OBJECTIONS TO THE BOOK OF MORMON (Continued).
IV.
Pre-Christian Era Knowledge of the Gospel.
Among the early objections to the Book of Mormon, supposed to be unanswerable, was that based upon the fact that the Nephites hundreds of years before the birth of Christ had knowledge of him and the redemption he would bring to pass for man, and the means of grace through which salvation would be accomplished. In fact, that they had knowledge of the Christian institution. "He," (Joseph Smith) "represents the Christian institution," says Alexander Campbell, "as practiced among his Israelites before Christ was born! And his Jews are called 'Christians' while keeping the law of Moses, the Holy Sabbath, and worship in their temple, at their altars, and by their High Priest!"
Of late, however, not so much importance has been attached to this objection. It is becoming more and more recognized as a truth that the gospel of Christ was known from very ancient times, from before the foundations of the world in fact. Jesus, in scripture, is known as the "Lamb slain from before the foundations of the world," and certain ones are spoken of as having their names written in the "Book of Life" from the foundation of the world.[1]
Paul speaks of the hope of "eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised before the world began."[2] Men were not left in ignorance of the plan of their redemption until the coming of the Messiah in the flesh, even in the old world. Our annals are imperfect on that head, doubtless, but enough evidence exists even in the Jewish scriptures to indicate the existence of the knowledge of the fact of the Atonement and of the redemption of man through that means. Abel, the son of Adam, offered the firstlings of his flock as a sacrifice unto God. How came he to make such an offering, except that behind the sacrifice, as behind similar offerings in subsequent ages, stood the fact of the Christ's Atonement? In such sacrifice, was figured forth the means of man's redemption—through a sacrifice, and that the sacrifice of the first-born. Paul also refers to the sacrifices and other things of the law of Moses as "having a shadow of good things to come."[3] But where learned Abel to offer sacrifices if not from his father, Adam? It is reasonably certain that Adam as well as Abel offered sacrifices, in like manner and for the same intent. Paul bears unmistakable testimony to the fact that the gospel was preached unto Abraham; and also that it was offered to Israel under Moses before "the law of carnal commandments" was given. "I would not that ye should be ignorant," he says, "how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ."[4]
Paul's great controversy with the Christian Jews was in relation to the superiority of the gospel to the law of Moses. Many of the Christian Jews, while accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, still held to the law with something like superstitious reverence, and could not be persuaded that the gospel superseded the law, and was, in fact, a fulfillment of all its types and symbols. This controversy culminated in Paul's now celebrated letter to the Galatians, wherein he says:
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He sayeth not And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
After this testimony to the knowledge of the gospel existing among the ancients, it is useless for modern critics of the Book of Mormon to complain of the knowledge of the Christian institution possessed by the Nephites, and the fact that the Book of Mormon proclaims the existence of that knowledge. If it shall be said that the Nephites had clearer conceptions of it than the people inhabiting the old world, that fact would arise not out of God's unwillingness to make known the great truth, but to the fact that the Nephites succeeded in living more nearly within his favor; and hence their clearer knowledge of the truth.
It should be remembered that prophecy is but history reversed. Known unto God are all his works and words from the beginning to the end; and at various times he has made known future events in the clearest manner to his prophets who, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have recorded them. The Prophet Isaiah, 150 years before the birth of Cyrus, foretold his name; declared that he should subdue kingdoms, including Babylon, set free the people of God held in bondage there, and rebuild the House of the Lord at Jerusalem. And all this as clearly as the historians could write it after the events themselves took place. To Daniel he revealed the rise, fall and succession of the leading empires and nations of the world, even to the time of the establishment of God's Kingdom in power to hold universal sway in the latter days, an event not yet fulfilled.
It is clearer even from the Hebrew scriptures that the Lord has been willing, and even anxious, that a knowledge of the Christian institution should be had among men from the beginning. To the prophets of Israel, in fact, nearly every important event in the life of the Savior was made known. They foretold that he would be born of a virgin; that his name would signify "God with us;" that Bethlehem would be the place of his birth; that he would sojourn in Egypt with his parents; that he would reside in Nazareth, for "He shall be called a Nazarene;" that a messenger would prepare the way before him; that he should ride in triumph into Jerusalem upon a colt, the foal of an ass; that he would be afflicted and despised; that he would be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; that he would be despised and rejected of men; that men would turn their faces from him in his affliction; that he would be esteemed as stricken and smitten of God; that he would be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of us men would be laid upon him, and by his stripes would be healed; that upon him would God lay the iniquity of us all; that for the transgressions of God's peoples would he be stricken; that he would be oppressed and afflicted, yet open not his mouth; that as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so would he be silent before his judges; that he would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver; that men would divide his raiment and cast lots for his vesture; that they would give to him gall and vinegar to drink; that not a bone of him should be broken; that he should be taken from prison and from judgment, and be cut out of the land of the living; that he would make his grave with the wicked and the rich in his death; but notwithstanding this he should not see corruption (i. e., his body decay), and that on the third day following his death he should rise triumphant from the grave. All this and much more was foretold by the ancient Hebrew prophets concerning the Messiah. This is prophetic history.
In like manner to the Nephites his prophetic history was made known, and is found in the Book of Mormon in some instances in greater plainness than in the Old Testament, because, for one thing—in addition to the suggestion made that the Nephites may have lived nearer to the Lord than other branches of the house of Israel—the Nephite scriptures have not passed through the hands of an Aristobulus, a Philo and other rabbis, who by interpretation or elimination have taken away some of the plain and precious parts of the Jewish scriptures. Surely if the Lord revealed to the Jewish prophets these leading events in the history of the Savior ages before the Messiah's birth, it ought not to be thought a strange thing if God imparted the same knowledge to the Nephite prophets. Nor can the fact that he did so, and that in plainer terms than in the revelations to the Jews, be held as valid objections to the Book of Mormon.
V.
The Unlawfulness of Establishing the Priesthood With Other Than the Tribe of Levi.
Somewhat akin to the objections last considered is one based upon the claim that it would be unlawful to establish a Priesthood other than that founded by Moses, when he chose the tribe of Levi to officiate in holy ordinances. In order that this objection, however, may be stated in its full force I quote it as set forth by Alexander Campbell, not even omitting the unfortunate coarseness of his language which was so unworthy of his character, and which I assign to the spirit of those times when coarseness was so often mistaken for forcefulness.
Smith, its real author [i. e., of the Book of Mormon], as ignorant and as impudent a knave as ever wrote a book, betrays the cloven foot in basing his whole book upon a false fact, or a pretended fact, which makes God a liar. It is this: with the Jews God made a covenant at Mount Sinai, and instituted a priesthood, he separated Levi, and covenanted to give him this office irrevocably while ever the temple stood, or till the Messiah came. "Then," says God, "Moses shall appoint Aaron and his sons and they shall wait on the priest's office, and the stranger (the person of another family) who cometh nigh shall be put to death." (Numbers iii: 10.) "And the priests and sons of Levi shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord, and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried." (Deut. xxi: 5). Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with 250 men of renown, rebelled against a part of the institution of the Priesthood, and the Lord destroyed them in the presence of the whole congregation. This was to be a memorial that no stranger invade any part of the office of the Priesthood. (Numbers xvi: 40). Fourteen thousand and seven hundred of the people were destroyed by a plague for murmuring against the memorial.
In the 18th chapter of Numbers the Levites are again given to Aaron and his sons, and of the priesthood confirmed to them with this threat—"The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." "Even Jesus," says Paul, "were he on earth, could not be a priest; for he was of a tribe concerning which Moses spake nothing of priesthood." (Heb. vii: 13). So irrevocable was the grant of the priesthood to Levi, and of the high priesthood to Aaron, that no stranger dare approach the altar of God which Moses established. Hence Jesus himself was excluded from officiating as priest on earth according to the law.
This Joseph Smith overlooked in his impious fraud, and makes his hero, Lehi, spring from Joseph. And just as soon as his sons return from the roll of his lineage, ascertaining that he was of the tribe of Joseph, he and his sons acceptably "offer sacrifices and burnt offerings to the Lord." (p. 15, first edition.)[5] Also it is repeated (p. 18)—Nephi became chief artificer, shipbuilder, and mariner; was scribe, prophet, priest, and king unto his own people, and "consecrated Jacob and Joseph, the sons of his father, priests to God and teachers—almost 600 years before the fulness of the times of the Jewish economy was completed. (p. 72.) Nephi represents himself withal "as under the law of Moses" (p. 105). They built a new temple in the new world, and in 55 years after they leave Jerusalem, make a new priesthood which God approbates. A high priest is also consecrated and yet they are all the while "teaching the law of Moses, and exhorting the people to keep it!" (pp. 146, 209.) Thus God is represented as instituting, approbating and blessing a new priesthood from the tribe of Joseph, concerning which Moses gave no commandment concerning priesthood. Although God had promised in the law of Moses that if any man, not of the tribe and family of Levi and Aaron should approach the office of priest, he would surely die; he is represented by Smith as blessing, approbating, and sustaining another family in this appropriated office. The God of Abraham or Joseph Smith must, then, be a liar! And who will hesitate to pronounce him an imposter? This lie runs through his record for the first 600 years of his history.
I have stated this objection, at length, because much importance has been attached to it and many have regarded it as unanswerable. I consider its importance has been exaggerated, and the whole objection based upon conceptions of the right and power of God and his freedom of action, as altogether too narrow and dogmatic.
It is to be observed, first of all, that the inhibitions against others being appointed to the priesthood that was given to Aaron and the Levites, are inhibitions against "men" assuming the right to institute any other order of priesthood in Israel, or to grant the rights of this priesthood to any other tribe than that appointed by the Lord. Because of these inhibitions against "men" presuming to change the order which God has established, to therefore assume that God, to meet other conditions—such as these, for instance in the establishment of a branch of the house of Israel in the new world—the case of Lehi and his colony—that God cannot make such changes in the matter of establishing a priesthood as seemeth him good, is preposterous.
I think the argument of this point might be closed here, for surely no one would be so unreasonable as to contend that the inhibitions which God imposes upon men are to be made operative upon himself.
In the treatment of the objection preceding the one now under consideration I pointed out the fact of the antiquity of the gospel, showing that even unto Abraham the gospel had been preached, and that the law of Moses, usually called the law of carnal commandments, had been "added" to the gospel because of the transgressions of Israel, from which fact it is evident that the gospel was administered in those ancient, patriarchial times. It was a higher law than the law of Moses. It was the everlasting covenant of God with man and the blood of Christ is spoken of as being the blood of that everlasting covenant.[6] There was a priesthood that administered the ordinances of that gospel, and as the gospel was a higher law than the law of Moses, it is reasonable to conclude that the priesthood which administered in those ordinances was a higher order of priesthood than that conferred upon Aaron and the tribe of Levi, and undoubtedly the higher priesthood could, on occasion, administer in the ordinances of the inferior law. It was, doubtless, this higher order of Priesthood that such characters as Abraham, Melchizedek, and other prophets in Israel held, and by which they administered in sacred things. It was this order of priesthood that was held by Lehi and Nephi, and which the latter conferred upon his brothers, Jacob, and Joseph.[7] The former referring to his priesthood says, that he had been "ordained after the manner of this (the Lord's) holy order," that being the way in which this higher priesthood, of which I am speaking, is designated throughout the Book of Mormon.[8] Called also a priesthood "after the order of the Son of God." It was this priesthood, therefore, that was conferred upon the Nephites—not the Aaronic priesthood—and by which they officiated in sacred things; of things pertaining to the gospel as well as to the law given of Moses. The justification for administering in the things of the law by this priesthood consist in the fact that the superior authority includes all the rights and powers of the inferior authority, and certainly possesses the power to do what the inferior authority could do.
It may be claimed that the inconsistency of the Book of Mormon, relative to this matter, consists in this: It claims that the Nephites were living according to the law of Moses, and the law of Moses provided that the house of Aaron and the tribe of Levi alone should exercise the priesthood; whereas, among the Nephites others than the Levites held and exercised the priesthood; technically, that inconsistency exists, but it is a technicality and is capable of bearing no such weight of argument as Mr. Campbell puts upon it. In Lehi's colony there was no representative of the tribe of Levi so far as known, and hence others had to be chosen to officiate before the Lord in the priest's office.
That the Lord in making his covenant with the house of Aaron and the tribe of Levi concerning the priesthood reserved to himself the right on occasion to appoint others to perform priestly functions, even in Israel, in Palestine, is evident from the case of Gideon, the fifth judge in Israel after Moses. Gideon was of the tribe of Manasseh,[9] and when the Lord would deliver Israel from the oppression of the Midianites he sent his angel to this man, and though he was not of the tribe to whom the priesthood had been given by covenant, nevertheless, the Lord commanded him to build an altar, and he did so, and called it Jehovah-shalom. He also threw down the altar of Baal and built an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings, all of which were priestly functions.[10] Shall these acts be denounced as a violation of the covenant of the Lord with Aaron and the tribe of Levi? Shall the angel of the Lord, who commanded Gideon in these priestly things, be declared a spirit of evil, a violator of God's covenant? Shall the book of Judges be rejected as a spurious book, and unworthy of being accepted as part of the scriptures because it relates these circumstances? In a word, shall we employ against it all the thunder of Mr. Campbell's criticism of the Book of Mormon? His criticism would be just as effective against the book of Judges as it is against the Book of Mormon, but as a matter of fact it would amount to nothing in either case, since the action of Gideon, and also of Lehi and Nephi, were of the Lord's appointing, and the Lord had certainly reserved to himself the right to appoint men other than members of the tribe of Levi when occasion should require, though he had forbidden "men" to appoint priests other than from that tribe. This was to avoid confusion and the bringing into existence rival priesthoods among God's people, but certainly when the Lord conferred a higher order of priesthood upon the Nephites, under which they were to operate in the New World, there was no infringement of the rights of the tribe of Levi. It was no more a violation of the covenant the Lord made with the tribe of Levi, than it would be for the Lord to appoint an inhabitant of Mars to that order of priesthood and give him the right of administration in that distant world.
The whole objection is captious, and manifests the weakness of the objections urged against the Book of Mormon, since so great stress must needs be laid upon this supposed contradiction of the Bible covenant.
In his objections to the Book of Mormon, in addition to those already noted, Mr. Campbell also lays stress upon the departure of Lehi from Jerusalem, and also the establishment of a temple and its service in the New World, as a great violation of God's covenant with Israel. "To represent God," he says, "as inspiring a devout Jew [Lehi was not a Jew, by the way, but of the tribe of Manasseh] and a prophet, such as Lehi and Nephi are represented by Smith, with resolution to forsake Jerusalem and God's own house, and to depart from the land which God gave to their fathers so long as they were obedient; and to guide by miracle and bless by prodigies a good man in forsaking God's covenant and worship, is so monstrous an error that language fails to afford a name for it."
One can scarce refrain from characterizing this sort of criticism as nonsense. Nor does it represent the facts in the case. Lehi was not forsaking God's covenant nor worship; he was leaving Jerusalem by the Lord's own commandment at a time when God's judgment was about to fall and shortly afterwards did fall upon the place, so that it was no great calamity that was happening to Lehi's righteous colony to be taken from such a place and brought to the great American continents, agreeable to the covenants of the Lord with the house of Joseph, Lehi's ancestor.[11] The establishment of a temple in the New World was a necessity to this colony, but Mr. Campbell, together with all who have followed him in this and similar objections, seem determined to so limit the power of God that they will not allow of him making provisions to meet such occasions.
VI.
Nephite Knowledge of the "Call of the Gentiles."
Much stress is laid by Mr Campbell and others upon what Paul says respecting the "call" of the Gentiles to the grace of the gospel of Christ, "which in other ages," says Paul, "was not made know unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel."[12]
The making this truth known to the world, according to Mr. Campbell's views of Paul's declaration was reserved to Paul and his fellow apostles of that dispensation. "But Smith," remarks Mr. Campbell, "makes his pious hero Nephi 600 years before the Messiah began to preach, disclose these secrets concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and blessings flowing through the Messiah to Jews and Gentiles, which Paul says was hid from ages and generations."[13]
This objection could be disposed of in several ways. First, it could be held that when Paul, and the other apostles of the old world, spoke concerning the development of the work of the Lord in that land, they were limited by their knowledge of the world. They did not speak with reference to the people inhabiting the American continents who were unknown to them. For example, when Paul said:
Be not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.[14]
No one for a moment thinks Paul had in mind the inhabitants of the western hemisphere when he said, "the Gospel was preached to every creature which is under heaven." He had reference to the world with which he was acquainted, as he knew the world.
Second, it could be held that the knowledge of this mystery revealed to the Nephites by no means interfered with the purposes of God in keeping that matter hidden from the Gentiles and the world. The fact made known to the Nephites never reached the Gentiles until after the publication of the Book of Mormon, in 1830, long ages after Paul had published the fact to the Gentile world. What was revealed to the Nephites in no way detracted from the glory of Paul and the other apostles, making known the mystery of God's grace to the Gentiles.
Third. It could be held that Paul meant that himself and fellow apostles knew in a different way that the Gentiles were to be fellow heirs with the house of Israel in the privileges of the gospel. Indeed, I think this must be the solution of the matter, for Mr. Campbell's version of it would bring Paul and Isaiah into pronounced conflict with each other, and prove that one or the other of them did not speak by the inspiration of God. That it was revealed to the ancients that the Gentiles were to partake of the advantages of Christ's atonement, and have part in the salvation that is possible though it is evident from the following passages, which all allow makes direct reference to Christ and his mission.
I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.[15]
Again:
And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.[16]
In the light of these revelations, concerning the part the Gentiles were to have in the salvation that comes through Christ, it can scarcely be said that this "mystery," was not revealed in ages previous to the days of Paul; but it could be said, and this I contend is what Paul meant, that it was not as fully known in former ages that the Gentiles were "to be fellow heirs and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." Before Paul's time it was only in prophecy that this was known; but after his day it was known both in prophecy and as accomplished fact.
VII.
The Difficulty of the Three Days Darkness.
An effort is sometimes made to bring the Book of Mormon into contradiction with the New Testament in the matter of "three days darkness," connected with the death of Jesus. The objection was recently stated in these terms:
In Helaman xiv: 20-27, and in I. Nephi xix: 10, we read about three days of darkness which should cover "all the earth," and the isles of the sea at the crucifixion of the Savior. Neither the Bible nor history speaks of three days of darkness on the eastern hemisphere, hence it did not cover "all the earth" as we understand it.
The objection as here stated, and the argument to be inferred from it, is: the Book of Mormon says that at the crucifixion of Messiah there will be three days of darkness that will cover all the face of the earth and the isles of the sea. History and the Bible are silent about such an event; therefore, the Book of Mormon makes a false statement and must itself be untrue, and consequently uninspired, and is not at all what it claims to be, viz., a record of the ancient inhabitants of America, and brought forth by the power of God for the enlightenment and instruction of the world.
This statement of the objection differs a little from the ordinary manner in which the objection is made. Objectors usually try to make it appear that the Book of Mormon's statement that there were three days darkness in the Western World during the time Messiah was in the tomb is in conflict with the New Testament's statement that there were three hours darkness during the crucifixion; but the fact that the New Testament refers to an event that took place while Jesus hung upon the cross in Judea, and the Book of Mormon statement refers to an event that took place after his crucifixion, while he was lying in the tomb, and in the western hemisphere, instead of at Jerusalem, it must be apparent that there is no conflict between the two accounts.
But now to meet the objection as here presented. All that is necessary will be to present just exactly what the Book of Mormon does say with reference to the three days of darkness:
The God of our fathers * * * * yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man into the hands of wicked men to be lifted up according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake, concerning the three days of darkness which should be a sign given of his death, unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the House of Israel.[17]
This is one of the passages referred to in the objection, but there is nothing here about the three days of darkness extending over "the whole face of the earth." It speaks of it as extending to the isles of the sea; i. e. to lands distant from Jerusalem beyond the seas—to those more especially inhabited by the house of Israel. In passing, and merely by the way, it may be interesting to call attention to the fact that here are three Hebrew prophets referred to by Nephi—Zenock, Neum, and Zenos—each of whom had recorded an important prophecy respecting the coming and mission of Christ; and had not the Jews eliminated the books of these prophets from their collection of scriptures, it could not have then been said, as it is now said, that the Bible is silent respecting these three days of darkness, which were to be a sign of the Messiah's death; for then they would have had the words of Zenos that there was to be such a sign given in the isles of the sea, inhabited by the house of Israel.
Behold, as I said unto you concerning another sign, a sign of his death, behold in that day that he shall suffer death, the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you, and also the moon, and the stars also; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead. * * * And behold thus hath the angel * * said unto me, that these things should be, and that darkness shall cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days. And the angel said unto me, that many shall see greater things than these, to the intent that they might believe that these signs and these wonders come to pass upon all the face of this land. (Helaman, 20:28.)
This is the other passage quoted, and in it is found the phrase, "that darkness shall cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days." But it should be remembered that this is preceded by a statement concerning the three days darkness that limits this otherwise general statement, namely, "and there shall be no light upon the face of this land"—meaning America—"for the space of three days." This clearly limits the particular sign under consideration to America and the adjacent islands of the sea, in other words, to the western hemisphere. Moreover, the phrase, "that darkness shall cover the face of the whole earth," is followed as well as preceded by the limiting clause—"these signs and these wonders"—namely, the three hours of tempest and of earthquake followed by the three days of darkness—"shall come to pass upon all the face of this land"—meaning of course, America.
Then again, when the prophecy is left and you turn to the history of its fulfillment, the whole of the thrilling narrative is clearly confined to the statement of events that occurred in the lands occupied by the Nephites—that is, to the western hemisphere. Yet in that narrative is found the same form of expression as in the prophecy of Samuel, the Lamanite. While describing events that are clearly confined to Nephite lands, Mormon says: "and thus the face of the whole earth became deformed because of the tempests and the thunderings and the lightnings. * * * And behold the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon all the face of the whole earth."—(III. Nephi, 8: 17, 18). Now did the prophet really mean that the convulsions he was describing extended to Europe and Asia and Africa because he said "the rocks were broken upon the face of the whole earth?" No; you limit the general expression here by the facts of the whole circumstance under consideration, so that "broken up upon the face of the whole earth," means upon the face of the whole earth so far as the Nephite lands are concerned—that is the limitation of the general phrase.
As an example of this kind of interpretation, I introduce a passage or two from the Bible. Daniel, in giving the interpretation of the king of Babylon's dream, says:
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
Does this prophecy really mean "wheresoever the children of men dwell," there, too, was the rule and dominion of Nebuchadnezzar? Did he rule all of Europe and Africa? Did his dominion extend to the western hemisphere, for there the children of men dwelt as well as in Asia? It is a matter of common information that Nebuchadnezzar's dominion was not thus extended, but really was quite limited. What, then? Shall we reject the prophecies of Daniel because a strict and technical construction of his language does not meet the facts?
Again he says, speaking of the political powers that would succeed Babylon:
And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
This third kingdom is generally agreed to have reference to the kingdom of Alexander; but did Alexander "bear rule over all the earth?" Did he bear rule over the western hemisphere? No; nor did he know of its existence. What, then, shall we do with this inspired prophet who says he "shall bear rule over all the earth?" Shall we reject him and his book? Or say that his statements do not agree with the facts? That would be absurd. The particular phrase is limited by the general circumstances under which the prophet was speaking. That is of course taken by all who believe the book of Daniel, and it is a course amply justified by reason.
Again, it is recorded in Luke, speaking of the events which happened during the crucifixion of the Savior:
And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
Did this inspired writer really have in mind the whole round earth, or was he speaking with reference to what happened right there in Judea where the main event occurred? Undoubtedly he had reference to what had been stated to him by the eye witnesses of the scene, who merely related what appeared to them; namely, that a darkness settled down over the land, but they were not thinking of the face of the whole earth when they told the story to Luke, nor was he when he wrote his statement of the event.
One other example:
Be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister. (Col. i: 23.)
Is this statement of Paul's literally true? Had the gospel at that time, or, for matter of that, has it at any time since then, been preached unto every creature under heaven? Certainly not. And when Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians there were millions of the children of men, as there are to this day, who never had heard of Messiah or the gospel. Paul could only have meant by this over-statement of the matter, that the gospel had been generally preached in the kingdoms and provinces with which himself and the Colossians were acquainted; and no one thinks of rejecting Paul or his books because of such seeming inaccuracies. His use of such broad-sweeping phrases are interpreted in the light of reason, and limited by the well known circumstances under which he wrote. It should be remembered in this connection, that hyperbole is a habit of speech with oriental peoples, to whom the Jews belonged; and indirectly, too, the Nephites are descendents of the same people, and have retained to a large extent the same habits of expression; all of which should be taken into account in the interpretation of the Nephite records as it always is in exegeses of the Hebrew scriptures.
V.
The Birth of Jesus "at Jerusalem."
The following prediction concerning the birth place of Jesus is found in the book of Alma.
And behold he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers.
Jesus, it is well known, was born at Bethlehem, Judea, between four and five miles south of Jerusalem, really a suburb of the larger city. Nearly all objectors point to this prophecy as being in contradiction of the well attested historical fact of Christ's birth at Bethlehem. The objection is seldom fairly stated. It is charged that the Book of Mormon says that Jesus was born "at Jerusalem," and Alexander Campbell quotes it as being "in Jerusalem," and all omit the qualifying clause "the land of our fathers," which clearly indicates that it is not the "city" which the Nephite historian gives, but the "land" in which Jesus would be born.
This explanation of the supposed difficulty is further strengthened when it is remembered that it was a custom of the Nephites to name large districts of country—such as might correspond to provinces and principalities in other nations—after the chief city of the land:
Now it was the custom of the people of Nephi, to call their lands, and their cities, and their villages, yea, even all their small villages, after the name of him who first possessed them; and thus it was with the land of Ammonihah.[18]
And hence, too, came the practice of calling large districts of country after the chief city therein. In this same book of Alma—as throughout the Book of Mormon—we have the city named after the man who founded it, and the district of country named from the chief city, thus: "The Land of Zarahemla," "the land of Melek;" "the land of Ammonihah;" "the land of Gideon;" "the land of Lehi-Nephi, or the city of Lehi-Nephi;" and so on ad infinitum. It became a habit of speech with them, especially with reference to Jerusalem, whence their forefathers came, as witness the following few out of many such quotations that could be given:
I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem. (Mosiah 1: 11.)
That same God has brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem. (Mosiah 7: 20.)
Why will he not show himself in this land, as well as in the land of Jerusalem? (Helaman 16: 19).
Hence when it is said that Jesus should be born "at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers," the Nephite writer merely conformed to a habit of speech, and meant the "land" of Jerusalem, not the "city."
VI.
The Settlement of Modern Controversies.
This prophet Smith * * * * wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his Book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies;—infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry and general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonry, republican government, and the rights of man. All these topics are repeatedly alluded to.
Then in mockery:
How much more benevolent and intelligent this American Apostle than the Holy Twelve and Paul to assist them! He prophesied of all these topics, and of the apostasy, and infallibly decides by his authority every question. How easy to prophecy of the past or of the present time!
Such the statement of Alexander Campbell in the criticism so often quoted in these pages. Some critics of the Book of Mormon have charged that it contained nothing of importance on such matters;[19] nothing that was really worth while considering, but if it considers this long list of subjects enumerated by Mr. Campbell, the charge of not dealing with questions of importance must surely be set aside. As a matter of fact, the Book of Mormon deals with at least the most of the subjects enumerated, not, however, as they were discussed in New York between 1820 and 1830, but as they arose in the experience of the ancient inhabitants of America, or as the Nephite prophets moved upon by the Holy Spirit saw what would arise within the experience of the Gentiles who would inhabit the land. The chief complaint against Mr. Campbell's objection on these points consist in the spirit in which he makes it. For example, the Book of Mormon says nothing of "free masonry," but throughout the work it does discuss the question of secret societies that existed both among the Jaredites and Nephites, which societies were factors in bringing about the overthrow of both these nations; and it contains also prophetic warning to the Gentiles against such secret combinations.
If in the treatment of theological questions and difficulties enumerated by Mr. Campbell there appears in the Book of Mormon the same difficulties that have agitated the eastern world, it must be remembered that the source of error is the same—the limitation of human knowledge, reason and judgment; the ever present inclination in man to follow after his own devices; and that the same tempter to evil operated in the western hemisphere as in the eastern hemisphere, and evidently has reproduced the same theological difficulties and led men into the same errors.
Take for example the matter of infant baptism, which Mr. Campbell says the Book of Mormon settles, and indeed it does, by most emphatically pointing out the error and wickedness of it when the doctrine is made to teach the salvation of one innocent child because it is baptized, and the eternal damnation of another innocent child because it was not baptized;[20] but the Book of Mormon condemnatio............