away not only with all anthropomorphisms, but cut the knot wherever difficulties seemed insuperable. again, philo would find an allegorical, along with the literal, interpretation indicated in the reduplication of a word, and in seemingly superfluous words, particles, or expressions. these could, of course, only bear such a meaning on philo's assumption of the actual inspiration of the septuagint version."[a] [footnote a: when one thinks of the mischief that may arise from such perversions of scripture by the application of philo's principles of interpretation, we do not marvel that some of the jews regarded the translation of the seventy "to have been as great a calamity to israel as the making of the golden calf."] edersheim admits, however, that in the talmudic canon, the interpretation where "any repetition of what had been already stated, would point to something new;" and holds that these are comparatively sober rules of exegesis. "not so the license," he remarks, "which he [philo] claimed, of freely altering the punctuation of sentences, and his notion that, if one from among several synonymous words was chosen in a passage, this pointed to some special meaning attaching to it. even more extravagant was the idea that a word which occurred in the septuagint might be interpreted according to every shade of meaning which it bore in the greek, and that even another meaning might be given it by slightly altering the letters." of philo's further efforts at harmonizing the revelations of god to the jews with the teachings of the greeks, it will only be necessary to read the following quotation from an authority upon such subjects: philo's doctrine starts from the idea that god is "being" absolutely bare of all quality. all quality in finite beings has limitation, and no limitation can be predicated of god, who is eternal, unchangeable, simple substance, free, self-sufficient. to predicate any quality of god would be to reduce him to the sphere of finite existence. of him we can only say _that_ he is, not _what_ he is, and such purely negative predictions as to his being appear to philo * * * the only way of securing his absolute elevation above the world [that is, above and outside of the material universe]. a consistent application of philo's abstract conception of god would exclude the possibility of any active relation of god to the world, and therefore of religion; for a being absolutely without quality and movement cannot be conceived as actively concerned with the multiplicity of individual things. and so, in fact, philo does teach that the absolute perfection, purity and loftiness of god would be violated by direct contact with imperfect, impure, and finite things. but the possibility of a connection between god and the world is reached through a distinction which forms the most important point in his theology and cosmology. the proper being of god is distinguished from the infinite multiplicity of divine ideas or forces: god himself is without quality, but he disposes of an infinite variety of divine forces, through _whose_ mediation an active relation of god to the world is brought about. in the details of his teaching as to these mediating entities, philo is guided partly by plato and partly by the stoics; but at the same time he makes use of the concrete religious conceptions of heathenism and judaism. following plato, he first calls them "ideas," or patterns of all things; they are thoughts of god, yet possess a real existence, and were produced before the creation of the sensible world, of which they are the keys. * * * philo maintains that the divine forces are identical with the "demons" of the greeks and the "angels" of the jews, i. e., servants and messengers of god, by means of which he communicates with the finite world. * * * philo regards all individual "ideas" as comprehended in one highest and most general "idea" or force--the unity of the individual idea--which he calls the "logos" or "reason" of god, and which is again regarded as operative "reason." the logos, therefore, is the highest mediator between god and man, the world, the first-born son of god, the archangel, who is the vehicle of all revelation, and the high priest who stands before god on behalf of the world. through whom the world was created.[a] [footnote a: professor e. schurer, of university of giessen, art. _philo_ in encyclo. brit.] in all this one may see only too plainly the effort to harmonize jewish theology with greek philosophy--an effort to be rid of the plain anthropomorphism of the hebrew scriptures for the incomprehensible "being" of greek metaphysics. thus the jews--the people who had been chosen to be witnesses for god to the world--appeared to have grown weary of the mission given to them. tired were they of standing in a position where their hands seemed to be raised against all men, and all men's hands against them. they had lost the spirit that had supported their fathers, and hence were searching out these cowardly compromises by which harmony could be shown to exist between the philosophy of the gentiles and the revelations of god to their fathers. god revealed to the world in the person of jesus christ. this completes the survey i intended to make of this field. nowhere have we found a knowledge of the true and living god. nowhere a teacher who comes with definite knowledge of this subject of all subjects--a subject so closely related to eternal life, that to know god is said in the scriptures to be life eternal; and of course, the corollary naturally follows, viz, not to know god is _not_ to possess eternal life. we can form no other conclusion from the survey we have taken of the world's ideas respecting the existence and nature of god, than that forced upon us--the world stood in sore need of a revelation of god. he whom the egyptians and indians sought for in their pantheism, must be made known. god, whom confucius would have men respect, but keep at a distance, must draw near. the "alfader" of the goths, undefined, incomprehensible to them, must be brought out of the northern darkness into glorious light. the god-idea that prevailed among the greek philosophers must be brought from the mists of their idle speculations and made to stand before the world, he whom the jews were seeking to deny and forsake must be revealed again to the children of men. and lo! when the vail falls from the revelation that god gives of himself, what form is that which steps forth from the background of the world's ignorance and mystery? a man, as god lives! jesus of nazareth--the great peasant teacher of judea. he is god revealed henceforth to the world. they who thought god impersonal, without form, must know him henceforth as a person in the form of man. they who have held him to be without quality, must henceforth know him as possessed of the qualities of jesus of nazareth. they who have regarded him as infinitely terrible, must henceforth know him also as infinitely gentle. those who would hold him at a distance, will now permit him to draw near. this is the world's mystery revealed. this is god manifested in the flesh. this is the son of god, who comes to reveal the father, for he is the express image and likeness of that father's person, and the reflection of that father's mind. henceforth when men shall say, show us the father, he shall point to himself as the complete revelation of the father, and say, "he that hath seen me, hath seen the father also." henceforth, when men shall dispute about the "being" and "nature" of god, it shall be a perfect answer to uphold jesus christ as the complete, perfect revelation and manifestation of god, and through all the ages it shall be so; there shall be no excuse for men saying they know not god, for all may know him, from the least to the greatest, so tangible, so real a revelation has god given of himself in the person and character of jesus christ. he lived his life on earth--a life of sorrow and of gentleness, its pathway strewn with actions fraught with mercy, kindness, and love. a man he was, approved of god among men, by miracles, and wonders and signs which god did by him. being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of god, men took and by wicked hands crucified and slew him, but god raised him up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it; and exalted him on high at the right hand of god, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.[a] [footnote a: this synopsis of the christ's life is in acts 2.] mark you, in all this there is not a word about the mysterious, ineffable generation of the son of god from the father, together with all the mysteries that men have gathered together in their learned disquisitions about god. no question is raised as to whether jesus was made out of nothing or begotten by ineffable generation from the substance of the father. whether he is consubstantial, that is, of the _same_ substance with the father, or only of a _similar_ substance. nor is there any question raised as to whether jesus was "begotten" before or after time began. all these and a hundred other questions arose after the christian doctrine of deity began to come in contact with the greek and other philosophies. jesus accepted the existence of god as a settled fact, and proclaimed himself to be the son of god: offending the jews, by so doing, for they saw that he made himself equal with god;[a] and being a man, held forth himself to be god.[b] slow indeed were they to learn the great truth plainly revealed in jesus christ, _that god is a perfect man_. such was jesus christ, and he was god manifested in the flesh. "was," did i say? nay, "_is_," i should have said; and such will he remain forever; a spirit he is, clothed with an immortal body, a resurrected body of tangible flesh and bones made eternal, and now dwelling in heaven with his father, of whom he is the express image and likeness; as well now as when he was on earth; and hence the father also must be a personage of flesh and bones, as tangible as the exalted man, christ jesus the lord. [footnote a: john 5:18.] [footnote b: john 10:30-33.] ii. evidence of christ's divinity from the scripture. it is my desire on this occasion to place in the hands of the elders of israel such tangible proofs from the scriptures concerning jesus christ being "god manifested in the flesh," that they will be able hereafter to maintain the doctrine taught upon this subject by the church; it is my desire to cite you evidence from which our young men may maintain the doctrine that god is an exalted man. for be it known unto you, that plain and from the scriptures indisputable as this doctrine of ours is, there are those who scorn it, who call it blasphemy, and who roundly denounce the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints for teaching it. i call your attention then, first of all, to the fact that jesus christ is called god in the scriptures. the first proof i offer for this statement is from the writings of isaiah. you remember perhaps my former quotation from isaiah, wherein that prophet says, "behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name immanuel",[a] the interpretation of which name is, according to matthew, "god with us".[b] so that this man-child, born of a woman, and called "immanuel," is god; and, moreover, is "god with us"--that is, with men. the same prophet also says: [footnote a: isaiah 7:14.] [footnote b: matt. 1:23.] for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called wonderful, counselor, _the mighty god, the everlasting father, the prince of peace_.[a] [footnote a: isaiah 9:6.] all concede that this is in plain allusion to jesus christ, and the scriptures here directly call him _the mighty god_. he is also called god in the testimony of john. mark this language, for it is a passage around which many ideas center, and to which we shall have occasion to refer several times. in the preface to his gospel, john says: in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, _and the word was god_. the same was in the beginning with god. * * * and the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father) full of grace and truth. there can be no question but direct reference is here made to the lord jesus christ, as being the "word;" and the "word," or jesus being with the father in the beginning, and the "word," or jesus christ, also being god. the "word," then, as used here by john, is one of the titles of jesus in his pre-existent estate. why called the "word" i know not, unless it is that by a "word" we make an expression; and since jesus christ was to be the expression of god, the revelation of god to the children of men, he was for that reason called the "word."[a] [footnote a: since the delivery of the above discourse i note the following in a revelation to joseph smith: "in the beginning the word was, for he [christ] was the word, even the _messenger of salvation_." (doc. and cov. sec. 93.) that is, it appears that messiah was called the "word" because he was the "messenger"--"the messenger of salvation."] jesus declares himself to be god--the son of god: jesus was crucified on the charge that he was an impostor--that he, being a man, said that "god was his father, making himself equal with god" (john 5:18). and again: "for a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man, makest thyself god" (john 10:33). again: when accused before pilate, who declared he could "find no fault in him," the jews answered him, "we have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the son of god." moreover, the high priest, in the course of his trial before the sanhedrim of the jews, directly said to jesus, "i adjure thee by the living god, that thou tell us whether thou be the christ, the son of god. jesus said unto him, thou hast said: nevertheless, i say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (matt 27:63, 64). and finally, when jesus appeared to the eleven disciples after his resurrection, he said unto them, "all power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth, go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost" (matt. 28:18, 19). a clearer proclamation of his divinity could not be made than in the statement, "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," especially when it is followed by placing himself on equal footing with the father and the holy ghost, which he does when he commands his disciples to baptize in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost. nothing can be added to this, except it be the words of god the father directly addressed to jesus, when he says, "thy throne, o god, is for ever and ever" (heb. 1:8). jesus christ to be worshiped, hence god. jesus christ is to be worshiped by men and angels; and worship is an honor to be paid only to true deity. the angels of heaven refuse the adoration we call worship. you remember when the apostle john was on the isle of patmos, and god sent a heavenly messenger to him, how the apostle overawed by the brightness of his glory fell upon his face to worship him, and the angel said: "see thou do it not: for i am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship god."[a] so you see the angels refuse divine honors. but the scriptures prove that jesus was especially to be worshiped; hence he must be deity: [footnote a: rev. 19:10.] for unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee? and again, i will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. and again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, let all the angels of god worship him.[a] [footnote a: heb. 1:5, 6.] the same doctrine is taught in the epistle to the philippians: wherefore god also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that jesus christ is lord, to the glory of god the father.[a] [footnote a: phil. 2:9, 10.] there are other passages to the same effect, but it is perhaps unnecessary for me to turn to each of these since the ones here quoted will be sufficient to establish in your minds the fact contended for. jesus christ is the creator, hence god. jesus christ is the creator. evidence of this is found in the testimony of john from which i have already quoted. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god. the same was in the beginning with god. all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. in him was life; and the life was the light of men.[a] [footnote a: john 1:1-4.] again in the epistle to the colossians: the father * * * hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of heaven * * who is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of every creature. for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.[a] [footnote a: col. 1:12-17.] again in hebrews: god, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers--by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. now we begin to see the relation of the father and the son; for though the "word" be god, though "immanuel" is god, that is, "god with us," he does not displace god the father, but stands in the relationship of a son to him. under the direction of the father, he created worlds, and in this manner is the creator of our earth, and the heavens connected with the earth. and everywhere the scriptures command that men should worship the creator. in fact the burden of the cry of that angel who is to restore the gospel in the hour of god's judgment is, fear god, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven and earth and the seas and the fountains of waters.[a] [footnote a: rev. 14:7.] jesus christ equal with god the father, hence god. after the resurrection, jesus appeared unto his disciples, and said to them, as recorded in the closing chapter of matthew: all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever i have commanded you.[a] [footnote a: matt. 28:18, 19.] observe that the lord jesus christ is placed upon a footing of equal dignity with god the father, and with the holy ghost. this brings to mind the scripture of paul, where he says, speaking of jesus: who, being in the form of god, thought it not robbery to be _equal_ with god.[a] [footnote a: phil. 2:6.] so also is christ given equal station with the father and with the holy ghost in the apostolic benediction over and over again. may the grace of the lord jesus christ, the love of god and the communion of the holy ghost be with you all. in these several passages we have jesus christ, after his resurrection, asserting that all power had been given unto him, both in heaven and in earth; he is placed upon a footing of equal dignity with god the father in the holy trinity--in the grand triumvirate which constitutes the presiding council or godhead reigning over our heavens and our earth--hence god. i now wish to give you the proof that jesus christ is the express image of the father; the express image of his person, as well as the revelation of the attributes of god. following that language in hebrews where jesus is spoken of as having created worlds under the direction of the father, it is said: who being the brightness of his [the father's] glory, _and the express image of his person_, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high.[a] [footnote a: heb. 3:3.] so paul to the corinthians: the god of this world hath blinded the minds of those which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of christ, _who is the image of god_, should shine unto them.[a] [footnote a: ii cor. 4:4.] so also, in his letter to the colossians, when speaking of christ paul says: who is the image of the invisible god, the first born of every creature.[a] [footnote a: col. 1:5.] being "the express image of his person," then the "image of the invisible god," jesus becomes a revelation of the person of god to the children of men, as well as a revelation of his character and attributes. again, you have the scriptures saying: for it pleased the father that in him [christ jesus] should all fullness dwell. * * * for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily.[a] [footnote a: col. 1:19, 2:9.] all there is, then, in god, there is in jesus christ. all that jesus christ is, god is, and jesus christ is an immortal man of flesh and bone and spirit, and with his father and the holy spirit will reign eternally in the heavens. iii. the character of god revealed in the life of jesus christ. having proved from the scriptures that jesus christ is god, and the revelation of god to man, i come to another branch of my subject. i now wish to show you that jesus christ manifested god also in his life; and although i have been addressing you for some time, i am quite sure you yourselves would not be entirely satisfied with the treatise upon this subject, unless i pointed out how god would act under the variety of circumstances in which it is our privilege to behold him placed. the humility of god. first of all, i call your attention to the deep, the profound humility of god; his great condescension in living among men, as he did, for our instruction; and from that circumstance would draw to your attention the lesson of humility his life teaches. the heights of glory to which jesus had attained, the power and dignity of his position in the heavenly kingdom, of course, cannot be comprehended by us in our present finite condition, and with our limited knowledge of things. great and exalted as we might think him to be, you may depend upon it he was exalted infinitely higher than that. then when you think of one living and moving in the courts of heaven and mingling in the councils of the gods, consenting to come down to this earth and pass through the conditions that jesus passed through, do you not marvel at his humility? to be born under such circumstances as would enable wicked man to cast reflection upon his very birth![a] to be born, too, in a stable, and to be cradled in a manger! to grow up a peasant, with a peasant's labor to perform, and a peasant's fare to subsist upon from childhood to manhood--do you not marvel at this great humility, at this great condescension of god? and by his humility, are not men taught humility, as they are taught it by no other circumstance whatsoever! [footnote a: st. john 8:41.] the obedience of god. of his youth, we know but little; but the little we know reveals a shining quality, either for god or man to possess. you must remember, in all our consideration of the life of messiah, one truth, which comes to us from the scriptures in an incidental way, viz., that "in his humiliation his judgment was taken from him."[a] as the veil is drawn over our minds when our pre-existent spirits come into this world, and we forget the father and mother of the spirit world, and the positions we occupied there, so, too, with jesus; in his humiliation his judgment was taken from him; he knew not at first whence he came, nor the dignity of his station in heaven. it was only by degrees that he felt the spirit working within him and gradually unfolding the sublime idea that he was peculiarly and pre-eminently the son of god in very deed. when at jerusalem, about twelve years of age, he began to be conscious of the suggestions of the spirit within him, and hence allowed the caravan with which he had come from distant galilee to judea to start upon the return journey without him, much to the perplexity and sorrow of his supposed father, joseph, and his mother mary. they missing him, returned and found him in the temple disputing with the doctors and lawyers. they reprimanded him, as they would reprimand any boy guilty of similar conduct; but when they reproved him, he answered, "wist ye not that i must be about my father's business." he began to understand his mission. the spirit promptings were at work in his soul. and while ultimately the spirit was given without measure unto him,[b] it was not so at first, for "he received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace."[c] the child jesus "grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of god was upon him. * * * and jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with god and man."[d] but notwithstanding jesus, at twelve years of age, and earlier, began to experience the operations of the spirit calling his soul to his mission, still we are told that he returned with his parents to galilee, "and was subject unto them." he who had given the law, "honor thy father and thy mother," in this act exemplified the honor that he entertained for that law, in his practice of it. [footnote a: acts 8:33.] [footnote b: st. john 3:34.] [footnote c: doc. and cov., sec. 93:12, 13] [footnote d: luke 2:40, 52.] we next see him coming to the banks of jordan, where a prophet of god is baptizing--one of those strange, eccentric men, who lived for the most part in the wilderness, whose food was locusts and wild honey, and whose clothing was the skins of wild animals; and yet through all this eccentricity, through all this oddness of character, shone the divine powers of god in this messenger, and multitudes of people gathered to his preaching by the jordan, where he baptized them for the remission of their sins. by and by, jesus comes and demands baptism at this man's hands; and as he enters the water, the prophet stays him, and says, "i have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" already, doubtless, shining, through this "expression of god,"--this jesus of nazareth,--the servant of the lord, in attune, through the spirit of inspiration, with the very god who was approaching him, felt the divinity of his presence, and would fain acknowledge his own inferiority. what was the reply? "suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." he who had said that men must be baptized for the remission of sins, though himself sinless, would honor that law by obedience unto it. thus we learn that god can not only give law, but he can obey law. indeed, only those who know how to obey law are qualified to make it. the patience of god under temptation. next we shall see how god, in the person of jesus christ, manages himself under temptation. after his baptism, he was driven of the spirit into the wilderness, where he fasted forty days and forty nights. there under the quiet stars, and in the desert, he was consecrating his life to the service of god the father, and gathering to himself those spiritual forces, and calling up those divine powers, that should carry him through the three years of storm and tempest that must be his in the fulfillment of his mission. when he had reached his greatest point of weakness, when "an hungered," and fainting from his long fast, whom do you suppose came into his presence to tempt him? no other than his arch-enemy; the one with whom he contended in the councils of god before the foundations of this earth were laid, when the great plan of life and salvation was being discussed--lucifer, in the full pride of his strength and glory came tempting him. i say lucifer came in the fullness of his strength and glory; for i take it that at this time he had well-nigh reached the pinnacle of his power. we have seen that he had blinded all the races of men respecting god. truly, he held the nations of the world and their glory within his own hands: and the knowledge of the true god was not had among men. proudly, therefore, he steps to the side of the weakened god, to propound certain questions to him. in substance, he said, "you have had whisperings of the spirit that you are deity, that you are the son of god. if so, exercise your creative power, turn these stones into bread, and satisfy your hunger. come, since you are a god, you must needs have creative powers; try it upon these stones and hunger no more." god, in the presence of his arch-enemy, still retained his humility, and answered out of the scriptures: "it is written, man shall not live by bread alone." after that, lucifer takes the christ to the pinnacle of the temple, and tries him upon another side--a side upon which good men are particularly vulnerable, the side of their vanity, that prompts them to believe they are the special favorites of heaven, and that god had given his angels charge concerning them. christ's tempter said, "if thou be the son of god, cast thyself down: for it is written, he shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." again the son of god answers in humility, and still out of the scriptures: "it is written also, thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god." because god has given you certain promises, you apostles, and prophets, and men of god; because you, by your righteousness, perchance have made yourselves of the elect of god, it is not becoming that you should be putting god constantly upon trial. "thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god." walk your pathway in the light of common sense, and be not puffed up with vanity because there is something special in your relationship with god. lucifer next approaches jesus upon the side most vulnerable of all, in quick and mighty spirits--on the side of ambition. i take it that there have been but few strong men who have not felt the desire to rule, to govern; and not always selfishly, either, or for personal ends, but sometimes out of an honest thought that they can do somewhat of good to humanity. even good men may love power, and may aspire to the righteous exercise of it. it was upon this side that lucifer sought to break in upon the virtue of jesus. he unveils the kingdoms of the world; which he holds in his thraldom; he reveals their glory, and the might and majesty to which men may attain, if only they can grasp the sceptre of some great empire. now, says he, "all these things will i give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." he who has answered in tones so humble up to this point; and has endured the taunts and questionings of his great enemy with becoming modesty and humility, now, evidently, feels stirring within him some of those master powers that may shake the world and send the stars out of their courses, "get thee hence, satan," said he, "for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve." the spirit of the son of god was aroused, it was time for lucifer's departure, and so he left jesus, and angels came and ministered unto him. so god deports himself under trial and temptation. how splendid the lesson for man! the compassion and impartiality of god. jesus was possessed of infinite compassion. the incidents that i shall relate to you, in support of this statement, are in quotations that are free, and yet, i think, justified by the spirit of the several occasions. after all, it is the spirit that giveth life; the letter killeth; so let us look at these things in the spirit of them. you see him one day with some of his disciples approaching the little village of nain, "his raiment dusty and his sandals worn." as they draw near, the gate is opened and a funeral procession marches out. the mother of the young man whose body is being borne by his neighbors to the final resting place, walks feebly and weeping beside the bier, desolate in her loneliness. as jesus saw that poor woman in the midst of her sorrow, his heart--i pray you think of it, for we are speaking of god when we speak of jesus christ, the creator of heaven and earth--the heart of god, is moved with compassion towards this woman. he stops the bier, takes the dead by the hand, and says, "young man, i say unto you, arise." and he arose. jesus christ gave this woman back her son. it was an act of beautiful compassion, one of many, which illustrates how tender and sympathetic is the heart of our god! nor was his ministry confined exclusively to the poor, to the widows, to the lonely. he despised not rulers, nor the rich, because they were rich; but was willing, if only they could put themselves in a position to receive the manifestations of his compassion--he was willing to minister unto them. this is proved in the case of jairus, one of the rulers of the jews, and a man of great wealth. you will remember that he came running to the master with his sorrow--his daughter was lying dangerously ill at home; and such was his faith that if the master would but speak the word, she would be healed. while yet he spake, one of his servants came running, saying, "thy daughter is dead: trouble not the master." but jesus heeded not the word of the servant. he had heard jairus' cry of faith, and responsive to that faith-cry, he made his way to the home of the ruler, put out those who were unbelieving, and taking the maid by the hand, gave her back to the gladness of life, into the arms of the joyous father. the faith of that rich man was as great as the faith of any we meet with in all the ministry of the lord. so, wealth is not necessarily a hindrance to faith. god is as close to the faithful rich as to the faithful poor, and as ready to grant them his mercy, according to their faith. i sometimes think we make a mistake when we would flout those who are rich and put them outside the pale of god's mercy and goodness because of what may be nothing but a prejudice--which in reality may be our envy--of the rich. while on the way to the ruler's house, another incident happened that is very remarkable. a woman in the throng, a long time afflicted with a grievous ailment, said in her heart as she saw him pass, "if i may but touch his garment, i shall be whole." accordingly she crowded her way forward, dropped upon her knee, clutched the garment, and received the divine power from him which cleansed her body and healed her completely. jesus, observing that something had happened to him, turned to the apostles and said, "who touched me?" they replied, "master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, who touched me?" as if that was not to be expected in such a crowd, ah! said jesus, but "i perceive that virtue is gone out of me." what was it? simply that through this poor woman's faith--who supposed herself so far removed from god that she dare--not come into his presence and ask for the blessing she desired, but undertook to obtain it by indirect means--through her faith and touching the garment of the lord, the healing virtues passed from god to her in such a tangible manner that he felt their departure, just as some of you elders, when administering to one who was full of faith have felt your spiritual strength and life go out from you leaving you weak and almost helpless, but giving healthful life to the afflicted. i speak to men who have experience in these things, and i know that scores of you could bear witness to the truth of this phenomenon. if our lives can but touch the life of god, such is his nature that we shall partake of the virtues that go out from him. what shall i say of lepers that crowded into messiah's presence, and who, notwithstanding the loathsomeness of their disease, found sympathy and help from contact with him? what of the blind, the lame, the halt? why, let us not speak of them; for though it is a great thing that their bodies should be healed, and they should go through the community singing the praises of him who had restored them, there are better things to speak of--the healing of men's souls, the purifying of their spirits. god's treatment of sinners. let us ask, rather, how did jesus christ--god--deal with sinners? i take one incident that has always appealed very strongly to me, and illustrates the spirit in which christ deals with sinners; for this god of ours is peculiarly the friend of sinners, not because of their sins, however, but in spite of them; and because of his compassion upon those so unfortunate as to be under the bondage of sin. the over-righteous pharisees of christ's time would not for the world come in contact with sinful men, lest they themselves should be polluted. they gathered the robes of their sanctity about them, and considered themselves in such close relation with god that they could afford to despise his poor, unfortunate, sinful children, instead of holding out the hand that would bring them from the kingdom of darkness into the brightness and glory of the kingdom of god. but not so with jesus christ. when he was accused by this class of men of mingling with publicans and sinners, his answer to them was, "they that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. i came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." as if he had said, you who are righteous and have no need of healing for sin, stand by yourselves; my mission is not to you, but to those who have need of god's help. such was the spirit of his answer. the incident to which i refer as illustrative of his compassion for sinners, is this: the jews were always on the alert to entrap the messiah's feet and bring him into contradiction with the law of moses. the law of moses, as first given to israel, was that if any should be found in adultery they should be stoned to death; but the rabbis, by nice discriminations of words, practically had rendered that law a dead letter, by reason of which the adulterers in israel escaped the punishment that god had decreed against them. therefore, they thought if they could take a person who unquestionably had been guilty of this crime and bring him or her into the presence of jesus, they would either bring him in conflict with the law of moses, or with the tradition of the elders, and in either case would have sufficient cause to denounce him before the people. so they found a woman, caught in the act; they dragged her through the streets, and cast her at his feet. "master," said they, "this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. now moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" he replied, "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." one by one they slunk away, until the woman was left alone with jesus. when jesus looked around, and saw none but the woman, he said to her, "woman, where are thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" "no man, lord," she said. then jesus said: "neither do i condemn thee: go and sin no more." that is how god deals with sinners. it is written that god cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, and that is true, he cannot; but how about the sinner? why, he may look upon the sinner with infinite compassion. while sin must always be hateful, yet will he help and love the sinner, if he will but go his way and sin no more. such is our human weakness, and so nearly the level upon which we all move, that there is none of us but will plead mightily for mercy; and, thank god, we shall not plead in vain; for, while our judge cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance, his heart goes out in compassion and love to men and he will help them to overcome sin, to fight a good fight, to keep the faith, and at last enable them to win the crown in the kingdom of our god. god's spirit of toleration. jesus, moreover, was tolerant. you will recall the circumstance of his having to go through samaria, and you remember that the samaritans hated the jews, and jesus was a jew. some of his disciples went into a village of samaria, through which jesus would have to pass, and sought to make arrangements for the master to stay over night; but the samaritans closed their doors against him. they had heard of him; he was a jew; and in the narrowness of their minds they would not admit the hated jew into their homes. this very much angered the disciple john, who loved jesus dearly. he was one of the "sons of thunder," and possessed of a spirit that could love; and being strong in love, as is often the case--i was going to say as is always the case--he was likewise strong in hating. he was the type of man that does both heartily. hence, he went to the master and asked him if he might not call down fire from heaven upon those samaritans for thus rejecting the master. jesus replied: "ye know not what spirit ye are of. the son of man came to save, not to destroy." a broadness, a liberality truly glorious. jesus was properly broad minded--liberal. on one occasion some of the disciples found one casting out devils in the name of jesus, and they forbade him, because he followed not the master. when they came into the presence of jesus, they reported this case and told what they had done. jesus said, "forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me." then he gave us the other half of that truth, "he that is not for me is against me," by saying, "for he that is not against us is for us." thus he corrected the narrow-mindedness of his own apostles. the severity of god. but notwithstanding all his mercy, his tolerance, his patience and gentleness, there were times when he, who was so infinitely merciful could also be infinitely just; he who was so infinitely compassionate could be infinitely severe. i give you an instance of it. he had struggled long and hard with those hypocrites, the scribes and pharisees; and finally the voice of justice and reproof, as it is to be found in god, speaks forth through jesus christ, and this is what he said: woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. that is not so gentle, is it? listen again: woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? and, whosoever, shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? * * * ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. thou blind pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? and this from that gentle, compassionate man! the voice of god in its severity speaks through these tones, and bids us understand that it must be a terrible thing to fall under the displeasure of god. think of the infinite difference between that sweet compassion which he has for the penitent sinner, and this severe but just arraignment of those who persist in their sins! a warning to all men to beware of the justice of god, when once it shall be aroused! god completely revealed through christ. my friends, this jesus christ is god manifested in the flesh, proved to be so from the scripture; the character of god is revealed in the wonderful life that jesus, the son of god, lived on earth; in it we see god in action; and from it we see the gentleness, the compassion, and also the justice and severity of god. jesus christ is god; and he is also man; but i take no stock in those sectarian refinements which try to tell us about the humanity of jesus being separate from the divinity of jesus. he himself made no such distinctions. he was divine, spirit and body, and spirit and body was exalted to the throne of his father, and sits there now with all the powers of the godhead residing in him bodily, an immortal, glorified, exalted man! the express image and likeness god of the father; for as the son is, so is the father. yet when we announce to the world that we believe god to be an exalted man, we are told that we are blasphemers. but as long as the throne of jesus christ stands sure, so long as his spirit remains in his immortal body of flesh and bones, glorified and everlasting, shall keep his place by the side of the father, so long will the doctrine that god is an exalted man hold its place against the idle sophistries of the learned world. the doctrine is true. it cannot be enthroned. a truth is a solemn thing. not the mockery of ages, not the lampooning of the schoolmen, not the derision of the multitude, not the blasphemy of the world, can affect it; it will always remain true. and this doctrine, announced by joseph smith to the world, that god is an exalted man, that jesus christ is the revelation of god to the world, and that he is just like his father, and that those who are his brethren may become as he is, when they have walked in his footsteps--that is a doctrine that will stand sure and fast as the throne of god itself. for jesus christ was god manifested in the flesh. he was the revelation of god to the world. he was and is and ever will remain an exalted man. he is, and always will remain, god. chapter v. a collection of passages from "mormon" works, setting forth "mormon" views of deity. in this chapter i present a collection of "mormon" utterances on the subject of deity, of man, and of his relationship to god. they are selected from discourses and other writings of the prophet joseph smith, from the book of mormon, the revelations in the doctrine and covenants, the pearl of great price, some of the earlier church publications, and last of all, i give, by permission, a recent discourse by president joseph f. smith. these utterances are arranged in an order, and with the view of establishing the fact that from the beginning of what the world calls "mormonism," the views contended for in the body of this work, have been the doctrine of the church. the father and the son are represented as distinct persons, and also as being in the form of men, in the first vision of the prophet of the new dispensation. it is well known that while the prophet joseph smith was a lad, but fourteen years of age, he became much exercised on the subject of religion, and very much perplexed in consequence of the division and strife existing among the religious sects, by which he was surrounded. and now his own account as to how he sought wisdom and obtained a very important revelation, in which he learned very important truths, both concerning god and the state of the religious world: in the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, i often said to myself: what is to be done? who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? if any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall i know it? while i was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, i was one day reading the epistle of james, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: _if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of god, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him._ never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. it seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. i reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from god, i did; for how to act i did not know, and unless i could get more wisdom than i then had, i would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the bible. at length i came to the conclusion that i must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else i must do as james directs, that is, ask of god. i at length came to the determination to ask of god, concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, i might venture. so, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of god, i retired to the woods to make the attempt. it was on the morning of a beautiful clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. it was the first time in my life that i had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties, i had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally. after i had retired to the place where i had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, i kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to god. i had scarcely done so when immediately i was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me, as to bind my tongue so that i could not speak. thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if i were doomed to sudden destruction. but, exerting all my powers to call upon god to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me; and at the very moment when i was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction--not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as i had never before felt in any being--just at this moment of great alarm, i saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. it no sooner appeared than i felt myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. _when the light rested upon me i saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. one of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other: "this is my beloved son, hear him!"_ my object in going to enquire of the lord, was to know, which, of all the sects, was right; that i might know which to join. no sooner, therefore, did i get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than i asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects, was right--and which i should join. i was answered that i must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. he again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which i cannot write at this time.[a] [footnote a: pearl of great price, pp. 83-85. also history of church vol. i, pp. 4-6.] of the importance of this vision, and the effects growing out of it, i have elsewhere said: first, it is a flat contradiction to the sectarian assumption that revelation had ceased; that god had no further communication to make to man. second, it reveals the errors into which men had fallen, concerning the personages of the godhead. it makes it manifest that god is not an incorporeal being without form, or body, or parts; on the contrary he appeared to the prophet in the form of a man, as he did to the ancient prophets. thus, after centuries of controversy, the simple truth of the scriptures, which teach that man was created in the likeness of god--hence god must be the same in form as man--was re-affirmed. third, it corrected the error of the theologians respecting the oneness of the persons of the father and the son. instead of being one person, as the theologians teach, they are distinct in their personality; and there is a plurality of gods, for the father and the son are two individuals, as much so as any father and son on earth; and the oneness of the godhead referred to in the scriptures, must have reference to unity of purpose and of will; the mind of one being the mind of the other, and so as to will and other attributes. in other words, the oneness of the godhead is a moral and spiritual union, not a physical one. the announcement of these truths, coupled with that other truth proclaimed by the son of god, _viz_: that none of the sects and churches of christendom were acknowledged as the church or kingdom of god, furnish the elements for a religious revolution that will affect the very foundations of modern christian theology. in a moment, all the rubbish concerning theology, which had accumulated through all the centuries since the gospel and authority to administer its ordinances had been taken from the earth, was grandly swept aside--the living rocks of truth were made bare upon which the church of christ was to be founded--a new dispensation of the gospel was about to be committed to the earth--god had raised up a witness for himself among the children of men.[a] [footnote a: new witnesses for god, vol. i, pp. 173-4.] the doctrine of the godhead according to the book of mormon. the book of mormon is not a formal treatise on the subject of theology. it is in the main an abridgment of ancient nephite and jaredite records, and recounts the hand-dealings of god with these ancient peoples. the existence of god it takes for granted, and, of course, since its revelations are local, that is, they pertain to this earth and its inhabitants only, it has reference to our godhead alone. it makes reference, therefore, only to our god, and speaks of him in the singular number--as being one. but notwithstanding this, the three persons of the godhead are frequently spoken of as being separate and distinct personalities, as the following passages will illustrate. a nephite prophet, reasoning upon the subject of the resurrection and the restoration that will be brought about in connection therewith, says: but all things shall be restored to their perfect frame, as they are now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of christ the son, and god the father, and the holy spirit, which is one eternal god, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.[a] [footnote a: alma, 11:44.] again, the savior when instructing the nephites in the manner of baptizing, said: and now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them [those to be baptized] by name; saying: having authority given me of jesus christ, i baptize you in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost. amen. * * * and after this manner shall ye baptize in my name, for behold, verily i say unto you; that the father, and the son, and the holy ghost are one; and i am in the father, and the father in me, and the father and i are one. * * * * and this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the father hath given unto me; and i bear record of the father, and the father beareth record of me, and the holy ghost beareth record of the father and me. * * * * this is my doctrine, and i bear record of it from the father; and whoso believeth in me, believeth in the father also, and unto him will the father bear record of me; for he will visit him with fire, and with the holy ghost.[a] [footnote a: iii nephi, 11:24-27; 32, 35.] also the prophet mormon, speaking of the work of christ, says: and he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day, hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of god in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the father and unto the son, and unto the holy ghost, which are one god.[a] [footnote a: mormon, 7:7.] seeing, then, that reference is so frequently made to the members of the godhead as separate and distinct persons, it is clear that the book of mormon is in harmony with the views contended for in the body of this work, as to the plurality of gods, and the doctrine receives increased emphasis from other passages of the work. the prophet alma, for instance, says: he [god] gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, _and becoming as gods_, knowing good from evil, etc.[a] [footnote a: alma, 12:31.] then again, the savior when instructing the nephite apostles, said to them: ye shall be judges of this people, according to the judgment which i shall give unto you, which shall be just; therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? verily i say unto you, _even as i am_. * * * * and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the father hath given me fullness of joy; _and ye shall be even as lam, and i am even as the father; and the father and i are one_.[a] [footnote a: iii nephi, 27:27; 28:10.] if the disciples became as christ, and christ, we are assured, is as the father is, then these words of jesus contemplate that these men will become as god now is, and hence gods, and hence a plurality of gods. with reference to the form of god, the book of mormon has two very important and very emphatic passages on the subject. the first nephi, in a great vision given to him of the future, was attended by a spirit who gave him explanations, as the several parts of his vision passed before him. and now nephi's account: and it came to pass that the spirit said unto me, look! and i looked, and beheld a tree; * * * * and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding all beauty, and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow. and it came to pass after i had seen the tree, i said unto the spirit: i behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all. and he said unto me: what desirest thou? and i said unto him: to know the interpretation thereof; _for i spake unto him as a man speaketh; for i beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet, nevertheless, i knew that it was the spirit of the lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another_.[a] [footnote a: i nephi, 11:8-11.] the second passage alluded to is found in the book of ether. the prophet moriancumr, the brother of jared, when about to depart with his colony in barges across the great deep, had prepared certain stones which he prayed the lord to make luminous, that they might have light in the barges while on their journey. he had approached the lord with great faith, and expressed full confidence in the power of god to do the thing for which he prayed; and now the book of mormon statement of the matter: and it came to pass that when the brother of jared had said these words, behold the lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones, one by one with his finger; and the vail was taken from off the eyes of the brother of jared, and he saw the finger of the lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of jared fell down before the lord, for he was struck with fear. * * * * and the lord said unto him, arise, why hast thou fallen? and he said unto the lord, i saw the finger of the lord, and i feared lest he should smite me; for i knew not that the lord had flesh and blood. and the lord said unto him, because of thy faith thou hast seen that i shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so, you could not have seen my finger. * * * * and when he had said these words, behold, the lord shewed himself unto, him, and said, because thou knowest these things, you are redeemed from the fall; therefore you are brought back into my presence; therefore i shew myself unto you. behold, i am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. behold, i am christ. i am the father and the son.[a] in me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. and never have i shewed myself unto, man whom i have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. seest thou that thou art created after mine own image? yea, even all men were created in the beginning, after mine own image. behold, this body, which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have i created after the body of my spirit; and even as i appear unto thee to be in the spirit, will i appear unto my people in the flesh.[b] [footnote a: this expression made several times in the book of mormon, should not confuse the reader. jesus is spoken of in this passage as both father and son for the reason that he received of the fullness of the father; that is, a fullness of his glory, his power, and dominion, hence jesus represented god in his completeness--"in him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily" (col. 2:9); hence deity complete, hence both father and son. in another sense also is jesus the "very eternal father of heaven and earth:" he is the immediate creator of them: and to the extent that a creator may be regarded as a father, jesus may be regarded as the very eternal father of heaven and earth. he is called the son because he tabernacled in the flesh, and, in his earthly career, received not a fullness of the godhead at first. see doctrine and covenants, sec. 93. also mosiah 15:1-4, and the remarks of president joseph f. smith in this chapter.] [footnote b: ether 3:6-16.] from this it will be seen that the book of mormon is in harmony with the bible's plain anthropomorphism; as also the one is in harmony with the other in affirming the necessary plurality of gods. the doctrines of the godhead and man according to the book of abraham. the book of abraham came into the hands of the prophet joseph smith in the form of egyptian papyrus, in the summer of 1835. the following winter in his history the prophet frequently speaks of working upon the translation of this ancient record. the translation was not completed and published, however, until march, 1842, at nauvoo, when it appeared in the _times and seasons_, numbers 9 and 10, vol. iii. in his writings and teachings the prophet frequently refers to this ancient record with every mark of approval. in the first publication of the work the introductory heading declared it to be "the book of abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus." it will be understood, then, that its doctrines are those of the great prophet-patriarch, abraham. the book gives an account of the call of abraham from ur of the chaldees and his sojourn and adventures in egypt. the extracts from it here given deal with the revelations of god to the patriarch concerning the planetary system, pre-existence and nature of man, and the creation of the earth by the gods--for abraham throughout his account of creation uses the plural, "the gods said let there be light;" "the gods said let us make man in our image," etc., etc., hence it is clear that the doctrine of the plurality of gods was plainly taught through this sacred scripture in the days of joseph smith, for he translated it, and it was published by him in the _times and seasons_ while he was the editor of that journal. and now a few extracts from the book itself: and i, abraham, had the urim and thummim, which the lord my god had given unto me, in ur of the chaldees; and i saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of god; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; and the lord said unto me: these are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is kolob, because it is near unto me, for i am the lord thy god: and i have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest. and the lord said unto me, by the urim and thummim, that kolob was after the manner of the lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. this is the reckoning of the lord's time, according to the reckoning of kolob. * * * * and the lord said unto me: now, abraham, these two facts exist, behold thine eyes see it; it is given unto thee to know the times of reckoning, and the set time, yea, the set time of the earth upon which thou standest, and the set time of the greater light which is set to rule the day, and the set time of the lesser light which is set to rule the night. now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest. and where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; and thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto kolob, which kolob is after the reckoning of the lord's time, which kolob is set nigh unto the throne of god, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest. and it is given unto thee to know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until thou come near unto the throne of god. thus i, abraham, talked with the lord face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made: and he said unto me: my son, my son, (and his hand was stretched out,) behold i will show you all these. and he put his hand upon mine eyes, and i saw those things which his hand had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and i could not see the end thereof. * * * * and it was in the night time when the lord spake these words unto me: i will multiply thee, and thy seed after thee, like unto these; and if thou canst count the number of sands, so shall be the number of thy seeds. and the lord said unto me: abraham, i show these things unto thee before ye go into egypt, that ye may declare all these words. if two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore kolob is the greatest of all the kokaubeam (stars) that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me. now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or star may exist above it; * * * as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. and the lord said unto me: these two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; i am the lord thy god, i am more intelligent than them all. * * * * i dwell in the midst of them all; i now, therefore, have come down unto thee to deliver unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for i rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; i came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen. now the lord had shown unto me, abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; and god saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: these i will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. and there stood one among them that was like unto god, and he said unto those who were with him: we will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereupon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the lord their god shall command them; and they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. and the lord said: whom shall i send? and one answered like unto the son of man: here am i, send me. and another answered and said: here am i, send me. and the lord said: i will send the first. and the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him. and then the lord said: let us go down. and they went down at the beginning, and they, that is, the gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. and the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of the gods was brooding upon the face of the waters. and they (the gods) said: let there be light; and there was light. and they (the gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness. and the gods called the light day, and the darkness they called night, and it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called night; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night. and the gods also said: let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and it shall divide the waters from the waters. and the gods ordained the expanse, so that it divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so, even as they ordained. (pearl of great price, pp. 60-67.) and thus the account of creation proceeds throughout the seven periods thereof, and it is always the gods did this or that until the whole work of creation was prepared for man. the godhead according to the doctrine and covenants. the book of doctrine and covenants in the main is a collection of revelations given through the prophet joseph smith. it is not a formal treatise upon theology. this collection of revelations assumes the existence of god, and only incidentally treats of his being and attributes. and since the revelations pertain to our earth, and its heavens, and our god, the singular number is used in speaking of god; and yet in these revelations the persons of the godhead are spoken of as being distinct from one another in the sense of being separate and distinct individuals, as the following passages illustrate: there is a god in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the same unchangeable god, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; and that he created man, male and female, after his own image and his own likeness, created he them and gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true god, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship. but by the transgression of these holy laws, man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man. wherefore the almighty god gave his only begotten son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him. he suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them; he was crucified, died, and rose again the third day; and ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the father, to reign with almighty power according to the will of the father, that as many as would believe and be baptized in his holy name, and endure in faith to the end, should be saved; not only those who believed after he came in the meridian of time, in the flesh, but all those from the beginning, even as many as were before he came, who believed in the words of the holy prophets, who spake as they were inspired by the gift of the holy ghost, who truly testified of him in all things, should have eternal life, as well as those who should come after, who should believe in the gifts and callings of god by the holy ghost, which beareth record of the father, and of the son; which father, son, and holy ghost are one god, infinite and eternal, without end. amen.[a] [footnote a: doc. and cov. sec. 20:17-28.] so also in section ninety-three the distinction between father and son and holy spirit is clearly made; and man declared to be of the same race with god. indeed one may say that the supposed gulf of separation is swept away; that on the one hand the divinity of man is proclaimed, and on the other, the humanity of god. that is, there is identity of race between gods and men; though man is now in a fallen state, working upward towards god, through the plan of redemption in christ jesus: every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that i am, and that i am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and that i am in the father, and the father in me, and the father and i are one: the father because he gave me of his fullness, and the son because i was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men. i was in the world and received of my father, and the works of him were plainly manifest; and john saw and bore record of the fullness of my glory, and the fullness of john's record is hereafter to be revealed: and he bore record, saying, i saw his glory that he was in the beginning before the world was; therefore in the beginning the word was, for he was the word, even the messenger of salvation the light and the redeemer of the world; the spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men. the worlds were made by him; men were made by him: all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. and i, john, bear record that i beheld his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth, even the spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us. and i, john, saw that he received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace: and he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness; and thus he was called the son of god, because he received not of the fullness at the first. and i, john, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the holy ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying, this is my beloved son. and i, john, bear record that he received a fullness of the glory of the father; and he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the father was with him, for he dwelt in him. * * * and i give unto you these sayings that ye may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the father in my name, and in due time receive of his fullness. * * * and now, verily i say unto you, i was in the beginning with the father, and am the first-born. * * * ye were also in the beginning with the father; that which is spirit, even the spirit of truth. * * * man was also in the beginning with god. intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. all truth is independent in that sphere in which god has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise there is no existence. behold, here, is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man, because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. and every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation, for man is spirit. the elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy; and when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy. the elements are the tabernacle of god; yea man is the tabernacle of god, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, god shall destroy that temple.[a] [footnote a: doc. and cov. sec. 93:1-35.] again: the father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the son also: but the holy ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. were it not so, the holy ghost could not dwell in us.[a] [footnote a: ibid sec. 130:22.] since then there is in these revelations, a recognition of the distinction between the persons of the godhead, it is clear that the doctrine of a plurality of gods is recognized. it is also incidentally recognized in other passages of the doctrine and covenants. in section seventy-six, where a description is given of the blessedness of those who believe and obey the gospel, it is said: they are they who are the church of the first born. they are they into whose hands the father has given all things. they are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fullness, and of his glory, and are priests of the most high, after the order of melchizedek, which was after the order of enoch, which was after the order of the only begotten son; wherefore, as it is written, _they are gods, even the sons of god_--wherefore all things are theirs; whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are christ's and christ is god's.[a] [footnote a: doc. and cov. sec. 76:54-59.] the revelation in which the above passage appears was first published in the _evening and morning star_, july, 1832. again, in a prayer and prophecy written by joseph smith while in liberty prison, march, 1839, in the course of describing the power and glory and blessedness to be revealed in the dispensation of the fullness of times, the prophet declares that all things shall be made known- according to that which was ordained in the midst of _the council of the eternal god of all other gods_, before this world was.[a] [footnote a: doc. and cov. sec. 121:32.] again, in speaking of those who fall short of complete obedience to the fullness of the gospel of jesus christ, and describing their limitations the prophet says: from henceforth they are not gods, but are angels of god, forever and ever.[a] [footnote a: doc. and cov. sec. 132:17.] on the other hand he declares that all those who obey the fullness of the gospel- shall pass by the angels, _and the gods_, * * * to their exaltation and glory in all things. * * * _then shall they be gods_, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. _then shall they be gods_, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.[a] [footnote a: doc. and cov. sec. 132:19, 20.] thus the revelations of god to the church from the earliest times, and now collected in the doctrine and covenants, teach that men and gods are identical in race, and that there is a plurality of gods. the "mormon" doctrine of deity as set forth in the discourses of the prophet joseph smith and early church publications. from the king follett sermon, april 7, 1844.[a] [footnote a: _millenial star_, vol. xxiii, p. 245 _et seq._] it is necessary for us to have an understanding of god himself in the beginning. * * * * there are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of god. the great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as respects their relationship to god. * * * * if men do not comprehend the character of god, they do not comprehend themselves. * * * * what sort of a being was god in the beginning? open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth. * * * god himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! that is the great secret. if the vail was rent today, and the great god who holds this world in its orbit; and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible--i say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form--like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of god, and received instructions from, and walked, talked, and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another. * * * * it is necessary we should understand the character and being of god, and how he came to be so; for i am going to tell you how god came to be god. we have imagined and supposed that god was god from all eternity. i will refute that idea, and will take away the vail, so that you may see. * * * it is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of god, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that god himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as jesus christ himself did. * * * * the scriptures inform us that jesus said, "as the father hath power in himself, even so hath the son power"--to do what? why, what the father did. the answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. jesus, what are you going to do? to lay down my life, as my father did, and take it up again. do you believe it? if you do not believe it, you do not believe the bible.[a] * * * * [footnote a: the argument here made by the prophet is very much strengthened by the following passage: "the son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the father do; for what things soever he [the father] doeth, these also the son doeth likewise" (st. john 5:19). here, then, is eternal life: to know the only wise and true god; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to god, the same as all gods have done before you--namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. * * * * how consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child or dear relative, to know that although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings, in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of god and joint heirs with jesus christ. what is it? [i. e., to be joint heirs with jesus christ]. to inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. what did jesus do? why, i do the things i saw my father do when worlds came rolling into existence. my father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and i must do the same; and when i get my kingdom, i shall present it to my father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. he will then take a higher exaltation, and i will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. so that jesus treads in the tracks of his father, and inherits what god did before; and god is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children. it is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much has been said. * * * * when you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel--you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. _but it will be a great while after you have passed through the vail before you will have learned them. it is not all to be comprehended in this world: it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation, even beyond the grave._ * * * * i shall comment on the very first hebrew word in the bible; i will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the bible. _berosheit_: i want to analyze the word. _baith_--in, by, through, etc. _rosh_--the head. _sheit_--grammatical termination. when the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the bath there. a jew, without any authority, added the word: he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the _head_! it read at first, "the head one of the gods brought forth the gods." that is the true meaning of the words. _baurau_ signifies to bring forth. if you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of god. * * * thus the head god brought forth the gods in the grand council. * * * the head god called together the gods, and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. the grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens, and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time. * * * in the beginning, the head of the gods called a council of the gods, and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. * * * * from the discourse of june 16, 1844.[a] [footnote a: _mill. star_ vol. 24, p. 108, _et seq_. the prophet's text was: "and hath made us kings and priests unto god _and his father_: to him be glory and dominion forever and ever, amen." (revelation of st. john 1:6.) it is altogether correct in the translation. now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, and they declare that the prophet believes in a plurality of gods; and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry--"the prophet says there are many gods, and this proves that he has fallen." * * * * i will preach on the plurality of gods. i have selected this text for the express purpose. i wish to declare i have always, and in all congregations when i have preached on the subject of the deity, it has been the plurality of gods. it has been preached by the elders fifteen years. i have always declared god to be a distinct personage, jesus christ a separate and distinct personage from god the father, and that the holy ghost was a distinct personage and a spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three gods. if this is in accordance with the new testament, lo and behold! we have three gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it? the text says--"and hath made us kings and priests unto god _and his father_." the apostles have discovered that there were gods above, for paul says god was the father of our lord jesus christ. my object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a god above the father of our lord jesus christ i am bold to declare. i have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private. john was one of the men, and the apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto god the father of our lord jesus christ. it reads just so in the revelations. hence, the doctrine of a plurality of gods is as prominent in the bible as any other doctrine. it is all over the face of the bible. it stands beyond the power of controversy. "a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein." * * * * paul says there are gods many, and lords many, * * but to us there is but one god--that is, _pertaining_ to us; and he is in all and through all. but if joseph smith says there are gods many, and lords many, they cry:--"away with him! crucify him, crucify him!" * * * paul, if joseph smith is a blasphemer, you are. i say there are gods many, and lords many, but to us only one; and we are to be in subjection to that one. * * * some say i do not interpret the scriptures the same as they do. they say it means the heathen's gods. paul says there are gods many, and lords many; and that makes a plurality of gods, in spite of the whims of all men. you know, and i testify, that paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. i have it from god. * * * i have a witness of the holy ghost, and a testimony that paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. i will show from the hebrew bible that i am correct, and the first word shows [the existence of] a plurality of gods. * * * _berosheit baurau eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits_, rendered by king james' translators, "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth." i want to analyze the word _berosheit_: _rosh_, the head; _sheit_, a grammatical termination. the _baith_ was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by a jew. _baurau_ signifies to bring forth; _eloheim_ is from the word, _eloi_, god, in the singular number; and by adding the word _heim_, it renders it gods. it read first--"in the beginning the head of the gods brought forth the gods," or, as others have translated it--"the head of the gods called the gods together." * * * * the head god organized the heavens and the earth. * * * in the beginning the heads of the gods organized the heavens and the earth. * * * * if we pursue the hebrew text further it reads _berosheit baurau eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits_.-"the head one of the gods said, let us make man in our own image." i once asked a learned jew if the hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first, eloheim, plural? he replied, that is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the bible. he acknowledged i was right. * * * * in the very beginning the bible shows there is a plurality of gods beyond the power of refutation. * * * the word _eloheim_ ought to be in the plural all the way through--gods. the head of the gods appointed one god for us; and when you take a [this] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness, and perfection of all the gods. many men say there is one god; the father, the son, and the holy ghost are only one god! i say that is a strange god, three in one, and one in three! it is a curious organization. "father, i pray not for the world; but i pray for them which thou hast given me." * * * * i want to read the text to you myself--"holy father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." i am agreed with the father and the father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one. the greek shows that it should be _agreed_. "father, i pray for them which thou hast given me out of the world, and not for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they may all be agreed, as thou, father, art agreed with me, and i with thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our god, and he is as his father. * * * * i want to reason a little on this subject. i learned it by translating the [egyptian] papyrus which is now in my house. i learned a testimony concerning abraham, and he reasoned concerning the god of heaven. "in order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist--two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them." if abraham reasoned thus--if jesus christ was the son of god, and john discovered that god, the father of jesus christ, had a father, you may suppose that _he_ had a father also. where was there ever a son without a father? and where was there ever a father without first being a son? whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? and everything comes in this way: paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly. hence, if jesus had a father, can we not believe that he [that father] had a father also? i despise the idea of being scared to death at such doctrine, for the bible is full of it. * * * jesus said that the father wrought precisely in the same way as his father had done before him. as the father had done before, he laid down his life, and took it up the same as his father had done before [him]. * * * * they found fault with jesus christ because he said he was the son of god, and made himself equal with god. * * * what did jesus say, "is it not written in your law, i said, ye are gods? if he called them gods, unto whom the word of god came, and the scriptures cannot be broken, say ye of him whom the father has sanctified and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because i said i am the son of god?" it was through him that they drank of the spiritual rock. * * * * jesus, if they were called gods unto whom the word of god came, why should it be thought blasphemy that i should say i am the son of god? * * * * they who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead are exalted far above principalities, powers, thrones, dominions, and angels, and are expressly declared to be heirs of god and joint heirs with jesus christ, all having eternal power. the scriptures are a mixture of very strange doctrines to the christian world, who are blindly led by the blind. i will refer to another scripture. "now," says god, when he visited moses in the bush, * * * "thou shalt be a god unto the children of israel." god said: "thou shalt be a god unto aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman." i believe those gods that god reveals as gods, to be sons of god, and all can cry abba, father! sons of god who exalt themselves to be gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only gods i have a reverence for. john said he was a king. "and from jesus christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto god and his father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. amen." o thou god who art king of kings and lord of lords, the sectarian world, by their actions, declare--"we cannot believe thee." use of the word elohim.[a] by professor w. h. chamberlin, of the brigham young college, logan, utah. [footnote a: during the progress of the discussion between the rev. c. van der donckt and myself, as published in the _improvement era_, professor william h. chamberlin of the brigham young college, logan, utah, contributed the following brief though valuable paper on the use of the word "elohim" in the bible, which by his kind consent i am permitted to publish here.] two words, _el_, of which _elim_ was the plural form, and _eloah_, of which _elohim_ was the plural, were applied generally to deity by the hebrew people. all these forms are found in the other semitic languages, and are, therefore, very ancient in origin. under severest discipline the people of israel were educated in the school of monotheism, in order that god's nature might be revealed to man, and in order that unity might be introduced into the moral life of man. under this discipline, the people of israel must have learned to apply the plural form elohim, which their fathers had used of deity, in speaking of the one god whom they had been taught to serve. the hebrew language would allow them to do this, for a few nouns, when used by them in the plural, seemed to magnify the original idea. in such cases the plural form was treated grammatically as singular. an example may be found in job 40:15, where the plural form behemoth is used to intensify the image of the animal there being described, as is shown by context. in the same verse, the behemoth is referred to by the singular pronoun he. but the use of _elohim_, in this sense, by the later writers of israel, is not necessarily opposed to the view that in the earliest documents or writings which the hebrews possessed, it was applied to a plurality of gods. the objection to this view has been made that, with the plural form _elohim_, in gen. 1, the singular verb is used. such a use of a singular predicate with a plural subject is, however, common in hebrew. on page 111 of _harper's hebrew syntax_ we find the following rule covering the case, viz: "when the predicate precedes the subject it may agree with the subject in number or it may assume the _primary form_, viz.: third masculine singular, whatever be the number of the following subject." so the plural form _elohim_ after a singular verb, the construction found in gen. i, and elsewhere, is no proof that it is singular in any sense. similar constructions are found with other words in gen. i:14, where the singular of the verb _haya_, be, is followed by the plural noun _meoroth_, lights; in gen. 41:50, where the singular verb _yullodh_, was born, is followed by the plural noun _sheney banim_, two sons; in job 42:15, where the singular verb _nimtsa_, was found, is followed by the plural noun _nashim_, women. many similar examples might be given to illustrate the rule. that _elohim_ was used in the plural sense in gen. 1, is shown in the 26th verse, where the _elohim_ in referring to themselves use the plural suffix, _nu_, our, twice; and they also use the plural form of the verb _naaseh_, let us make. also in gen. 11:7, where _nerdhah_, let us descend, and _nabhlah_, let us confuse, two verbs in the plural form, proceed from the mouth of god, in gen 3:5. the plural construct participle, _yodhe_, knowers of, modifies the noun, _elohim_, which therefore is also plural. it is just possible that this participle is predicated of the subject you, but the participle would then follow the finite verb, giving a very unusual construction for the early hebrew writers. one such construction is, however, found in gen. 4:17, "he became (one) building a city." the thought of the possibility of god's having with him great associates was alive even to the time of isaiah, as is shown in isaiah 6:8, where jehovah said, "whom shall i send, and who will go for _us_?" jehovah was a personal name applied to the being who guided israel, and afterwards lived on the earth as jesus christ. (iii nephi, 15:5, doc. and cov. sec. 110.) probably few of the jews were ever able to distinguish jehovah from _elohim_, as it was latterly used, i. e., in the singular sense, and so when late writers wrote down the portion of genesis where the name of jehovah began to be used, they placed next to it, for the same purpose for which we now place the marginal reading, the word _elohim_. so we have in gen. 2:4; 3:24, and in some other places, the expression _jehovah elohim_, translated the lord god. the words were put together late in israel's history when _elohim_ had come to be used in the singular; _jehovah elohim_ meant jehovah, i. e., god. later the explanatory use of the word _elohim_ was forgotten, and the two words combined to apply to god. (see page 219 of _brown's hebrew lexicon_, the most authoritative lexicon in english, for the above explanation.) the use of the singular noun _eloah_ is almost confined to poetry. it is used in psalm 18 and in deut. 32. there is ground for saying that the savior on the cross in crying out to his father, used the singular form _eloah_. in combining _eloah_ with the suffix _i_, meaning my, and expressing the result in greek the h would be dropped, for there is no letter h in the greek alphabet. a, which was merely introduced to assist the hebrew to pronounce the h, would also be dropped. the result would give us _eloi_, the form given in the basic gospel, in mark 15:34. (see also judges 5:5, of the septuagint). in the year 1830, we find joseph smith, in the face of the tradition of the whole world, daring to render the word _elohim_ in gen i, _et seq._, in the plural. it is one great evidence of the divinity of the church of jesus christ restored in these last days that its prophet said many things, in the day in which he lived, that a progressive people are beginning to appreciate as true; and so we find learned men sympathizing with the daring position taken above. with reference to gen. 1:26, and similar passages, we find as one explanation in the lexicon mentioned above, a lexicon based on the work of gesenius, the great german hebrew scholar, that god was in consultation with angels. now, since the term "angel," a term used loosely by the scholars, is made there to mean and refer to superhuman beings sufficiently advanced in intelligence to be included in a consultation with god, we have our prophet's explanation exactly. in conclusion i shall quote the words of the great biblical scholar, the rev. a. b. davidson of edinburgh, in explanation of the same: "the use of 'us' by the divine speaker (gen. 1:26, 3:22, 11:17) is strange, but is perhaps due to his consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (is. 5:8)." (see _hasting's dictionary of the bible_, page 205.) omnipresence of god.[a] by elder william henry whittall. [footnote a: millennial star vol. xxiii no. 19, p. 292.] in comparing the ideas of others with our own upon any subject, with a view of coming to a clear understanding and just conclusion on the points discussed, it is both important and necessary that a clear definition of terms be given and received. most of the disputes which arise in all classes of society, religious and secular, would be avoided to a great extent, if the disputants clearly understood and attended to each other's terms, and clearly defined their own. words are frequently used in such different sense--sometimes primary, and sometimes secondary--sometimes literal, and sometimes figurative, that a misconception is often likely to arise, which might be easily prevented, were a plain definition of terms given at the outset. opposite parties are too apt to place their own constructions on each other's expressions. "_omnipresence_" as all will admit means _presence everywhere_. now, strictly speaking, _matter_, in its most extensive and comprehensive sense, is the only thing that can be said to be literally _everywhere_. there are various kinds and degrees of matter; but matter as a whole, and in a general sense, is the only thing that we can conceive of as being everywhere present, and nowhere absent. one reservation, however, must here be made, for the sake of scientific accuracy,--namely, that wherever matter exists and moves, there is of necessity a corresponding or proportionate extent of space wherein to move. there is no such thing, however, in all the creations of god, as what is called _empty_ space. but this fact does not in the least affect our argument; for the motion of matter is merely the displacement of one thing by another--one particle occupying the space which had been previously occupied by another. thus, if i thrust my hand into a mass of sand, i do not penetrate the grains of sand, (although i do penetrate the sand as a mass,) the hand merely going between, or making its way by displacing the grains with which it comes in contact. no particle of matter can occupy the same identical space as another at the same time; consequently, no _portion_ of matter can in an exclusive and strictly literal sense be omnipresent. the nearest approach to a literal omnipresence, that we can conceive of, is that of the particles of one kind and degree of matter _commingling_ with those of another. the following may serve as a simple illustration: in a homely cup of tea, we find the particles of the tea itself intimately mingling with those of the water; those of the sugar mingling with those of the other two elements; and then, again, there are the particles of caloric or heat everywhere present throughout the whole. yet no one particle of either water, (itself a compound of gases), or tea, or sugar, or cream, can occupy the same space as any other particle. this simple illustration, however homely and commonplace, may serve as an example, on a small scale, of the nearest idea that can be formed of a literal omnipresence, or presence everywhere. the plainer the simile, the better for ease and clearness of thought. we have now to define what we mean by the term "god." this word, like many others, is frequently used to represent different ideas. we sometimes employ it in reference to deity as a person. one of the old prophets saw god sitting on a throne. of course, then, according to this personal sense of the word, god could not have been everywhere present; for he was on a throne. we often read of god as sitting down, standing up, walking about, &c. now, a person, when sitting down, does not occupy the same space as when standing up. he always occupies the same amount of space, but no more, whatever posture he may place himself in, or however much he may change his relative positions by moving hither and thither. hence it is utterly impossible for god to be _personally_ omnipresent. but we sometimes speak of god in reference to his attributes of love, wisdom, goodness, influence, power, authority, &c. the next question, then, is, can he be said to be omnipresent in these respects? yes, undoubtedly so; but not _literally_. as these are all abstract terms, it is evident that they cannot be used in a strictly literal sense. love, power, goodness, wisdom, &c., are not things which occupy space. we cannot measure knowledge by the yard, wisdom by the pint, influence by the inch, or power by the gallon. we cannot speak of authority as occupying so many square or cubic feet of space, or describe the height, depth, length, or width of intelligence or faith. these are all abstract terms; and in describing the extent of any attribute of god or man, we are bound to speak figuratively. we thus speak of "infinite power," of "boundless love," of "illimitable wisdom," of "unbounded influence," of "unlimited authority," of "infinite goodness," &c. if we examine such expressions closely, we cannot but see that they are used in a relative and figurative sense, and not in a strictly literal one. we cannot find room for all these things _everywhere_. if one thing occupied all space literally, we certainly could not locate half a dozen everywhere! the absurdity of the thing only proves the fallacy of the idea of literal ubiquity in reference to any attribute, the terms, expressive of which cannot be literalized. but again: we often speak of god in reference to his agents. for example, the apostle paul says, "no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of god, as was aaron." moses, who called and ordained aaron, was god's agent. all the servants of the lord are called by his agents acting in his name and by his authority. when a man is called and ordained to certain functions of the priesthood, we say that god called him, and that he is a servant of god. thus, in a relative sense, god may be and is said to be present where he is personally absent, just as her majesty the queen may be said to be present throughout all her dominions by her official and representative agents. she is not literally, but virtually or officially, representatively or vicariously present wherever her regal authority is swayed. it is not actually she who is present, but her agents or authorities, who act in her name in her various principalities and colonies. again: we often use the term "god" in reference to his _spirit_, whereby he is said to be omnipresent. but we also frequently use the term "spirit" in more sense than one. sometimes we speak of the holy spirit or holy ghost as a person. the father, the son, and the spirit are three distinct persons,--the first two being personages of tabernacle, and the last a personage of spirit. in this sense the spirit can be no more spatially extended, and no more omnipresent, than the father or the son. if, indeed, either of the three could be personally and substantially present everywhere--that is, filling all space, it would puzzle the astutest intellect to conceive where the other two could be located! the spirit of god, then, or the holy ghost, as a personage, cannot be _literally_ omnipresent, although we may (as we often do) speak of him as being present here and there by his influence, authority, and power. but we also frequently speak of the spirit of god as a divine substance or influence, of power diffused throughout the spiritual and physical universe, giving vitality, activity, and force to the various things around us, according to certain spiritual and natural laws. it is, indeed, the inherent life and soul of all things--the inner and eternal principle of life and being. whether we speak of "nature" or of the "god of nature," we mean the same thing, unless, by way of distinction, we connect with the latter expression the idea of personality. in the former sense, god is _everywhere_. president young, upon this subject, says--"it is the deity within us that causes increase. * * * he is in every person upon the face of the earth. the elements that every individual is made of and lives in possess the godhead * * the deity within us is the great principle that causes us to increase and to grow in grace and truth." it will thus be evident that god is, by his spirit, in this sense, _omnipresent_. indeed, we arrive at the conclusion that god (although local in personality) may be said, in various ways and in different senses of the word, to be everywhere present. president young says--"he is omnipotent, and fills immensity by his agents, by his influence, by his spirit, and by his ministers." so that, go wheresoever we may, god is there, in some way or other. if we ascend to the heavens above, he is there; if we make the grave our bed, he is there; if we fly to any part of the earth or sea, he is there, and his providence will protect the just. chapter vi. the prophet joseph smith's views in relation to man and the priesthood. as in the "mormon" doctrine of deity discussed in these pages, man is an important factor, and as his relations to god, and the possibilities that are open to him in the never-ending future are a part of the discussion between the reverend mr. van der donckt and myself, the following remarks of the prophet respecting man and his relations to god, and the relationship of certain leading men to each other, in the several dispensations of the gospel which have been given, cannot fail to be an interesting and instructive contribution to this chapter. the remarks under division i are taken from a discourse by the prophet delivered in june, 1839, in answer to some inquiries concerning priesthood. the prophet's remarks under division i appear in the _millennial star_, vol. xvii, pages 310, 311. those in division ii are from an article on priesthood prepared by the prophet, and read by robert b. thompson at the general conference of the church held at nauvoo, october 5, 1840, and are to be found in the _millennial star_, vol xviii, pages 164, 165: i. the priesthood was first given to adam; he obtained the first presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. he obtained it in the creation, before the worlds were formed, as in genesis 1:20, 26, 28. he had dominion given him over every living creature. he is michael, the archangel, spoken of in the scriptures. then to noah, who is gabriel; he stands next in authority to adam in the priesthood; he was called of god to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. these men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven. the priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with god from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. the keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the gospel is sent. when they are revealed from heaven it is by adam's authority. daniel 7 speaks of the ancient of days; he means the oldest man, our father adam, michael; he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the son of man. he (adam) is the father of the human family and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. this may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. the son of man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. adam delivers up his stewardship to christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family. the spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity. our savior speaks of children and says, their angels always stand before my father. the father called all spirits before him at the creation of man, and organized them. he (adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. the keys were first given to him, and by him to others. he will have to give an account of his stewardship and they to him. the priesthood is everlasting. the savior, moses, and elias, gave the keys to peter, james, and john, on the mount, when he was transfigured before them. the priesthood is everlasting--without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. if there is no change of ordinance, there is no change of priesthood. wherever the ordinances of the gospel are administered, there is the priesthood. how have we come at the priesthood in the last days? it came down, in regular succession. peter, james, and john had it given to them, and they gave it to others. christ is the great high priest: adam next. paul speaks of the church coming to an innumerable company of angels--to god, the judge of all--the spirits of just men made perfect; to jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, etc. (heb. 3:23). i saw adam in the valley of adam-ondi-ahman. he called together his children and blessed them with a patriarchal blessing. the lord appeared in their midst, and he (adam) blessed them all, and foretold what should befall them to the latest generation. (see doc. and cov., sec. cvii: 53, 56.) this is why abraham blessed his posterity; he wanted to bring them into the presence of god. they looked for a city, etc. moses sought to bring the children of israel into the presence of god, through the power of the priesthood, but he could not. in the first ages of the world they tried to establish the same thing; and there were eliases raised up who tried to restore these very glories, but did not obtain them, but they prophesied of a day when this glory would be revealed. paul spoke of the dispensation of the fullness of times, when god would gather together all things in one, etc.; and those men to whom these keys have been given, will have to be there, and they without us cannot be made perfect. these men are in heaven, but their children are on earth. their bowels yearn over us. god sends down men for this reason (matt. 13:41). and the son of man shall send forth his angels, etc. all these authoritative characters will come down and join hand in hand in bringing about this work. ii. in order to investigate the subject of the priesthood, so important to this as well as every succeeding generation, i shall proceed to trace the subject, as far as i possibly can, from the old and new testaments. there are two priesthoods spoken of in the scripture, viz., the melchizedek and the aaronic or levitical. although there are two priesthoods, yet the melchisedek priesthood comprehends the aaronic or levitical priesthood, and is the grand head, and holds the highest authority which pertains to the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom of god in all ages of the world to the latest posterity on the earth, and is the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation, and every important matter is revealed from heaven. its institution was prior to the "foundations of this earth, or the morning stars sang together, or the sons of god shouted for joy," and is the highest and holiest priesthood, and is after the order of the son of god, and all other priesthoods are only parts, ramifications, powers, and blessings belonging to the same, and are held, controlled, and directed by it. it is the channel through which the almighty commenced revealing his glory at the beginning of the creation of this earth, and through which he has continued to reveal himself to the children of men to the present time, and through which he will make known his purposes to the end of time. commencing with adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in daniel as being the "ancient of days," or, in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great grand progenitor, of whom it is said in another place he is michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom christ was first revealed, and through whom christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times, i. e. the dispensation of all the times, have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to christ, and from christ to the end of all the dispensations that are to be revealed: ephesians, 1st chap., 9th and 10th verses--"having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him." now the purpose in himself in the winding-up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations. and again: god purposed in himself, that there should not be eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in christ jesus; therefore he set the ordinances to be the same for ever, and set adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them: hebrews 1:14--"are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation?" these angels are under the direction of michael or adam, who acts under the direction of the lord. from the above quotation we learn that paul perfectly understood the purposes of god in relation to his connection with man, and that glorious and perfect order which he established in himself, whereby he sent forth power, revelations, and glory. god will not acknowledge that which he has not called, ordained, and chosen. in the beginning god called adam by his own voice. see genesis 3rd chap., 9th and 10th verses--"and the lord called unto adam, and said unto him, where art thou? and he said, i heard thy voice in the garden, and i was afraid because i was naked, and hid myself." adam received commandments and instruction from god; this was the order from the beginning. that he received revelations, commandments and ordinances at the beginning is beyond the power of controversy; else, how did they begin to offer sacrifices to god in an acceptable manner? and if they offered sacrifices they must be authorized by ordination. we read in gen. 4th chap., 4th v., that abel brought of the firstlings of the flock and the fat thereof, and the lord had respect to abel and to his offering. and again: hebrews 11:4--"by faith abel offered unto god a more excellent sacrifice than cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, god testifying of his gifts; and by it he being dead, yet speaketh." how doth he yet speak? why, he magnified the priesthood which was conferred upon him, and died a righteous man, and therefore has become an angel of god by receiving his body from the dead, holding still the keys of his dispensation; and was sent down from heaven unto paul to minister consoling words, and to commit unto him a knowledge of the mysteries of godliness. and if this was not the case, i would ask, how did paul know so much about abel, and why should he talk about his speaking after he was dead? hence, that he spoke after he was dead must be by being sent down out of heaven to administer. this, then, is the nature of the priesthood; every man holding the presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the presidency of them all, even adam; and adam receiving his presidency and authority from the lord, but cannot receive a fullness until christ shall present the kingdom to the father, which shall be at the end of the last dispensation. of adam and his relation to the inhabitants of the earth. _(from the doctrine and covenants.)_ in march, 1832, the lord gave a revelation to the church commanding them to effect an organization for the betterment of their material condition, that the poor might be better cared for, and all the saints be more equal in the possession of earthly things, and then adds: that you may come up to the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the lord god, the holy one of zion, who hath established the foundations of adam-ondi-ahman; who hath appointed michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the holy one, who is without beginning of days or end of life. verily, verily, i say unto you, ye are little children, and ye have not as yet understood how great blessings the father hath in his own hands and prepared for you; and ye cannot bear all things now; nevertheless, be of good cheer, for i will lead you along; the kingdom is yours, and the blessings thereof are yours, and the riches of eternity are yours (doc. and gov., sec. 78:15-18). who the "michael" here spoken of is, who is "appointed" our "prince," and unto whom the "keys of salvation are given under the counsel and direction of the holy one," is made very plain afterwards in a revelation given march 28, 1835, from which i quote the following: three years previous to the death of adam, he called seth, enos, cainan, mahalaleel, jared, enoch, and methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of adam-ondi-ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. and the lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed adam, and called him michael, the prince, the archangel. and the lord administered comfort unto adam, and said unto him, i have set thee to be at the head--a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them for ever. and adam stood up in the midst of the congregation, and notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the holy ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. these things were all written in the book of enoch, and are to be testified of in due time (doc. and cov., sec. 107:53-57). from this it will appear that the prophet joseph smith understood that adam would stand at the head of his posterity in this earth; that he would be their prince and hold the keys of salvation "under the counsel and direction of the holy one, who is without beginning of days or end of life." doubtless it was this which led the prophet to say-after referring to the fact that the lord said to moses, "thou shalt be a god unto the children of israel," and again, "thou shalt be a god unto aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman"--it was these considerations, i repeat, which led the prophet to say, "i believe those gods that god reveals as gods to be sons of god, and all can cry, 'abba, father!' sons of god, who exalted themselves to be gods even before the foundation of the world, and are the only gods i have a reverence for" (discourse of june 16, 1844, _millennial star_, vol. xxiv, p. 140). the living god.[a] (_from the times and seasons._) [footnote a: the article under this title, is an editorial in the "times and seasons," published at nauvoo, feb. 15, 1845, presumably written by the late president john taylor, who, at the time it was written, was both editor and proprietor of the "times and seasons."] there is no subject among men, that engrosses so much time and attention, and, at the same time, is so little understood, as the being, knowledge, substance, attributes, and disposition of the living god. in the first place, christians and believers in christianity, with a few exceptions, believe in one god; or, perhaps we should say, in their own language, that the father, son, and holy ghost, _are one god_. but to be obedient unto the truth, we will not thus transgress upon reason, sense and revelation. it will then be necessary to treat the subject of the "living god," in contradiction to a _dead god_, or, one that has "no body, parts or passions," and, perhaps it may be well enough to say at the outset, that "mormonism" embraces a plurality of gods, as the apostle said, there were "gods many and lords many." in doing which, we shall not deny the scripture that has been set apart for this world, and allow one god, even jesus christ, the very eternal father of this earth; and, if paul tells the truth--"by him the worlds were made." it was probably alluded to by moses, when the children of israel were working out their salvation, with fear and trembling, in the wilderness, at the time that he spake these words: (deut. 5:23-26.) "and it came to pass when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders. and ye said: behold, the lord our god hath showed us his glory, and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that god doth talk with man, and he liveth. now, therefore, why should we die? for this great fire will consume us. if we hear the voice of the lord our god any more, then we shall die. for who is there of all flesh, that had heard the voice of the living god speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?" * * * * the first line of genesis, purely translated from the original, excluding the first _baith_ (which was added by the jews,) would read:--_rosheit_ (the head) _baurau_, (brought forth,) _eloheim_ (the gods) _ate_ (with) _hah-shau-mahyiem_ (the heavens) _veh-ate_, (and with) _hauaurates_, (the earth.) in simple english, the head brought forth the gods, with the heavens and with the earth. the "head" must have meant the "living god," or head god; christ is our head. the term "eloheim," plural of elohah, or ale, is used alike in the first chapter of genesis, for the creation, and the quotation of satan. in the second chapter, and fourth verse, we have this remarkable history: "_these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were brought forth; in the day that the lord of the gods made earth and heavens_." the hebrew reads so. truly jesus christ created the worlds, and is lord of lords, and, as the psalmist said: "judges among the gods." then moses might have said with propriety, he is the "living god," and, christ, speaking of the flesh could say: i am the son of man; and, peter, enlightened by the holy ghost: thou art the son of the living god, meaning our father in heaven, who is the father of all spirits, and who, with jesus christ, his first begotten son and the holy ghost, are one in power, one in dominion, and one in glory, constituting the first presidency of this system, and this eternity. but they are as much three distinct persons as the sun, moon, and earth are three different bodies. again, the "twelve kingdoms," which are under the above mentioned presidency of the father, son, and holy ghost, are governed by the same rules, and destined to the same honor (book doc. & cov. p. 135, sec. 13). for "behold, i will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field, to dig in the field; and he said unto the first, go ye and labor in the field, and in the first hour i will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my countenance; and he said unto the second, go ye also into the field, and in the second hour i will visit you with the joy of my countenance; and also unto the third, saying, i will visit you: and unto the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth." without going into the full investigation of the history and excellency of god, the father of our lord jesus christ, in this article, let us reflect that jesus christ, as lord of lords, and king of kings, must have a noble race in the heavens, or upon the earth, or else he can never be as great in power, dominion, might, and authority, as the scriptures declare. but hear; the mystery is solved. john says (rev. 14:1,) "and i looked, and lo, a lamb stood on the mount zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his father's name written in their foreheads." their father's name, bless me! that is god! well done for mormonism; _one hundred and forty-four thousand gods_, among the tribes of israel, and, two living gods and the holy ghost, for this world! such knowledge is too wonderful for men, unless they possess the spirit of gods. it unravels the little mysteries, which, like a fog, hides the serene atmosphere of heaven, and looks from world to world; from system to system; from universe to universe, and from eternity to eternity, where, in each and all, there is a presidency of gods, and gods many, and lords many; and, from time to time, or from eternity to eternity, jesus christ shall bring in another world, regulated and saved as this will be, when he delivers it up to the father; and god becomes _all in all_. "and," as john the revelator says (22:3, 4): "there shall be no more curse: but the throne of god and of the lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him, and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads." "his name in their foreheads," undoubtedly means "_god_" on the front of their crowns; for, when all things are created new, in the celestial kingdom, the servants of god, the innumerable multitude are crowned, and, are perfect men and women in the lord, one in glory, one in knowledge, and one in image; they are like christ, and he is like god; then, o, then, they are all "living gods," having passed from death unto life, and possess the power of eternal lives! materiality.[a] (from the "prophet.") [footnote a: this article on the nature of god, man, and angels appears in the editorial columns of the "prophet" for may 24, 1845. the "prophet" was published in new york and boston, and at the time of the appearance of this article elder parley p. pratt was the editor, and hence it was doubtless written by him.] god, the father, is material. jesus christ is material. angels are material. spirits are material. men are material. the universe is material. space is full of materiality. nothing exists which is not material. the elementary principles of the material universe are eternal; they never originated from nonentity, and they never can be annihilated. immateriality is but another name for nonentity--it is the negative of all things, and beings--of all existence. there is not one particle of proof to be advanced to establish its existence. it has no way to manifest itself to any intelligence in heaven or on earth. neither god, angels nor men, could positively conceive of such a substance, being or thing. it possesses no property or power by which to make itself manifest, to any intelligent being in the universe, reason and analogy never scan it, or even conceive of it. revelation never reveals it, nor do any of our senses witness its existence. it cannot be seen, heard, tasted, or smelled, even by the strongest organs, or of the most acute sensibilities. it is neither liquid or solid, soft or hard,--it can neither extend nor contract. in short, it can exert no influence whatever--it can neither act, nor be acted upon. and even if it does exist, it is of no possible use. it possesses no one desirable property, faculty or use, yet, strange to say, "immateriality" is the modern christian's god, his anticipated heaven, his immortal self--his all. o sectarianism! o atheism!! o annihilation!!! who can perceive the nice shades of difference between the one and the other? they seem alike all but in name. the atheist has no god. the sectarian has a god without body or parts. who can define the difference? for our part we do not perceive a difference of a single hair; they both claim to be the negative of all things which exist--and both are equally powerless and unknown. the atheist has no after life, or conscious existence beyond the grave. the sectarian has one, but it is immaterial like his god; and without body or parts. here again both are negative, and both are at the same point. their faith and hope amount to the same, only they are expressed by different terms. again, the atheist has no heaven in eternity. the sectarian has one, but it is immaterial in all its proprieties, and is therefore the negative of all riches in substance. here again they are equal, and arrive at the same point. as we do not envy them the possession of all they claim, we will now leave them in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the same and proceed to examine the portion still left for the "poor mormons" to enjoy. what is god? he is a material intelligence, possessing both body and parts. he is in the form of man, and is in fact of the same species; and is a model, or standard of perfection to which man is destined to attain: he being the great father, and head of the whole family. he can go, come, converse, reason, eat, drink, love, hate, rejoice, possess and enjoy. he can also travel space with all the ease and intelligence necessary, for moving from planet to planet, and from system to system. this being cannot occupy two distinct places at once. therefore, he cannot be (in person) everywhere present. for evidence and illustration of this god, and his personal powers, and attributes, we refer to the scriptures of the old and new testament which speak substantially of his body, parts, passions, powers, and of his conversing, walking, eating, drinking, etc.; for instance, his taking dinner with abraham. what is jesus christ? he is the son of god, and is every way like his father, being "the brightness of his father's glory, and the express image of his person." he is material intelligence, with body, parts and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones. he can and does eat, drink, converse, reason, love, move, go, come, and in short, perform all things even as the father--possessing the same power and attributes. and he, too, can travel space, and go from world to world, and from system to system, precisely like the father; but cannot occupy two places at once. what are angels? they are intelligences of the human species. many of them are offsprings of adam and eve. that is they are men, who have, like enoch or elijah, been translated; or, like jesus christ, been raised from the dead; consequently they possess a material body of flesh and bones, can eat, drink, walk, converse, reason, love, fight, wrestle, sing, or play on musical instruments. they can go or come on foreign missions, in heaven, earth, or hell; and they can travel space, and visit the different worlds, with all the ease and alacrity with which god and christ do the same, being possessed of similar organizations, powers and attributes in a degree. what are spirits? they are material intelligences, possessing body and parts in the likeness of the temporal body; but not composed of flesh and bones, but of some substance less tangible to our gross senses in our present life; but tangible to those in the same element as themselves. in short they are men in embrio--intelligences waiting to come into the natural world and take upon them flesh and bones, that through birth, death, and the resurrection they may also be perfected in the material organization. such was jesus christ, and such were we before we came into this world, and such we will be again, in the intervening space between death and the resurrection. what are men? they are offspring of god, the father, and brothers of jesus christ. they were once intelligent spirits in the presence of god, and were with him before the earth was formed. they are now in disguise as it were, in order to pass through the several changes, and the experience necessary to constitute them perfect beings. they are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to such a degree, as to be raised from the dead with a body like that of jesus christ's, and to possess immortal flesh and bones, in which they will eat, drink, converse, reason, love, walk, sing, play on musical instruments, go on missions from planet to planet, or from system to system: being gods, or sons of god, endowed with the same powers, attributes, and capacities that their heavenly father and jesus christ possess. what are all these beings taken together, or summed up under one head? they are one great family, all of the same species, all related to each other, all bound together by kindred ties, interests sympathies, and affections. in short they are all gods; or rather, men are the offspring or children of the gods, and destined to advance by degrees, and to make their way by a progressive series of changes, till they become like their father in heaven, and like jesus christ their elder brother. thus perfected, the whole family will possess the material universe, that is, the earth, and all other planets, and worlds, as "an inheritance incorruptible undefiled and that fadeth not away." they will also continue to organize, people, redeem, and perfect other systems which are now in the womb of chaos, and thus go on increasing their several dominions, till the weakest child of god which now exists upon the earth will possess more dominion, more property, more subjects, and more power and glory than is possessed by jesus christ or by his father; while at the same time jesus christ and his father, will have their dominion, kingdoms, and subjects increased in proportion. such are the riches, glories, blessings, honors, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, held out by the system of materialism. such the wealth, the dignity, the nobility, the titles and honors to which "mormons" aspire. such the promises of him whose word can never fail. with these hopes and prospects before us, we say to the christian world, who hold to immateriality, that they are welcome to their god--their life--their heaven, and their all. they claim nothing but that which we throw away, and we claim nothing but that which they throw away. therefore, there is no ground for quarrel, or contention between us. chapter vii. discourses on deity and man.[a] [footnote a: in these discourses, it will be observed that in speaking of man reference is made only to the pre-existence of his spirit, and his being "begotten" a spirit by the heavenly father; no reference is made to the eternal intelligence of man, the "ego" that was not created or made, "neither indeed can be," as set forth at pages 99 to 102. the brethren in these discourses are not dealing with that phase of the subject; their purpose is met by referring merely to the pre-existence of the spirits of men. this remark also opens a way for a word which really should have been spoken when explaining our views in relation to the immortality of man, at pages 99 to 102. i mean the distinction that exists between "generation" and "creation;" between a being "begotten," and a thing "created," or "made." and here, somewhat to my surprise, i may quote with approval one of the very eminent "christian fathers." "let it be repeated," he remarks, "that a created thing is external to the nature of the being who creates; but a generation is the proper offspring of the nature" [of him who begets it]. and this athanasius, the "christian father" referred to, puts forth in explaining how the son of god is consubstantial, i. e., of the same substance, or essence, with the father, and he remarks further, by way of illustration: "it were madness to say that a house is co-essential or con-substantial with the builder: or a ship with the shipwright; but it is proper to say, that every son is co-essential or consubstantial with his father." (the foregoing extracts from athanasius are quoted by shedd, history christian doctrine, vol. i, p. 322.) i call attention to this distinction that when in our literature we say "god created the spirits of men," it is understood that they were "begotten," we mean "generation," not "creation." intelligences, which are eternal, uncreated, self-existing beings, are begotten spirits, and these afterwards begotten men. when intelligences are "begotten" spirits they are of the nature of him who begets them--sons of god, and con-substantial with their father.] i. president brigham young.[a] _to know god is eternal life._ [footnote a: this discourse was delivered in the tabernacle, salt lake city, february 8, 1857. _journal of discourses_, vol. iv, pp. 215 _et seq_.] it is one of the first principles of the doctrine of salvation to become acquainted with our father and our god. the scriptures teach that this is eternal life, to "know thee, the only true god, and jesus christ whom thou hast sent;" this is as much as to say that no man can enjoy or be prepared for eternal life without that knowledge. you hear a great deal of preaching upon this subject; and when people repent of their sins, they will get together, and pray and exhort each other, and try to get the spirit of revelation, try to have god their father revealed to them, that they may know him and become acquainted with him. there are some plain, simple facts that i wish to tell you, and i have but one desire in this, which is, that you should have understanding to receive them, to treasure them up in your hearts, to contemplate upon these facts, for they are simple facts, based upon natural principles; there is no mystery about them when once understood. i want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with god our heavenly father, or the great eloheim. you are all well acquainted with him, for there is not a soul of you but what has lived in his house and dwelt with him year after year; and yet you are seeking to become acquainted with him, when the fact is, you have merely forgotten what you did know. i told you a little last sabbath about forgetting things. there is not a person here today but what is a son or a daughter of that being. in the spirit world their spirits were first begotten and brought forth, and they lived there with their parents for ages before they came here. this, perhaps, is hard for many to believe, but it is the greatest nonsense in the world not to believe it. if you do not believe it, cease to call him "father;" and when you pray, pray to some other character. it would be inconsistent in you to disbelieve what i think you know, and then to go home and ask the father to do so and so for you. the scriptures which we believe have taught us from the beginning to call him our father, and we have been taught to pray to him as our father, in the name of our eldest brother whom we call jesus christ, the savior of the world; and that savior, while here on earth, was so explicit on this point, that he taught his disciples to call no man on earth father, for we have one which is in heaven. he is the savior, because it is his right to redeem the remainder of the family pertaining to the flesh on this earth; if any of you do not believe this, tell us how and what we should believe. if i am not telling you the truth, please to tell me the truth on this subject, and let me know more than i do know. if it is hard for you to believe, if you wish to be latter-day saints, admit the fact, as i state it, and do not contend against it. try to believe it, because you will never become acquainted with our father, never enjoy the blessings of his spirit, never be prepared to enter into his presence, until you most assuredly believe it; therefore you had better try to believe this great mystery about god. i do not marvel that the world is clad in mystery, to them he is an unknown god; they cannot tell where he dwells nor how he lives, nor what kind of a being he is in appearance or character. they want to become acquainted with his character and attributes, but they know nothing of them. this is in consequence of the apostasy that is now in the world. they have departed from the knowledge of god, transgressed his laws, changed his ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, so that the whole earth is defiled under the inhabitants thereof. consequently it is no mystery to us that the world knoweth not god, but it would be a mystery to me, with what i now know, to say that we cannot know anything of him. we are his children. to bring the truth of this matter close before you, i will instance your fathers who made the first permanent settlement in new england. there are a good many in this congregation whose fathers landed upon plymouth rock in the year 1620. those fathers began to spread abroad; they had children, those children had children, and their children had children, and here are we their children. i am one of them, and many of this congregation belong to that class. now ask yourselves this simple question upon natural principles, has the species altered? were not the people who landed at plymouth rock the same species with us? were they not organized as we are? were not their countenances similar to ours? did they not converse, have knowledge, read books? were there not mechanics among them, and did they not understand agriculture, etc., as we do? yes, every person admits this. now follow our fathers further back and take those who first came to the island of great britain, were they the same species of beings as those who came to america? yes, all acknowledge this; this is upon natural principles. thus you may continue and trace the human family back to adam and eve, and ask, "are we of the same species with adam and eve?" yes, every person acknowledges this; this comes within the scope of our understanding. but when we arrive at that point, a vail is dropt, and our knowledge is cut off. were it not so, you could trace back your history to the father of our spirits in the eternal world. he is a being of the same species as ourselves: he lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and he is heavenly. he has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. whether adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. i do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider him our god, or whether his father, or his grandfather, for in either case we are of one species--of one family--and jesus christ is also of our species. you may hear the divines of the day extol the character of the savior, undertake to exhibit his true character before the people, and give an account of his origin. now to the facts in the case; all the difference between jesus christ and any other man that ever lived on the earth, from the days of adam until now, is simply this, the father, after he had once been in the flesh, and lived as we live, obtained his exaltation, attained to thrones, gained the ascendancy over principalities and powers, and had the knowledge and power to create--to bring forth and organize the elements upon natural principles. this he did after his ascension, or his glory, or his eternity, and was actually classed with the gods, with the beings who create, with those who have kept the celestial law while in the flesh, and again obtained their bodies. then he was prepared to commence the work of creation, as the scriptures teach. it is all here in the bible; i am not telling you a word but what is contained in that book. things were first created spiritually; the father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with him. then he commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the coarse material that was organized and composed this earth, until his system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of his children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth. when the time came that his first-born, the savior, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the father came himself and favored that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. the savior was begotten by the father of his spirit, by the same being who is the father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between jesus christ and you and me. and the difference there is between our father and us consists in that he has gained his exaltation, and has obtained eternal lives. the principle of eternal lives is an eternal existence, eternal duration, eternal exaltation. endless are his kingdoms, endless his thrones and his dominions, and endless are his posterity; they never will cease to multiply from this time henceforth and forever. to you who are prepared to enter into the presence of the father and the son, what i am now telling will eventually be no more strange than are the feelings of a person who returns to his father's house, brethren, and sisters, and enjoys the society of his old associates, after an absence of several years upon some distant island. upon returning he would be happy to see his father, his relatives and friends. so also if we keep the celestial law when our spirits go to god who gave them, we shall find that we are acquainted there and distinctly realize that we know all about that world. tell me that you do not know anything about god! i will tell you one thing, it would better become you to lay your hands upon your mouths and them in the dust, and cry, "unclean, unclean." whether you receive these things or not, i tell you them in simplicity. i lay them before you like a child, because they are perfectly simple. if you see and understand these things, it will be by the spirit of god; you will receive them by no other spirit. no matter whether they are told to you like the thunderings of the almighty, or by simple conversation; if you enjoy the spirit of the lord, it will tell you whether they are right or not. i am acquainted with my father. i am as confident that i understand in part, see in part, and know and am acquainted with him in part, as i am that i was acquainted with my earthly father who died in quincy, illinois, after we were driven from missouri. my recollection is better with regard to my earthly father than it is in regard to my heavenly father; but as to knowing of what species he is, and how he is organized, and with regard to his existence, i understand it in part as well as i understand the organization and existence of my earthly father. that is my opinion about it, and my opinion to me is just as good as yours is to you; and if you are of the same opinion you will be satisfied as i am. i know my heavenly father and jesus christ whom he has sent, and this is eternal life. and if we will do as we have been told this morning, if you will enter into the spirit of your calling, into the principle of securing to yourselves eternal lives, eternal existence, eternal exaltation, it will be well with you. ii. elder orson pratt.[a] _salvation tangible--personality and character of god--jesus our elder brother--transformation of the earth--its final destiny._ [footnote a: this discourse was delivered in the tabernacle, salt lake city, nov. 12, 1876.] as a people the latter-day saints have passed through many scenes trying and afflicting to their natures, and they have endured them because of the anxiety of their hearts to obtain salvation. people who are sincere will manifest their sincerity in undergoing great tribulation, if necessary, for the sake of being saved. this mortal life is of small consideration, compared with eternal salvation in the kingdom of the father. there is nothing pertaining to the things of this present life that is worthy of being named, in contrast with the riches of eternal life. jesus, in speaking upon this subject when he was on the earth, asks this question: "for what is man profited, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" there is nothing so precious, nothing of so great importance, as that of securing in this life, the salvation of our souls in the world to come. far better is it if we can gain salvation by passing through various scenes of affliction and persecution in this world, than to give way to its pleasures and vanities, which can only be enjoyed for a season, and afterwards lose that eternal reward which god has in store for the righteous. it is true we look upon our future reward in quite a different light from the religious world generally. we look for something tangible, something we can form some degree of rational conception of, having a resemblance in some measure to the present life. but how very imaginary are the ideas of the religious world! i do not now refer to the heathen world, but to the enlightened christian nations, the two hundred million of christians now existing on the earth. if you ask these people about the future state of man, some will give you one idea and some another, all more or less, perhaps, differing from each other, but in the main they all agree, namely, that it is a state entirely spiritual, that is, unconnected with anything tangible like this present life, an existence which cannot be conceived of by mortals. you may think i am misrepresenting our christian friends. i will therefore say that for many years now i have been engaged, more or less, in the study of religion, and have therefore read quite extensively the ideas of the religious world. i have not accepted the ideas of a few individuals belonging to the various sects, but i have appealed to their standard writings, their articles of faith, which are adopted by the various religious bodies and known as their creeds. for instance, in the articles of faith of a great many of the religious sects, an idea like this is set forth--that there is a being who is entirely spiritual, called god, and that being is described as consisting of three persons, and these three persons are without body, without parts, without passions. such is the god that is worshiped by the methodists--a people whom i highly respect, and whose meetings i attended in my early youth more than those of any other religious denomination. the three persons that compose this one god are the father, the son, and the holy ghost, all of whom are said to be without bodies or passions; and in connection with this, one of the cardinal doctrines of their faith, they tell us that one of this holy trinity, namely jesus, was crucified, dead and buried, and that on the third day he arose again from the dead and ascended into heaven. when i was a boy, attending the methodist meetings, as many now do who are of maturer years, i accepted sincerity for truth. but when i grew to manhood my attention was called to this article of faith; i tried in all earnestness to comprehend it, but could not and cannot to this day. it is one of those incomprehensible things which cannot be grasped by the human mind. you, my hearers, try now with me for a few moments to comprehend, if you can, a being consisting of three persons, and these three persons without any body, parts or passions. i had been taught, when studying the exact sciences, that everything that existed was composed of parts, that there could not exist anything as a whole unless it existed as parts. i could not, therefore, understand how it was that one of these three persons could be crucified if he had no body; how it was possible, and be consistent with reason, for him to lay down his body--something he never possessed--and arise again from the tomb, taking up that same body. this is indeed a mystery. now it so happens that the scriptures do not teach anything so absurd, so irreconcilable and so contrary to our senses. this is a man-made doctrine, the creation of uninspired men. the methodists did not originate this doctrine--it existed and was widely believed in before the days of the good man, john wesley. the latter-day saints believe that there is a true and living god, that this true and living god consists of three separate, distinct persons, which have bodies, parts and passions, which belief is in direct opposition to this man-made doctrine. we believe that god, the eternal father, who reigns in yonder heavens, is a distinct personage from jesus christ, as much so as an earthly father is distinct in his existence from his son. that is something i can comprehend, which i conceive to be the doctrine of revelation. we read about jesus having been seen after he arose from the dead. stephen the martyr, just before he was stoned to death, testified to the jewish people that were standing before him at the time, saying, "behold, i see the heavens opened, and the son of man standing on the right hand of god." here, then, the father and jesus, two distinct personages, were seen, and both had bodies. we find numerous other authorities bearing out this same idea, i do not intend to dwell upon this subject, because the greater portion of this congregation understand the scriptural view of this subject; hence it is not necessary to speak lengthily on it. we may, however, say a few things with regard to the passions of these personages. it is declared, as part of the belief of the methodists, that god is without passions. love is one of the great passions of god. love is everywhere declared a passion, one of the noblest passions of the human heart. this principle of love is one of the attributes of god. "god is love," says the apostle john, "and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in god, and god in him." if, then, this is one of the great attributes of jehovah, if he is filled with love and compassion towards the children of men, if his son jesus christ, so loved the world that he gave his life to redeem mankind from the effects of the fall, then, certainly, god the eternal father must be in possession of this passion. again, he possesses the attribute of justice, which is sometimes called anger, but the real name of this attribute is justice. "he executeth justice," says the psalmist; also, "justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne." justice is one of the noble characteristics of our heavenly father; hence another of his passions (attributes). we have it recorded too in this sacred bible, that god was seen by ancient men of god. jacob testifies as follows: "for i have seen god face to face." i know that there are other passages of scripture, which would seem to militate against this declaration. for instance there is one passage which reads, "no man hath seen god at any time." this is in direct contradiction to the testimony of jacob. the way i reconcile this is that no _natural_ man can see the face of god the father and live, it would overpower him; but one quickened by the spirit, as old father jacob was, could look upon god and converse with him face to face, as he says he did, he must have seen a personage, a being, in his general outlines like unto himself; man, as moses informs us, having been created in the image of god. we might refer to many other passages of scripture, bearing on this subject. the prophet isaiah saw god; he saw not only the lord, but a great congregation in connection with him, so that his train filled the temple. he is always represented by those who have seen him as a personage in the form of man. having cited a very few evidences, let us inquire into the character and being of god, the eternal father. we are the offspring of the lord, but the rest of animated nature is not; we are just as much the sons and daughters of god as the children in this congregation are the sons and daughters of their parents. we are begotten by him. when? before we were born in the flesh; this limited state of existence is not our origin, it is merely the origin of the tabernacle in which we dwell. the mind we are possessed of, the being that is capable of thinking and reflecting, that is capable of acting according to the motives presented to it, that being which is immortal, which dwells within us, which is capable of reasoning from cause to effect, and which can comprehend, in some measure, the laws of its creator, as well as trace them out as exhibited in universal nature, that being, which we call the mind, existed before the tabernacle. but says one, "that does not look reasonable." why not? do you not believe that the spirit will endure forever? o, yes. you may ask, what becomes of the spirit, separated from the body of flesh and bones, when this body lies in the grave? has it life and intelligence and power to think and reflect? let us hear what was said by those who sat under the altar, who were slain for the word of god, and for the testimony which they held, as seen and heard by john while on patmos: "and they cried with a loud voice, saying, how long, o lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" the lord tells them that they should "rest yet for a little season." these faithful servants of god are anxiously awaiting the time when the lord will avenge their blood. why? because that will be the time when their bodies will be redeemed, they look forward with great anxiety to the time when they shall be again identified with the fleshly tabernacle with which they were known and distinguished while on the earth-hence this prayer. here we find another and further existence for the spirits of men who exist in heaven, who are capable of thinking, of using language, of understanding the future, and of anticipating that which was to come. now, if they could exist after they leave this tabernacle, while the tabernacle lies mouldering in the dust, why not exist before the tabernacle had any existence? was it not just as easy for an existence to be given to spiritual personages before they took possession of bodies as it is for them to exist after the body decays? yes, and these are our views, founded upon new revelation; not the views of uninspired men, but founded upon direct revelation from god. where did we exist before we came here? with god. where does he exist? in the place john denominated heaven. what do we understand heaven to be? not the place described by our christian friends, beyond the bounds of time and space, for there is no such place, there never was, nor ever will be; but i mean a tangible world, a heaven that is perfect, a heaven with materials that have been organized and put together, sanctified and glorified as the residence and world where god resides. born there? yes, we were born there. even our great redeemer whose death and sufferings we are this afternoon celebrating, was born up in yonder world before he was born of the virgin mary. have you not read, in the new testament, that jesus christ was the first-born of every creature? from this reading it would seem that he was the oldest of the whole human family, that is, so far as his birth in the spirit world is concerned. how long ago since that birth took place is not revealed; it might have been unnumbered millions of years, for aught we know. but we do know that he was born and was the oldest of the family of spirits. have you not also read in the new testament that he is called our elder brother? does this refer to the birth of the body of flesh and bones? by no means, for there were hundreds of millions who were born upon our earth before the body of flesh and bones was born whom we call jesus. how is it, then, that he is your elder brother? we must go back to the previous birth, before the foundation of this earth; we have to go back to past ages, to the period when he was begotten of the father among the great family of spirits. he became, by his birthright, the great creator. god, through him, created not only this little world, this speck of creation, but by him the worlds were made and created. how many we know not, for it has not been revealed. suffice it to say, a great many worlds were created by him. why by him? because he had the birth right, he being the oldest of his father's family, and this birthright entitles him, not only to create worlds, but to become the redeemer of those worlds, not only the redeemer of the inhabitants of this our earth, but of all the others whom he created by the will and power of his father. but says one, "by that expression one would infer that other worlds had fallen as well as our own, having doubtless been placed in a state of temptation, and if so it would be fair to presume that there was a garden of eden to each of these worlds, containing all kinds of fruit, among which was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and that they became fallen precisely in the same manner as ours did, and consequently they would need a redeemer; and, therefore, the people of these worlds would be redeemed and saved according to their diligence and faithfulness in keeping the commandments of god?" have you not read in the first chapter of genesis of two persons appearing on this earth before man was made, when one who was god, said to the other, "let us make man in our image, after our likeness?" does not that bespeak a pre-existence of another personage besides the almighty? and have you not read too in the same chapter that "god created man in his own image; male and female created he them?" when? it is said to have been on the sixth period, or, according to king james' translation, "on the sixth day." do you mean to say we were all in existence on the sixth day? yes. but on the seventh day, we are told in the following chapter, "there was not a man to till the ground." is it not very singular that all should have an existence on the sixth day, and on the following day there was not a man in existence to till the ground? why not? because man was not yet placed in this temporal creation, but he had an existence then in heaven, where we were begotten. you and i were present when this world was created and made--you and i then understood the nature of its creation, and i have no doubt that we rejoiced and sang about it. indeed, the lord put a very curious question to the patriarch job, _apropos_ of this. he said to him, "where wast thou when i laid the foundation of the earth? where wast thou when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of god shouted for joy?" supposing job to be living now, and this same question put to him, and supposing, too, that, instead of answering it himself, he were to seek to the learned christian world for enlightenment on the subject, what do you think would be the nature of the answer he would receive? it would be, in effect, "why job, when the lord laid the foundation of the earth, you had no existence, for you were not born." why did not job so answer the lord? it was because he understood something about man's previous estate. he was wise in making no reply to the lord, for doubtless he felt himself unable to do so. but we find that moses understood the subject, for at the time the children of israel transgressed he and his brother aaron fell upon their faces before the lord, and moses pleading with great power and faith in behalf of the children of israel, used these words, "o god, the god of the spirits of all flesh," etc. he understood that god was the father of our spirits, and he addressed him as such. i think too that the apostles in ancient days must have had an idea of the pre-existence of man, judging from a certain question which they put to the savior. it is said that "as jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. and his disciples asked him, saying, master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" let us now consider this question in connection with present modern ideas, and we shall at once perceive how utterly foolish it will appear. to state the question fairly in other words we might say, master, was this man born blind because he had sinned? the very nature of this question would indicate to those even who do not believe in the principle, that this blind man had an existence before he was born into this world, and that he was capable, too, of committing sin. to show yet more clearly that the principle of man's pre-existence is founded on biblical authority, i will quote you part of the savior's prayer to the father, just prior to his crucifixion--"and now, o father glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which i had with thee before the world was." here we find jesus actually referring to the time he dwelt with his father before he took upon himself a body of flesh and bones. he also says, "for i came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." he came down from the presence and abode of his father. on another occasion while addressing the jews, he says, "verily, verily, i say unto you, before abraham was, i am." he was, in fine, the _first_-born of every creature, and consequently the eldest of our father's family. if, therefore, it be now admitted that our elder brother had a previous existence with the father, why should it be thought unreasonable that the rest of the family should have a pre-existence as well as the first born? he was born according to man in the flesh, and why not his younger brethren have a similar birth with him in the spirit? but now this carries us back still further, and invites us to ascertain a little in relation to his father. a great many have supposed that god the eternal father, whom we worship in connection with his son, jesus christ, was always a self-existing, eternal being from all eternity, that he had no beginning as a personage. but in order to illustrate this, let us inquire, what is our destiny? if we are now the sons and daughters of god, what will be our future destiny? the apostle paul, in speaking of man as a resurrected being, says: "who (jesus) shall change our vile body, that it might be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (phil. 3:21), which harmonizes with what john says, "it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him" (i john 3:2). our bodies will be glorified in the same manner as his body is; then we shall be truly in his image and likeness, for as he is immortal, having a body of flesh and bone, so we will be immortal, possessing bodies of flesh and bones. will we ever become gods? let me refer you to the answer of the savior to the jews when accused of blasphemy because he called himself the son of god. says he, "is it not written in your law, i said, ye are gods? if ye called them gods, unto whom the word of god came, and the scriptures cannot be broken." this clearly proves to all bible believers that in this world, in our imperfect state, being the children of god, we are destined, if we keep his commandments, to grow in intelligence until we finally become like god our father. by living according to every word which proceeds from the mouth of god, we shall attain to his likeness, the same as our children grow up and become like their parents; and, as children through diligence attain to the wisdom and knowledge of their parents, so may we attain to the knowledge of our heavenly parents' and if they be obedient to this commandment they will not only be called the sons of god, but be gods. in the first verse of the 14th chapter of revelation, we are told that john saw one hundred and forty-four thousand persons standing with the lamb upon mount zion, and they had a peculiar name written in their foreheads--even their father's name, him whom we call, in our language, god. then there will be written upon the foreheads of these hundred and forty-four thousand this insignia, the father's name, and they will be gods; and they will associate with him as do tho father and his only begotten, that is, his only son begotten in the flesh. from this we can draw the conclusion that god our eternal father, who is a spiritual being, has a body of flesh and bones, the same as his children will have after the resurrection. says one, to carry it out still further, "if we become gods and are glorified like unto him, our bodies fashioned like unto his most glorious body, may not he have passed through a mortal ordeal as we mortals are now doing?" why not? if it is necessary for us to gain experience through the things that are presented before us in this life, why not those beings who are already exalted and become gods, obtain their experience in the same way? we would find, were we to carry this subject from world to world, from our world to another, even to the endless ages of eternity, that there never was a time but what there was a father and son. in other words when you entertain that which is endless, you exclude the idea of first being, a first world; the moment you admit of a first, you limit the idea of endless. * * * says one, "this is incomprehensible." it may be so in some respects. we can admit, though, that duration is endless, for it is impossible for man to conceive of a limit to it. if duration is endless there can never be a first minute, a first hour, or first period; endless duration in the past is made up of a continuation of endless successive moments--it had no beginning. precisely so with regard to this endless succession of personages; there never will be a time when fathers, and sons, and worlds will not exist; neither was there ever a period through all the past ages of duration, but what there was a world, and a father and son, a redemption and exaltation to the fullness and power of the godhead. this is what jesus prayed for, and he did not limit his prayer to his apostles, but he said, "neither pray i for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, father, art in me, and i in thee, that they also may be one in us." but, says one, "does not that oneness mean one person?" no; jesus meant that those who believed in him through his servants, might be able to come up to that fullness and glory and power and exaltation which he inherited, even to the fullness of the celestial glory, to be crowned with god the eternal father, and with his only begotten, to be made equal, as it were, with them, in power and dominion; agreeing with some modern revelations god has given through the prophet joseph smith. he said all they that receive this priesthood, that is, those who receive the testimony of the servants of god, they receive me; and whosoever receives my father, receives my father's kingdom; whereupon all that my father hath shall be given to him. this is a glorious promise, to be joint heirs with the son of god in the inheritance of all things, even the fullness and glory of the celestial world, their bodies eventually to become glorified, spiritual bodies of flesh and bones, the same as god the father. before the earth was rolled into existence we were his sons and daughters. those of his children who prove themselves during this probation worthy of exaltation in his presence, will beget other children, and, precisely according to the same principle, they too will become fathers of spirits, as he is the father of our spirits; and thus the works of god are one eternal round--creation, glorification, and exaltation in the celestial kingdom. how many transformations this earth had before it received its present form of creation, i do not know. geologists pretend to say that this earth must have existed many millions of years, and this assertion is generally made by men who do not believe in god or the bible, to disprove the history of the creation of the world, as given by the prophet moses. we will go further than geologists dare to go, and say that the materials of which the earth is composed are eternal, they will never have an end. what is meant by creation? merely organization. in six days we are told, god created this world, also every living thing that then existed. did he create any of these things out of nothing? did the materials then originate? no; there is no scripture to be found within the lids of the old and new testament, or book of mormon, or doctrine and covenants, or in any of the revelations of god, ancient or modern, that even intimates such a thing, for such was not the case; but go to the creeds of men and you will find these things taught. i was taught them in my youth; they were instilled into my young mind, and, of course, i believed them. but as i matured in years and thought, especially after i began to study the hebrew language, i learned that the material of which this earth was made always did exist, and that it was only an organization or formation which took place, during the time spoken of by moses. how many transformations this earth passed through before the one spoken of by moses, i do not know, neither do i particularly care. if it had gone through millions on millions of transformations, it is nothing to us. we are willing, for the sake of argument, to admit that the materials themselves are as old as geologists dare to say they are; but then, that does not destroy the idea of a god, that does not destroy the idea of a great creator, who, according to certain fixed and unalterable laws, brought these materials, from time to time, into a certain organization, and then by his power completed the worlds that were thus made, by placing thereon intelligent and animated beings, capable of thinking and having an existence; and then again, for various reasons, he destroys their earthly existence, until finally he exalts them from their former condition, and makes them celestial in their nature. this is the destiny of this globe of ours; it will eventually attain a state of organization that will no more be destroyed. when? after god has fulfilled and accomplished his purposes, after it has rested from wickedness one thousand years, during which time satan will not have power to tempt the children of men, during which time the faithful will reign, as kings and priests on the earth in their resurrected bodies, when, too, the kingdom and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven will be in possession of the saints of the most high; not only in the possession of those who are mortal saints, but also in the possession of those who are immortal saints, appearing as they will in their resurrected bodies, rising up as rulers, as kings, and priests, upon the face of our globe. a government administered by such men will be one that can be depended on; in that respect it will be very different from the political nations of mortal man. then there will not be the contention we now have, for all things pertaining to the government of god's kingdom will be conducted in order and on the eternal principles of righteousness. the twelve apostles who were called by jesus, and who ministered in his name while they tarried on the earth, will sit upon twelve thrones hereafter, and judge the twelve tribes of israel. there will be nothing intangible or etherial about these thrones, they will be just as real as any kingly throne of the earth. and the twelve apostles will rule over the twelve tribes of israel for the space of a thousand years, having, as they will have, their celestial bodies, and they will eat and drink at the table of the lord. he will be here also, he will be king of kings, before whom all must bow, all must acknowledge his power--and that will be for the space of a thousand years. by and by, when the time comes for this earth to die--for there has been a great deal of wickedness here--satan will be loosed to go forth again to deceive, for there will still be some of the saints mortal, who will be subject to temptation, and even satan will not only try to deceive the mortal saints, but he will gather together his armies around the camp of the saints. then another time comes, when a great white throne will appear, and he who sits thereon will be glorious in his majesty and power, from before whose face the earth will flee away and no place be found for it. will he annihilate it? no, not a particle of the earth will be annihilated, not a particle of the earth was ever originated, consequently not a particle of it will go out of existence, but it will flee away to its original element in the same manner as the human body would were it burned at the stake. the elements would be diffused among original matter, so with the elements of our earth when it undergoes its change. john was not satisfied with only seeing the earth pass away, but he saw still further even until he beheld a new heaven and a new earth, for, said he, the first heaven and the first earth were passed away and there was no more sea. again, he testifies further, saying, "and i, john, saw the holy city, new jerusalem, coming down from god, out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. and i heard a great voice out of heaven saying, behold the tabernacle of god is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and god himself shall be with them, and be their god, and god shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away. and he that sat upon the throne said, behold, i make all things new." this creation, when made new, will be inhabited by immortal beings, who will no more be subject to death, consequently there will be no more pain or sorrow, nothing to mar their peace or to prevent them from entering into the fullness of happiness and joy. this, i say, is the destiny of this earth, and the lord has told us that the time is nigh at hand. in other words, this is the last dispensation and we are preparing for the work of the millennium. when the thousand years are passed, the earth will be made new--it will then become a heaven, the habitation of the former and latter-day saints, as well as all they who prove themselves faithful who will be born during the millennium. how long will they inhabit it? forever. when i was a boy, nineteen years old, i first saw joseph smith; i attended a conference of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, on the 2nd of january, 1831. at that conference the people desired him to inquire of the lord for them--they were anxious to know his mind and will. they were at that time comparatively few in number, not being more than two hundred. joseph smith sat down at a table, and received a great revelation, which is now contained in this book of doctrine and covenants. part of it, in relation to a land of promise, reads as follows: and i will give it unto you for the land of your inheritance, if you seek it with all your hearts: and this shall be my covenant with you, ye shall have it for the land of your inheritance, and for the inheritance of your children for ever, while the earth shall stand, and ye shall possess it again in eternity, no more to pass away.[a] [footnote a: doc. and cov. sec. 38; 19-20.] when i sat and heard that revelation,--it was uttered by the prophet joseph, and written by his scribe,--i thought to myself, that is a very curious doctrine, for i had not then learned that this earth was to become our future home and heaven, and i did not think joseph smith knew it. but it seemed so curious to me to bring myself to believe that the lord was going to give us part of this earth, to possess it, and our children after us, while time should last, and to retain it through all eternity, never more to pass away. this was so different from anything i had been taught--i was utterly confounded--to think that my father in heaven would come and live here on this earth! but when i came to read the bible on this subject and found how numerous the passages were promising that the saints should inherit the earth forever, i was perfectly astonished that i had never thought of it before. "blessed are the meek," says the savior, "for they shall inherit the earth."[a] the meek have been driven into the dens and mountains of the earth, having had to hide themselves up from their persecutors while the wicked, the proud, and the haughty have inherited the earth. yet here is a promise that the meek shall inherit this earth, which all of course would readily admit has never had its fulfillment. then again i was still more confirmed in the truth of this doctrine, when finding other corroborative passages. david, for instance, in the 37th psalm, says, "the wicked shall be cut off. the righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell thereon for ever." i go back to the books of moses and there ascertain that the earth is promised to the saints for ever. i came to the acts of the apostles, wherein the martyr stephen, in answering the charge of blasphemy, tells of abraham, how he came to leave his own country, and how the lord had promised him a land for an inheritance, which "he would give to him for a possession, and to his seed after him," and yet he never possessed any of it, "no, not so much as to set his foot on," and this same promise was confirmed to isaac and jacob. and when i read in the revelations of john about the new song that he heard them sing in heaven about their coming back to the earth (rev. 5: 9, 10), i was fully confirmed that the new revelation was from god. one portion of the song which john heard the angels sing, was, "for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to god by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our god kings and priests; and we shall reign on the earth." [footnote a: matt. 5:5.] how very plain it is when we once learn about our future heaven. we do not have to pray, according to the methodists, for the lord to take us to a land beyond time and space, the saints' secure abode. how inconsistent to look for a heaven beyond space! the heaven of the saints is something we can look forward to in the confident hope of realizing our inheritances and enjoying them forever, when the earth becomes sanctified and made new. and there, as here, we will spread forth, and multiply our children. how long? for eternity. what, resurrected saints have children? yes, the same as our god, who is the father of our spirits; so you, if you are faithful to the end, will become fathers to your sons and daughters, who will be as innumerable as the sands upon the sea shore; they will be your children, and you will be their heavenly fathers, the same as our heavenly father is father to us, and they will belong to your kingdoms through all the vast ages of eternity, the same as we will belong to our father's kingdom. he that receiveth my father, says the savior, receiveth my father's kingdom, wherefore all that my father hath shall be given to him. it is a kind of joint stock inheritance, we are to become joint heirs with jesus christ to all the inheritances and to all the worlds that are made. we shall have the power of locomotion; and like jesus, after his resurrection, we shall be able to mount up and pass from one world to another. we shall not be confined to our native earth. there are many worlds inhabited by people who are glorified, for heaven is not one place, but many, heaven is not one world but many. "in my father's house are many mansions." in other words--in my father's house there are many worlds, which in their turn will be made glorified heavens, the inheritance of the redeemed from all the worlds, who, having been prepared through similar experience to our own, will inhabit them; and each one in its turn will be exalted through the revelations and laws of the most high god, and they will continue to multiply their offspring through all eternity, and new worlds will be made for their progeny. amen. chapter viii. "i know that my redeemer lives."[a] _president joseph f. smith on the "mormon" doctrine of deity._ [footnote a: this discourse was delivered in the tabernacle, salt lake city, march 16,1902, and by the kind permission of president smith i am allowed to reproduce it here.] my beloved brethren and sisters, while listening to the singing of the last hymn, my mind reverted to a revelation contained in the book of doctrine and covenants, and i feel impressed to read a portion of it, and then make a few remarks concerning it, if i am led to do so. this revelation was given through the prophet joseph smith, at kirtland, in may, 1833: verily, thus saith the lord, it shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that i am. you will remember that the hymn which was sung by the choir begins thus: i know that my redeemer lives, what comfort this sweet sentence gives! he lives, he lives, who once was dead; he lives, my ever-living head. it occurs to me that in the words i have just read from the revelation there is a key given to us, as the people of god, by which we may know how to obtain the knowledge which is spoken of by the poet in this hymn--"i know that my redeemer lives." the conditions are stated by which we may secure this knowledge. furthermore, every soul who observeth these conditions shall not only know that he is, but he shall know also- that i am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and that i am in the father, and the father in me, and the father and i are one. this is not speaking of the greater light which is especially bestowed upon those who are born again; for not every man that cometh into the world is born again and entitled to receive the greater light by the gift of the holy ghost. perhaps it may be well for me to make a few remarks in relation to this distinction between the light of christ that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and that light which comes after repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. it is by the power of god that all things are made that have been made. it is by the power of christ that all things are governed and kept in place that are governed and kept in place in the universe. it is the power which proceeds from the presence of the son of god throughout all the works of his hands, that giveth light, energy, understanding, knowledge, and a degree of intelligence to all the children of men, strictly in accordance with the words in the book of job, "there is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the almighty giveth them understanding." it is this inspiration from god, proceeding throughout all his creations that enlighteneth the children of men; and it is nothing more nor less than the spirit of christ, that enlighteneth the mind, that quickeneth the understanding, and that prompteth the children of men to do that which is good and to eschew that which is evil; which quickens the conscience of man and gives him intelligence to judge between good and evil, light and darkness, right and wrong. we are indebted to god for this intelligence that we possess. it is by the spirit which lighteth every man that cometh into the world that our minds are quickened and our spirits enlightened with understanding and intelligence. and all men are entitled to this. it is not reserved for the obedient alone; but it is given unto all the children of men that are born into the world. gift of the holy ghost. but the gift of the holy ghost, which bears record of the father and the son, which takes of the things of the father and shows them unto men, which testifies of jesus christ, and of the ever-living god, the father of jesus christ, and which bears witness of the truth--this spirit, this intelligence is not given unto all men until they repent of their sins and come into a state of worthiness before the lord. then they receive it by the laying on of the hands of those who are authorized of god to bestow his blessings upon the heads of the children of men. the spirit spoken of in that which i have read is that spirit which will not cease to strive with the children of men until they are brought to the possession of the greater light and intelligence. though a man may commit all manner of sin and blasphemy, if he has not received the testimony of the holy ghost he may be forgiven by repenting of his sins, humbling himself before the lord, and obeying in sincerity the commandments of god. as it is stated here, "every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that i am." he shall be forgiven, and receive of the greater light; he will enter into a solemn covenant with god, into a compact with the almighty, through the only begotten son, whereby he becomes a son of god, and heir of god, and a joint heir with jesus christ. then, if he shall sin against the light and knowledge he has received, the light that was within him shall become darkness, and oh, how great will be that darkness! then, and not till then, will this spirit of christ that lighteth every man that cometh into the world cease to strive with him, and he shall be left to his own destruction. this is in accordance with the doctrine of christ as it is revealed in the new testament; it is in accordance with the word of god as it has been revealed in the latter-day through the prophet joseph smith. god will not condemn any man to utter destruction, neither shall any man be thrust down to hell irredeemably, until he has been brought to the possession of the greater light that comes through repentance and obedience to the laws and commandments of god; but if, after he has received light and knowledge, he shall sin against that light and will not repent, then, indeed, he becomes a lost soul, a son of perdition! the question is often asked, is there any difference between the spirit of the lord and the holy ghost? the terms are frequently used synonymously. we often say the spirit of god when we mean the holy ghost; we likewise say the holy ghost when we mean the spirit of god. the holy ghost is a personage in the godhead, and is not that which lighteth every man that comes into the world. it is the spirit of god which proceeds through christ to the world, that enlightens every man that comes into the world, and that strives with the children of men, and will continue to strive with them, until it brings them to a knowledge of the truth and the possession of the greater light and testimony of the holy ghost. if, however, he receive that greater light, and then sin against it, the spirit of god will cease to strive with him, and the holy ghost will wholly depart from him. then will he persecute the truth; then will he seek the blood of the innocent; then will he not scruple at the commission of any crime, except so far as he may fear the penalties of the law, in consequence of the crime, upon himself. jesus, the father of this world. i will read a little further: and that i am in the father, and the father in me, and the father and i are one. i do not apprehend that any intelligent person will construe these words to mean that jesus and his father are one person, but merely that they are one in knowledge, in truth, in wisdom, in understanding, and in purpose; just as the lord jesus himself admonished his disciples to be one with him, and to be in him, that he might be in them. it is in this sense that i understand this language, and not as it is construed by some people, that christ and his father are one person. i declare to you that they are not one person, but that they are two persons, two bodies, separate and apart, and as distinct as are any father and son within the sound of my voice. yet, jesus is the father of this world, because it was by him that the world was made. he says: and the father and i are one: the father because he gave me of his fulness, and the son because i was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men. i was in the world and received of my father, and the works of him were plainly manifest; and john saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory: and the fulness of john's record is hereafter to be revealed: and he bore record, saying, i saw his glory that he was in the beginning before the world was; therefore in the beginning the word was, for he was the word, even the messenger of salvation. the light and redeemer of the world; the spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men. the worlds were made by him: men were made by him: all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. and i, john, bear record that i beheld his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth, even the spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us. and i, john, saw that he received not the fulness at first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness: and thus he was called the son of god, because he received not of the fulness at the first. glorious possibilities of man. what a glorious thought is inspired in the heart when we read sentiments like this, that even christ himself was not perfect at first; he received not a fulness at first, but he received grace for grace, and he continued to receive more and more until he received a fulness. is not this to be so with the children of men? is any man perfect? has any man received a fulness at once? have we reached a point wherein we may receive the fulness of god, of his glory and his intelligence? no; and yet if jesus, the son of god, and the father of the heavens and the earth in which we dwell, received not a fulness at the first, but increased in faith, knowledge, understanding and grace until he received a fulness, is it not possible for all men that are born of women to receive little by little, line upon line, precept upon precept, until they shall receive a fulness, as he has received a fulness, and be exalted with him in the presence of the father? the revelation continues: and i, john, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the holy ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying, this is my beloved son. this voice out of heaven came from god, the father of our lord and savior jesus christ. and i, john, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the father; and he received all power both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the father was with him, for he dwelt in him. and it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of john. i give unto you these sayings that ye may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. for if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as i am in the father; therefore, i say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace. and now, verily i say unto you, i was in the beginning with the father: and am the first-born. and all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the first-born. ye were also in the beginning with the father, that which is spirit, even the spirit of truth, and truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; and whatsoever is more or less than this, is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. the spirit of truth is of god. i am the spirit of truth, and john bore record of me, saying--he receiveth a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth. and no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments. he that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. man was also in the beginning with god. intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can it be. all truth is independent in that sphere in which god has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise there is no existence. behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them and they receive not the light. and every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. for man is spirit. the elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy: and when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. man to become like christ. in other words, the spirit without the body is not perfect, and the body without the spirit is dead. man was ordained in the beginning to become like jesus christ, to become conformed unto his image. as jesus was born of woman, lived and grew to manhood, was put to death and raised from the dead to immortality and eternal life, so it was decreed in the beginning that man should be, and will be, through the atonement of jesus, in spite of himself, resurrected from the dead. death came upon us without the exercise of our agency; we had no hand in bringing it originally upon ourselves; it came because of the transgression of our first parents. therefore, man, who had no hand in bringing death upon himself, shall have no hand in bringing again life unto himself; for as he dies in consequence of the sin of adam, so shall he live again, whether he will or not, by the righteousness of jesus christ, and the power of his resurrection. every man that dies shall live again, and shall stand before the bar of god, to be judged according to his works, whether they be good or evil. it is then that all will have to give an account for their stewardship in this mortal life. the word of god is spoken to the children of men. it has been revealed from the heavens. it is extant in the world. it is in force upon the people. those that reject it will have to answer for it before god, the judge of the quick and the dead; while those that receive and obey the word of the lord and keep his commandments, as i have read, shall not only come to a knowledge of the truth, but shall look upon the face of the redeemer and shall see and know him as he is. furthermore, they will acknowledge that it is through the atonement and power of the savior that they are brought again unto life immortal, to enjoy eternal felicity in the celestial kingdom of god, provided they have been obedient to his commandments. the lord continues: the elements are the tabernacle of god; yea, man is the tabernacle of god, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, god shall destroy that temple. the glory of god is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. light and truth forsake that evil one. every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning, and god having redeemed man from the fall, men became again in their infant state, innocent before god. and that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers. the word of the lord is truth. you ask, what is truth? it is the truth that god lives. what more is truth? it is the truth that jesus christ is the son of god, the redeemer of the world; that he atoned for the sin of adam, and that through our repentance and obedience to him we shall receive a forgiveness of our own sins, and shall be cleansed therefrom, and exalted again in the presence of god, from whence we came. it is truth that god has revealed to the world that except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. it is eternal truth that except a man be born of the water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. these are the almighty's truths that he has revealed to the children of men, and upon these we will stand. we propose to bear our testimony to these truths, and to declare these principles to the children of men, as long as god will give us his spirit, and we are entrusted with this mission to declare jesus christ and him crucified and risen from the dead, and joseph smith raised up by the power of god to restore the fulness of the everlasting gospel and the authority of the holy priesthood to the earth in the dispensation of the fulness of times. we bear this testimony to the world, and we know that our testimony is true; for we have received of that spirit of truth which is of god, and of which jesus speaks here through the prophet joseph smith. therefore, our testimony is in force upon the world. especially is it in force upon those who have yielded obedience to the message of salvation as it has been restored to the earth and declared unto you. personal testimony. now, my brethren and sisters, i know that my redeemer lives. i feel it in every fiber of my being. i am just as satisfied of it as i am of my own existence. i cannot feel more sure of my own being than i do that my redeemer lives, and that my god lives, the father of my savior. i feel it in my soul; i am converted to it in my whole being. i bear testimony to you that this is the doctrine of christ, the gospel of jesus, which is the power of god unto salvation. it is "mormonism." but there is much more that could be said in relation to these matters. "mormonism" has been interpreted by one who was inspired to mean "more good." we have accepted the term "mormon." it having been applied to us by our enemies simply because we believed in the book of mormon, and we are not ashamed of it--we are not ashamed of "more good." we believe in every principle and precept of the gospel, and in all the law of god. we believe that every principle is essential. we believe that we should do our duty to god and to our fellowmen. we should do unto others as we would have them do to us. we should observe the laws of chastity, honesty and uprightness, deal justly with our neighbors, and kindly and mercifully with the erring. we should seek to do good at all times and under all circumstances. the feeling should predominate in our hearts that we are here, not to do evil, but to do good; not to increase error, but to diminish it and to increase the knowledge of the truth; to make men happy, and to spread happiness abroad in the world by persuading men to do that which is right. there is no real happiness in wickedness. there is no real enjoyment in sin and transgression. the only source of real enjoyment and perfect happiness is in the observance of the laws of truth and righteousness. the lord bless you and help us all to live our religion and to keep the commandments of god, that we may look upon his face, and that we may see the redeemer when he shall come to the earth again; for he will come, and when he does come again he will not come as the meek and lowly nazarene, without "where to lay his head," and without respect and honor, but he will come as god out of heaven, clothed with power, glory, justice, judgment and truth. he will come with the hosts of heaven, and he will receive those who have kept his commandments in the earth as the church prepared for the bridegroom, while he will take vengeance upon the ungodly. this is not my doctrine; it is the declaration of the bible, of the ancient prophets, and also of the modern prophets, who have spoken by inspiration. i am but repeating their words, and i tell you nothing new. god bless you and keep you in the path of duty, and deliver us all from evil, and help us to be steadfast and faithful to the covenants that we have made, and to the cause of zion and of redemption for the living and the dead, is my prayer in the name of jesus. amen. transcriber's note some apparent printer's errors, especially spelling errors and unclosed quotation marks where a correct reading was obvious, have been resolved as seemed reasonable. (the 'scanctity' of the pharisees was a personal favorite.) 