This circumstance of writing prophecy in the language of accomplished

fact, however, ought not to appeal to orthodox Christians as a very

serious objection to the prophecies in the Book of Mormon, since they

have on their hands the fifty third chapter of Isaiah to account

for. This chapter by a consensus of opinion of orthodox Christian

scholarship is regarded as a wonderful prophecy, outlining the earth

life, character and redemptive mission of the Christ; and for the most

part this prophecy is given in the language of accomplished fact. I

quote part of the chapter conceded to refer to the Christ:

He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is

no beauty that we should desire him.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and

acquainted with grief, and we hid as it were our faces from him; he

was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we did

esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our

iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with

his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his

own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his

mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep

before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare

his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living:

for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his

death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in

his mouth. (Isaiah, LIII: 2-10.)

Surely after this it is not worth while for orthodox Christians to be

objecting to prophecies in the Book of Mormon on the ground that they

are written in the language of accomplished fact. So far from this

peculiarity of Isaiah's having brought him into disrepute as a prophet,

it seems to have added to his glory, because so writing his prophecy,

it is claimed, has given a vividness to his predictions, an exactness

that made the messianic prophecies all the more valuable. "The

prophecies regarding the Messiah's birth, passion, glory, rejection by

the Jews, and acceptance by the Gentiles are so exact as to have earned

him the name of the 'Gospel Prophet.' "--(Oxford Bible Helps--Isaiah).

It should be remembered, too, in this connection, that the Book of

Isaiah's prophecies carried by the colony of Lehi into the Western

hemisphere with them became a powerful influence among the Nephite

writers. His book is quoted from more extensively than any other book

of the Jewish scriptures possessed by the Nephites; and that because

of the plainness with which Isaiah spoke of the coming and mission of

Messiah. The first Nephi, commenting upon Isaiah and the esteem in

which he held his writing, said:

And now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul

delighteth in his words. For I will liken [apply] his words unto

my people, and I will send them forth unto all my children, for he

verily saw my Redeemer, even as I have seen him. And my brother

Jacob also has seen him as I have seen him, wherefore I will send

their words forth unto my children, to prove unto them that my

words are true.

Small wonder then if a prophet held in such large esteem, as was

Isaiah, and so extensively quoted, influenced prophetic Nephite

literature, and led to the habit of writing prophecies referring to the

Christ in the language of accomplished fact.

The Rev. M. T. Lamb, in his "Golden Bible" makes practically the

same charges as Mr. Campbell, saying, in addition that many of the

quotations from the Jewish scriptures found in the Book of Mormon, are

written "in the exact language of the New Testament."

It is sufficient to say to this objection that Joseph Smith having a

full knowledge of the facts of the Christian story, as related in the

New Testament, clothed the ideas caught from the Nephite record in New

Testament phraseology; and it has been suggested that he may have done

so in places in stronger terms than a rigidly strict translation might

have warranted. [45]

It is not necessary to go into detail in considering this

objection, [46] or of objections of similar nature, for the reason

that this whole class of objections is met completely by the theory

suggested in these pages concerning the translation of the Book of

Mormon.

III.

_The Difficulty of Passages from Isaiah Being Quoted by Nephite

Writers, that Modern Bible Criticism (Higher Criticism) Holds Were Not

Written Until the Time of the Babylonian Captivity--586-538 B. C., and

not Written by Isaiah at all_.

It is held that Isaiah's historical period--the period of his

ministry--runs through the reign of four kings of Judah--Uzziah,

Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. Some extend his ministry over into the reign

of Manasseh, by whose edict, it is said, he was sawn asunder. In any

event Isaiah would be a very aged man at the close of the reign of

Hezekiah, 698 B. C.; and he would have been between eighty and ninety

at the accession of Manesseh. So that it is safe to say that life

ended soon after the close of Hezekiah's reign. Now if it be true that

the latter part of the Book of Isaiah, from chapter forty to chapter

sixty-six, inclusive, was not written until and during the Babylonian

Captivity, 586-538 B. C.--as assumed by modern criticism--then of

course the prophet Isaiah did not write that part of the book which

bears his name as author.

Again: If it be true that these chapters 40-66 were not written until

and during the Babylonian captivity, then Lehi could not have taken

that part of the book of Isaiah with him into the wilderness and

subsequently brought it with him to America, where his son Nephi copied

passages and whole chapters into the record he engraved upon plates

called the plates of Nephi, [47] since Lehi left Jerusalem 600 years B.

C.

The difficulty presented by the Higher Criticism is obvious, viz: If

Joseph Smith is representing the first Nephi as transcribing into his

Nephite records passages and whole chapters purporting to have been

written by Isaiah, when as a matter of fact those chapters were not

written until a hundred and twenty-five or a hundred and fifty years

after Isaiah's death; and not until fifty years after Lehi's colony

had departed from Jerusalem, then Joseph Smith is representing Nephi

as doing that which is impossible, and throws the whole Book of Mormon

under suspicion of being fraudulent. This, therefore, becomes a very

interesting as well as a very important objection; and many among the

Higher Critics will say a fatal one. Here it can only be treated in

outline; it is undoubtedly worthy of exhaustive analysis.

The Book of Isaiah divides into two parts: first, chapters 1-39,

universally allowed to be the work of the prophet Isaiah, whose

ministry extended through the reigns of the four kings mentioned

in Isaiah i:1; second, chapters 40-66, written by an unknown

author, nearly one hundred and fifty years after Isaiah, sometimes

called Isaiah II. It is claimed that these chapters 40-66; "form a

continuous prophecy, dealing throughout with a common theme, viz,

Israel's restoration from exile in Babylon. * * Jerusalem and the

temple have been for long in ruins--the 'old waste places;' Israel

is in exile." [48] It is to these conditions that the unknown prophet

addresses himself. His object is to awaken faith in the certainty of an

approaching restoration.

Three independent lines of argument are said to establish this theory

of the authorship of chapters 40-66 in the Book of Isaiah:

(1) The internal evidence supplied by the prophecy itself points

to this period [time of the captivity] as that at which it

was written. It alludes repeatedly to Jerusalem as ruined and

deserted; to the sufferings which the Jews have experienced, or

are experiencing, at the hands of the Chaldaeans; to the prospect

of return, which, as the prophet speaks, is imminent. Those whom

the prophet addresses, and, moreover, addresses in person--arguing

with them, appealing to them, striving to win their assent by

his warm and impassioned rhetoric--are not the men of Jerusalem,

contemporaries of Ahaz and Hezekiah, or even of Manasseh, they are

the exiles in Babylonia. Judged by the analogy of prophecy, this

constitutes the strongest possible presumption that the author

actually lived in the period which he thus describes, and is not

merely (as has been supposed) Isaiah immersed in spirit in the

future, and holding converse, as it were, with the generations

yet unborn. Such an immersion, in the future would be not only

with parallel in the O. T., it would be contrary to the nature of

prophecy. The prophet speaks always, in the first instance, to his

own contemporaries: the message which he brings intimately related

with the circumstances of his time; his promises and predictions,

however far they reach into the future, nevertheless rest upon the

basis of the history of his own age, and correspond to the needs

which are then felt. The prophet never abandons his own historical

position, but speaks from it. [49]

(2) The argument derived from the historic function of prophecy

is confirmed by the literary style of c. 40-66, which is very

different from that of Isaiah 1-39. Isaiah 1-39 shows strongly

marked individualities of style; he is fond of particular images

and phrases, many of which are used by no other writer of the O.

T. Now, in the chapters which contain evident allusions to the

age of Isaiah himself, these expressions occur repeatedly; in the

chapters which are without such allusions, and which thus authorize

prima facie the inference that they belong to a different, age,

they are absent, and new images and phrases appear instead. This

coincidence cannot be accidental. The subject of c. 40-66 is not

so different from that of Isaiah's prophecies (e.g.) against the

Assyrians, as to necessitate a new phraseology and rhetorical form.

The differences can only be reasonably explained by the supposition

of a change of author. [50]

(3) The theological ideas of c. 40-66 (in so far as they are

not of that fundamental kind common to the prophets generally)

differ remarkably from those which appear, from c. 1-39, to be

distinctive of Isaiah. Thus, on the nature of God generally, the

ideas expressed are much larger and fuller. Isaiah, for instance,

depicts the majesty of Jehovah: in c. 40-66 the prophet emphasizes

his infinitude; He is the Creator, the Sustainer of the universe,

the Life-Giver, the Author of history, the First and the Last, the

Incomparable One. This is a real difference. And yet it cannot

be argued that opportunities for such assertions of Jehovah's

power and Godhead would not have presented themselves naturally

to Isaiah whilst he was engaged in defying the armies of Assyria.

But, in truth, c. 40-66 show an advance upon Isaiah, not only in

the substance of their theology, but also in the form in which it

is presented; truths which are merely affirmed in Isaiah being here

made the subject of reflection and argument. [51]

These arguments when expressed in these general terms seem quite

formidable; but they are much stronger in general statement than when

one follows the advocates of them through all the references cited by

them in support of the theory; for then one is impressed with the very

heavy weights which the Higher Criticism hangs on very slender threads.

As before remarked, however, I may not go beyond outline treatment of

the matter here.

The first thing those of us who believe Isaiah to be the author of

the whole book through so many ages accredited to him, both by Jews

and Christians--the first thing we have a right to demand of these

innovators is: If Isaiah the prophet is not the author of the last

twenty-seven chapters of the book that bears his name, who is the

author? Confessedly chapters 40-66 of Isaiah are the most important

part of the book. How is it that chapters 1-39 can be assigned an

author, but the more important chapters 40-66 have to be assigned to

an "unknown" author? Was knowledge in those antique times so imperfect

that the author of such a remarkable production as Isaiah 40-66 could

not be ascertained?

Second, there is no heading to this second division of Isaiah 40-66;

and it is not true that this second part is unconnected with the first

part. Allowing something to the spirit of prophecy in Isaiah, by which

I mean a power to foresee events, which carries with it a power in the

prophet to project himself into the midst of those things foreseen, and

to speak from the midst of them as if they were present--as indeed they

were to his consciousness--and there is an immediate connection between

the two parts. Chapter 39 predicts the Babylonian captivity. Hezekiah

has just been made to hear the word of the Lord--

Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that

which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be

carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, saith the Lord.

And thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget,

shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of

the king of Babylon. (Isaiah 39:6-7.)

In the opening chapter of the supposed second division of Isaiah,

chapter 40, the prophet launches out upon that series of prophecies

that treat, first, of the deliverance of Israel from this captivity

just spoken of through Cyrus, king of Persia; and, second, a larger

deliverance of Israel through the redemption brought to pass by the

Christ. Because of this close and logical connection between the

supposed divisions of the book, one is justified in holding that the

inscription of chapter i:1, applies to the whole book, and implies that

Isaiah is the author of the second part, 40-66, as well as of the first

part, 1-39. "Nor do the words concerning Judah and Jerusalem," says an

eminent authority, "oppose the idea that the inscription applied to the

whole; for whatever he [Isaiah] says against other nations, he says on

account of their relation to Judah." [52]

Second, the Higher Critics must deal with some facts of history before

their claims can be allowed. According to Josephus, the Jews showed

the prophecies of Isaiah (chapter 44:28; 45:1-13)to Cyrus the king, to

induce him to return the Jews to Jerusalem and order the building of

the temple, upon which Cyrus issued the following decree:

Thus saith Cyrus the king, Since God Almighty hath appointed me

to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God

which the nation of the Israelites worship, for indeed he foretold

my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at

Jerusalem, in the country of Judea.

This was known to Cyrus by his reading the book which Isaiah left

behind him of his prophecies; for this prophet said, that God had

spoken thus to him in a secret vision; "My will is, that Cyrus,

whom I have appointed to be king over many and great nations, send

back my people to their own land, and build my temple." This was

foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple

was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the

divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him, to

fulfill what was so written. [53]

The above is confirmed also by Ezra i:2. Now the value of this

exhibition of the word of the Lord to Cyrus grew out of the

circumstance that it was a prophecy uttered by Isaiah one hundred and

fifty years before it came to the knowledge of Cyrus. It was the fact

that it was "foreknowledge" that caused Cyrus to admire the divine

power thus displayed; it was this that stirred him with the ambition to

fulfill what was so written. Now either we must believe that the pious

Jews, anxious to return to the land of their fathers, rebuild their

temple and resume the thread of their national existence, deceived by

a wretched subterfuge the king of Persia, and induced him to make this

proclamation by such means; or else they really exhibited to him the

writings of Isaiah, and this real prophecy respecting himself, fraught

with such mighty consequences to a people chosen of God to stand as his

witness among the nations of the earth. I cannot think that this action

so important in the development of God's purposes respecting his people

was founded in fraud; nor do I believe such mighty results were brought

about by disclosing the prognostications of some "unknown" contemporary

whose "eye had marked Cyrus in the distance as the coming deliverer of

his nation;" such cause would be inadequate to the results.

Again, Luke represents the Christ as reading a passage from this second

division of Isaiah (chapter 61:1, 2), and reading it as coming from

Isaiah; and also as being fulfilled in his own person:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and as his

custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and

stood up for to read.

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias

[Isaiah]. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where

it was written.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed

me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal

the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and

recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are

bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and

sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were

fastened on him.

And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled

in your ears.

And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which

proceeded out of his mouth. (Luke iv: 16-22).

One can scarcely think of Jesus being mistaken in respect of the

authorship of the scripture from which he read, especially respecting

a prophecy relating to himself. Furthermore, whoever wrote Isaiah 61:

1, 2, whether Isaiah, the admitted author of Isaiah chapters 1-39, or

some other author a hundred and fifty or two hundred years later, and

in the midst of the scenes of the Babylonian captivity, this much is

true: he projected himself forward some several hundreds of years into

the times of the beginning of the Christ's mission, (if we may believe

the Christ when he applies the prophecy to himself and proclaims the

fulfillment of it in the happenings of that day), speaks in the present

tense, as if pleading with the men of his own day. So that if this

power is admitted as being possessed by the supposed "unknown" author

of chapters 40-66, it might as well be accorded to Isaiah as to him;

and if that power be accorded to a prophetic writer, then all the

difficulties conjured up by our modern critics, and to overcome which

their theories were invoked, meet with easy solution.

As to the difference of literary style between the first and second

division of Isaiah's book, urging as necessary the belief in different

authors for the two parts. I am disposed to give considerable weight

to such evidence, since I know how strong the tendency in expression

towards individuation is, but those more competent to judge of that

subject than I am, hold that of all the prophetic writers, Isaiah

possesses the widest range of literary style, the largest richness in

coloring and forms of expression. And this when the view of his style

is confined to that part of his book of which all allow he is the

author. As for example, the one author most assured that Isaiah did not

write chapters 40-66 of the book that bears his name, the author of

"An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament," speaking of

Isaiah, and of course limiting his comment to the author of chapters

1-39, says:

Isaiah's poetical genius is superb. His characteristics are

grandeur and beauty of conception, wealth of imagination, vividness

of illustration, compressed energy and splendor of diction. * * *

* * * Examples of picturesque and impressive imagery are indeed

so abundant that selection is difficult. These may be instanced,

however: the banner raised aloft upon the mountains; the restless

roar of the sea; the waters rising with irresistible might; the

forest consumed rapidly in the circling flames, or stripped of

its foliage by an unseen hand; the raised way; the rushing of

many waters; the storm driving or beating down all before it; the

monster funeral pyre; Jehovah's hand "stretched out," or "swung,"

over the earth, and bearing consternation with it. Especially

grand are the figures under which he conceives Jehovah as "rising

up," being "exalted," or otherwise asserting His majesty against

those who would treat it with disregard or disdain. * * * * * The

brilliancy and power of Isaiah's genius appear further in the

sudden contrasts, and pointed antitheses and retorts, in which he

delights.

Isaiah's literary style shows similar characteristics. It is

chaste and dignified: the language is choice, but devoid of

all artificiality or stiffness, every sentence is compact and

forcible; the rhythm is stately; the periods are finely rounded;

Isaiah indulges occasionally--in the manner of his people--in

tone-painting, and sometimes enforces his meaning by an effective

assonance, but never to excess, or as a meretricious ornament.

His style is never diffuse: even his longest discourses are not

monotonous or prolix; he knows how to treat his subject fruitfully,

and, as he moves along, to bring before his reader new and varied

aspects of it; thus he seizes a number of salient points, and

presents each singly in a vivid picture. * * * * No prophet has

Isaiah's power either of conception or of expression; none has the

same command of noble thoughts, or can present them in the same

noble and attractive language.

Immerse such a writer as this into the spirit of the future, give him

the theme of Israel's deliverance from Babylonian captivity, or the

larger deliverance of Israel and the world from sin and death through

the mission of the Christ; and what new coloring may he not give to

his style? What greater depths of truth respecting God and man may he

not sound, calling for new phraseology, new words and combinations to

express the deeper knowledge of the enlarged "vision?" This I believe

is what happened to the prophet. He was so immersed; and his style

under the inspiration of God rose to meet the new environment and the

enlarged views given by the wider vision.

One of the most forceful passages on this subject that I have yet

found is one written by Professor Daniel Smith Talcott, D. D., of the

Theological Seminary, Bangor, Maine. He contributes the Article on

"Isaiah" to Hackett's edition of Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, and

in the course of his treatise, referring to the diversity of style

between the two alleged parts of Isaiah, says:

The array of linguistic evidence in proof of a diversity of

authorship, which has gradually grown within the last century into

the formidable proportions in which it meets us in the pages of

Knobel and others, rests very largely upon an assumption which

none of these critics have the hardihood distinctly to vindicate,

namely, that within the narrow compass of the Hebrew literature

that has come down to us from any given period, we have the means

for arriving at an accurate estimate of all the resources which the

language at that time possessed. When we have eliminated from the

list of words and phrases relied upon to prove a later date than

the time of Isaiah, everything the value of which to the argument

must stand or fall with this assumption, there remains absolutely

nothing which may not be reasonably referred to the reign of

Hezekiah. Indeed, considering all the circumstances of the times,

it might justly have been expected that the traces of foreign

influence upon the language would be far more conspicuous in a

writing of this date than they actually are in the controverted

portions.

It is to be remembered that the ministry of the prophet must have

extended through a period, at the lowest calculation, of nearly

fifty years; a period signalized, especially during the reigns

of Ahaz and Hezekiah, by constant and growing intercourse with

foreign nations, thus involving continually new influences for

the corruption of public morals and new dangers to the state, and

making it incumbent upon him who had been divinely constituted at

once the political adviser of the nation and its religious guide,

to be habitually and intimately conversant among the people, so as

to descry upon the instant every additional step taken in their

downward course and the first approach of each new peril from

abroad, and to be able to meet each successive phase of their

necessities with forms of instruction, admonition, and warning, not

only in their general purport, but in their very style and diction,

accommodated to conditions hitherto unknown, and that were still

perpetually changing.

Now when we take all this into the account, and then imagine to

ourselves the prophet, toward the close of this long period,

entering upon what was in some respects a novel kind of labor,

and writing out, with a special view to the benefit of a remote

posterity, the suggestions of that mysterious _Theopneustia_

to which his lips had been for so many years the channel of

communication with his contemporaries, far from finding any

difficulty in the diversities of style perceptible to the different

portions of his prophecy, we shall only see fresh occasion to

admire that native strength and grandeur of intellect, which have

still left upon productions so widely remote from each other,

in the time and circumstances of their composition, so plain an

impress of one and the same overmastering individuality.--Smith's

Bible Dictionary, Vol. II., p. 1165.

Believers in the Book of Mormon have no occasion of uneasiness because

passages from the latter part of Isaiah's book are found transcribed

into the Nephite record. The theories of modern critics have not

destroyed the integrity and unity of the Book of Isaiah. And after the

overwhelming evidences for the truth of the Book of Mormon are taken

into account; and it is found that on the plates of Nephi there were

transcripts from the latter part of Isaiah's writings, taken from a

copy of his prophecies carried by a colony of Jews from Jerusalem to

the western hemisphere, six hundred years before Christ--men will

discern in this discovery new evidence for the Isaiah authorship of the

whole book of Isaiah.

Footnotes

1. Howe's "Mormonism," p. 56.

2. "Mormonism in All Ages" (1842), p. 200.

3. See Hyde's "Mormonism" (1857), chapters 9, 10.

4. Smucker's "History of the Mormons" (1881 edition), p. 49.

5. "The Golden Bible" (1887), chapter 7.

6. "The Story of the Mormons" (1902), chapter 11.

7. Linn says that there are more than 3,000 such changes.

This, I think, is an exaggeration. "Story of the Mormons," p. 89. In

1889, Lamoni Call, formerly a Mormon, published a treatise on the

subject which he entitled "Two Thousand Changes in the Book of Mormon,"

even this I think is an exaggeration; but there have been many changes

as conceded in the text.

8. "Mormonism in All Ages," p. 19.

9. Ibid, p. 200.

10. Moroni's Preface, title page Book of Mormon.

11. Mormon viii: 17.

12. There is some justification for such a view as this, if we have in

mind the idea of God making a full and perfect revelation to man. When

God gives a revelation it necessarily has to be such an one as man can

comprehend, and in terms with which he is familiar--in man's language;

and as man's language is inadequate to express truth in its perfection,

it follows that any revelation which God deigns to give to the children

of men will fall somewhat below the perfect truth, hence the Apostle

of the Gentiles declared, notwithstanding the existence of revelations

in the scriptures which were extant in Paul's time, "We know in part,

and we prophesy in part; we see [as] through a glass, darkly." This

condition arises not out of any lack of power on the part of God to

make a perfect revelation of truth, but out of man's inability to

comprehend such a revelation; and hence God graciously condescends to

meet man's somewhat narrow limitations by giving such a revelation of

truth in the scriptures, as man by faith and diligence may comprehend.

13. "The Age of Reason," Paine, p. 19.

14. Ibid, p. 25.

15. "The Age of Reason," Part II, p. 98.

That Joseph Smith appreciated how inadequate human language is to

express divine thought is evident from the following prayer of his,

uttered when writing to his friend, W. W. Phelps: "Oh Lord God, deliver

us in due time from the little, narrow prison, almost, as it were,

total darkness of paper, pen and ink--and a crooked, broken, scattered

and imperfect language."--History of the Church, Vol. I, pp. 227-8.

16. Ibid p. 252.

17. The lecture was published in the "St. Louis Globe-Democrat," of

Sunday, March 19, 1905.

18. Dr. Abbott delivered these lectures in Plymouth Church, Brooklyn,

during the winter of 1896.

19. This is also true of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Some of

its passages rise to heights of sublimity, and then again descending to

levels that are commonplace and labored.

20. "The Evolution of Bible Study" (Henry Drummond, 1901).

21. Replying to this criticism of the Book of Mormon some time ago

(June, 1904), wherein the critic insisted that the question concerning

the Book of Mormon was not where men say they got it, but "is it

gold"--he insisted that the "assay test" must be applied--to which the

writer made the following reply:

"I declare my willingness, as one of the believers in the Book of

Mormon to see it submitted, as perforce it must be, to the 'assay

test.' Is it gold? Are these important truths we have been considering

this evening, wherein the welfare of half the world is concerned, gold

or dross? Is the light which the Book of Mormon throws upon the word of

God contained in the four (New Testament) Gospels of importance? (See

this Vol. ch. 42: vi for the items here referred to). Is the fact that

Jesus visited this western world and announced the saving power of his

Gospel in such a manner that millions finally came to the knowledge of

salvation a golden truth? Is the solemn warning to the Gentile nations

inhabiting the western world (See chapter 42.) Worth while considering?

May not these prophecies be golden, especially if needed? I shall

leave you to answer that. But I want to suggest an improvement on the

gentleman's simile--to this 'assay test.' I think it could be improved.

The question is not so much as to whether in the four (New Testament)

Gospels or in the fifth (i.e., the Book of III Nephi in the Book of

Mormon) all is gold, but is there gold in them. I do not think the

four Gospels are without alloy. In other words I do not think the four

Gospels are perfect. I believe there are imperfections in them in forms

of expressions and in the fact that they do not convey all that Jesus

both taught and did; at best they are but fragmentary. St. John informs

us in his Gospel that if all the things that Jesus had done were

written, the world itself would hardly contain the books. We have not

the full reports of Messiah's discourses. The full and absolutely pure

world of God just as it fell from the lips of the Savior, is not in the

four Gospels. For the most part we have but the recollections of the

evangelists of what Jesus said and did. Only those who read the Greek,

and unfortunately they are very few, may read even the four Gospels in

the language in which the Apostles wrote them. We have translations of

these records, and each time they are translated dilution takes place.

The force of what is said becomes in the translation somewhat abated. *

* * So with the book of III Nephi, that comes to us in abridged form.

It is not the original book of Nephi; it is Mormon's abridgment of

that book. He has condensed it, and in doing so has doubtless given us

less perfect accounts of Christ's mission to the Nephites [than would

have been found in the unabridged book of III Nephi]. That is to say,

we have not all the surrounding circumstances or all the utterances

of the Savior, or of the men the book represents as speaking. Then we

have not even Mormon's original abridgment of Nephi's book--the real

fifth Gospel--but only the Prophet Joseph's translation of Mormon's

abridgment, and that it is admitted in his imperfect English. So that

the whole five Gospels are fragmentary and tainted with imperfections

and limitations, as all things are that pass through human hands; but

they contain nevertheless, God's precious truths [the gold of the

mine]; and some of these are found in the fifth Gospel as well as in

the four Hebrew Gospels; and to me the truths of the fifth or Nephite

Gospel are as precious and important as are those of the other four

Gospels." (Discourse by the writer, "The Fifth Gospel," "Deseret

Evening News," June 11, 1904). The whole discourse will be found in

"Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, pp. 373-399.

22. "Millennial Star," Vol. XIX, p. 118.

23. One Anti-Mormon writer--the Rev. M. T. Lamb--devotes two chapters

to this subject of circumlocution alone--"The Golden Bible," chapters

i and ii. He brings into contrast passages from the Book of Mormon,

lacking in directness of expression, with passages from the Bible

celebrated for their directness, and thereby is most unfair in his

argument; because he compares the best of the Bible with the worst

of the Book of Mormon, a proceeding which might be reversed with

disastrous results to the Bible, if the comparison were to end with

this comparison of the worst in the one with the best in the other.

Now let it be understood that I am not contending that the English

translation of the Book of Mormon compares as literature with the

English translation of the Hebrew scriptures. The latter is a

translation by the most finished scholarship of the time in which it

was accomplished--I refer to the authorized version, the translation

completed 1611 A. D.--while the Book of Mormon is translated by an

unlearned youth limited in educational opportunities, without even the

advantage of a common school education. True, it is claimed for him

that he was assisted by a divine inspiration. That, however, insures

only the accuracy of the facts, the statement of the truth as contained

in the Nephite record, not directness, accuracy, or charm of literary

style. As for circumlocution in the expression of thought, that is but

natural to one possessed of only a limited vocabulary. The existence

of circumlocution, therefore, in the Book of Mormon is in harmony with

and helps to illustrate what in these pages has been contended for, as

to the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated, and the fact

that the Prophet Joseph was left to express the thought he received

from the Nephite record in such language as he could command; which

theory of translation once accepted, I here repeat, makes easy an

answer to all the objections urged upon the ground of literary defects

in the Book of Mormon.

24. See translator's preface and title page of the "Authorized English

Version."

25. Hyde's "Mormonism," chapters ix, x, xi.

26. "Golden Bible," chapter vii.

27. Linn's "Story of the Mormons," chapter xi.

28. "Improvement Era," Vol. VIII (1904), pp. 180, 181.

29. When the translators of our English Bible found it necessary to

supply words to make clear the meaning in English, they printed those

words in italics, and it is to these words that reference is made in

the above.

30. The addition of the words in this verse, "who come unto me," are

important. Surely, it is not enough for man to be merely poor in

spirit. Not on that hinges salvation. A man can be poor in spirit and

still fail of salvation; but "blessed are the poor in spirit 'who

come unto me,' for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," is a reasonable

doctrine.

31. Verses four and five in the "Douay" version are transposed, hence

verse 5 here.

32. The addition of the words, "with the Holy Ghost" are important to

this passage, for they make the statement of Messiah more definite, and

take the passage out of all controversy as to what those who hunger and

thirst after righteousness shall be filled with. They shall be filled

with the Holy Ghost, the spiritual power that makes for righteousness.

33. Observe that this and the remaining passages quoted from the Book

of Mormon are addressed directly to the Twelve Apostles, to whom

especially they apply, not to the multitude. May it not be that when

Jesus gave the same instructions in Judea he made a like distinction?

If so, it was to the Twelve that he said: "Take no thought for the

morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.

Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof." That is a passage of

scripture against which infidels have leveled their sarcasms ever

since it was written. They have denounced it as instruction utterly

impractical; as false in theory, as it would be impossible to practice;

and as giving the evidence that Jesus was a mere idle dreamer, not a

practical reformer. For, say they, this doctrine of taking no thought

of the morrow, and taking no thought respecting food and raiment, if

applied to the world's affairs, would turn the wheels of progress

backward, and plunge the world into a state of barbarism. There could

be no civilization under such conditions, they argue; and man would go

back to the condition of the savage. I have never heard a Christian

argument against that assault that has been an answer to it. But I find

the key to the situation in this Book of Mormon version of the passage.

It throws a flood of light upon this matter that makes the defense of

the doctrine of Christ not only possible but easy against the assaults

of the infidel world. This instruction about taking no thought for the

morrow was not addressed to the multitude, nor is it to be followed

generally by the members of the Church, nor by the people of the world

at large. Jesus confines his instructions on this head, according to

this Book of Mormon version, to the twelve men whom he chose among his

disciples, and especially commissioned to go and preach the gospel; he

admonishes them to so completely dedicate themselves unto the Lord that

they would give no thought to these temporal things, but put heart, and

soul into the work of their ministry; and promises that their Father

in heaven, who knew they had need of food and raiment, would open the

way for them; and by his bounty and grace would clothe them even as he

clothed the lilies of the field; and care for them as he cared for the

birds of the air. Thus limited to the twelve men especially dedicated

to God's service, the doctrine is reasonable and practical, and subject

to no objection that may not be successfully answered.

34. "Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof." I suggest a

comparison here to that found in the other two versions, the

Protestant, the Catholic. The Protestant: "Sufficient unto the day is

the evil thereof;" the Catholic: "Sufficient for the day is the evil

thereof." In the Protestant and Catholic versions you will observe that

the evil is made sufficient for the day; in the Book of Mormon version

the day is made sufficient for the evil. Three learned commentators

in collaboration--Jamieson, Fausett, Brown--say of that sentence as

it stands in the Protestant version: "An admirable, practical maxim,

better rendered in our version than in any other, not excepting

the preceding English ones. Every day brings its own cares, and to

anticipate is only to doubt them." If these learned commentators can

thus speak in high praise of the saying of the Savior as it stands in

Matthew, how much more reason they would have for praising it as it is

found in the Book of Mormon!

35. Or it may be that the changes occurred to the inspired mind of the

Prophet when reading the English version, without referring to the

Nephite plates. In this connection it is to be remembered that the

Prophet, 1831-1833, was engaged in such an inspired "revision" of the

Old and New Testament, sometimes miscalled a "New Translation" of the

Bible. It is more proper, however, to speak of it as a "revision,"

as the Prophet did not at any time pretend to the knowledge of the

ancient languages that would enable him to translate from the Hebrew

or Greek, as translation is commonly understood. What he did was to

revise the English text of the Bible under the inspiration of God, and

that led him not only to give different renderings of various passages,

but also to supply missing parts made known to him by the inspiration

of God. The fact that he thus made a "revision" of the scriptures

rather inclines one to the belief that when he turned from the Nephite

records, to what must have been substantially parallel passages in the

English version, the changes were suggested to him in this manner;

that is, by the inspiration of the Lord operating in his mind when

reading the English text. And indeed, may it not be possible that these

changes suggested by the Spirit when reading the English text, during

the translation of the Book of Mormon, led him finally to attempt the

revision of the whole body of the Hebrew scriptures from the English

text? It is interesting to note that it was by such an inspiration in

relation to the 29th verse of the 5th chapter of John's Gospel, that

led not only to a different reading of the text, but also to that

marvelous vision of the future state of man, and the different degrees

of glory that he will inherit. The text in the English version stands,

"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection

of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of

damnation." To the Prophet it was given, "and shall come forth, they

who have done good in the resurrection of the just; and they who have

done evil in the resurrection of the unjust;" then followed the vision.

36. The correspondence in full is to be found in the "Improvement Era"

for January, 1904, pp. 179-196.

37. For confirmation of the likelihood of his taking such a course, see

his letter to the saints in Nauvoo on the subject of baptism for the

dead (Doc. & Cov., Sec. 128: 17, 18). He quotes the 5th and 6th verses

of the last chapter of Malachi, precisely as it reads in the authorized

English version, and then adds: "I might have rendered a plainer

translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as

it stands." Long before Moroni had given him a different rendition as

follows:

BIBLE. MORONI.

"Behold I will send you Elijah, "Behold, I will reveal unto

the prophet, before the you the Priesthood by the hand

coming of the great and terrible of Elijah, the prophet, before

day of the Lord; the coming of the great and

dreadful day of the Lord.

"And he shall turn the heart "And he shall plant in the

of the fathers to the children, hearts of the children the

and the heart of the children promises made to the fathers,

to their fathers, lest I come and and the hearts of the children

smite the earth with a curse. shall turn to their fathers; if

it were not so, the whole earth

would be utterly wasted at his

coming."

And yet the prophet used the passage as it is found in Malachi, since

it suited the prophet's purpose as it stood.

38. The Rev. M. T. Lamb, author of the "Golden Bible, or the Book of

Mormon. Is it from God," delivering a lecture in the town of Coalville,

Utah, had the following experience: In the course of his remarks the

reverend gentleman related how he had sat down to read the Book of

Mormon for the purpose of really ascertaining for himself if it were

true or false. He related how he found on the very first page of the

book the statement that Lehi's family consisted of his wife Sariah,

and his four sons, Laman, Lemuel, Sam and Nephi. "Sam, Sam," said he,

"that sounds familiar! Sam, it occurs to me that I have heard that

name somewhere before! Sam! Oh, yes, I remember, 'Sam' is the Yankee

nickname for Samuel! Right then and there," said the speaker, "I had

my doubts as to this book being a genuine, ancient record, since I

found a modern Yankee contraction of a proper name given as the name of

an ancient personage!" At the conclusion of his remarks the reverend

gentleman gave opportunity for questions on the subject of his lecture.

Whereupon, Elder W. W. Cluff of the "Mormon" faith, arose, and in the

course of a good-natured and informal discussion he asked the Rev.

Mr. Lamb what he would think of a person who would sit down and begin

an examination of the pentateuch--the books accredited to Moses, and

the most ancient of the Hebrew scriptures (except, perhaps, the book

of Job), to ascertain its truth, and coming to the enumeration of the

names of the sons of Jacob finds one of them named "Dan." "Dan, Dan,"

says this supposed investigator, "Dan, why it seems to me that I have

heard that name before! sounds familiar! Oh, I remember now, 'Dan'

is the Yankee nickname for 'Daniel.' Therefore the writings of Moses

cannot be genuine, because here is a Yankee nickname given as the

name of a very ancient personage, therefore these alleged writings of

Moses must be modern; hence, not what they have claimed to be, ancient

inspired scriptures!" It is needless to say that the Rev. M. T. Lamb

had nothing further to say on this point. The simple parallel was too

much for him.

39. Linn's "Story of the Mormons," p. 96.

40. "Through nature to nature's God" is another instance referred to

by many anti-Mormon writers as being in the Book of Mormon (although

this writer has failed to find it), and is also in Pope's Essay on man.

"The God of nature suffers" (First Nephi 19: 11-12), an expression used

by the first Nephi, quoting the words of the prophet Zenos; this, be

it remembered, several hundred years before Christ. This expression

is accredited to Dionysius, the areopagite, supposed to be living at

the time of the Savior's death on the cross, and who, as he beheld the

sun hide its face, and witnessed the bursting of the rocks and felt

the earth tremble, exclaimed: "Either the God of Nature suffers or the

universe is falling apart." And it is sneeringly urged that "Nephi,

2400 years ago, hears the saying of a pagan who lives 634 years after

him!" (Campbell.)

41. Job x: 20-21.

42. Job xvi: 22.

43. It must be remembered that Lehi's colony carried with them, in

their journey to the western hemisphere, the Jewish scriptures extant

up to 600 B. C., which scriptures doubtless included the book of Job;

hence my remark that Lehi was doubtless familiar with Job's reflection

concerning death--of his going whence he would not return.

44. I Nephi 22: 21. II Nephi 31: 5-10.

45. Such, substantially, is a suggestion made by Mr. H. Chamberlain,

Esq., whom I have quoted before in this chapter.

46. In the course of a brief discussion of the Book of Mormon, carried

on through one of the leading journals of Salt Lake City, with an

"Unknown" writer, the following rule of criticism, on the objection

discussed in the text, was laid down:

"Any book which professes to have been written in ancient times and yet

quotes from authors not born until centuries afterwards, is a spurious

book."

To which the writer made the following reply:

"This canon of criticism, however serviceable when applied to books

in general, can in no sense be made to do service against the Book of

Mormon. When he formulated his canon of criticism, as throughout the

discussion, the 'Unknown' failed to recognize the fact that, while

the Book of Mormon is an ancient book, it is largely a prophetic

book; and the strongest complaint that can be made against it along

the line of the 'Unknown's' criticism is that some of its prophecies

are here and there translated in phraseology somewhat similar to that

of writers living subsequent to the period in which it was written.

In explanation of this fact I have urged that the translator, Joseph

Smith, being acquainted with the New Testament [and to a limited extent

with the popular phrases of some modern writers] and his diction being

influenced by the phraseology of those writers, sometimes expressed the

thoughts and predictions of the ancient writers in the New Testament

phrases. So that the question at issue at this point of the discussion

is, first, whether the ancient writers in the Book of Mormon could have

been acquainted with the events, to them then future, found recorded in

the Book of Mormon, and is the theory reasonable that in translating

their statement of these events Joseph Smith's diction would be

influenced by the phraseology of the New Testament? In dealing with

the question of the New Testament phraseology in the Book of Mormon it

is Joseph Smith that has to be dealt with, not Nephi [or other Book of

Mormon writers], the translator, not the original writers."

The whole controversy, consisting of four papers, will be found in the

writer's "Defense of the Faith and the Saints." Vol. I. pp. 313-354.

47. Isaiah chapter 48 is found in I. Nephi, chapter 20; Isaiah 49 in I.

Nephi 21; Isaiah 50 in II. Nephi, 7; Isaiah 51 in II. Nephi, 8; Isaiah

53 in Mosiah 14; Isaiah 52:9, 10; in III. Nephi 18-20; Isaiah 54 in

III. Nephi 22.

48. Driver's Introduction to the Literature of the Old

Testament--Isaiah, p. 230.

49. Driver's Introduction, pp. 336, 337.

50. Ibid. p. 238.

51. Ibid., p. 242.

52. Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary, Introduction to Isaiah.

53. Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI., chapter I.

CHAPTER XLVII.

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 condemnation of that wicked

doctrine was not recorded in its pages because of any controversy

existing on the subject in New York, as Mr. Campbell pretends, but

because the Nephite prophets were aroused against this doctrine by

reason of their people running into the same error--the doctrine of

eternal damnation of unbaptized infants--which burdened the teachings

of so called Christian Churches. The proof of this statement is in the

fact that the native Americans at the time of the Spanish invasion

of their country were practicing infant baptism. The fact is related

by all the authorities, varying slightly in their description of it,

according as they get the tradition from this, that, or the other

section of the country. Perhaps, however, Sahagun's description is the

most minute and covers the subject more completely than any other of

the writers, and hence I give at length the passage on the subject as

quoted by Prescott in his appendix to the "Conquest of Mexico."

When every thing necessary for the baptism had been made ready, all

the relations of the child were assembled, and the midwife, who

was the person that performed the rite of baptism, was summoned.

At early dawn they met together in the court-yard of the house.

When the sun had arisen, the midwife, taking the child in her arms,

called for a little earthen vessel of water, while those about her

placed the ornaments which had been prepared for the baptism in

the midst of the court. To perform the rite of baptism, she placed

herself with her face towards the west, and immediately began to

go through certain ceremonies. * * * * After this she sprinkled

water on the head of the infant, saying, "O, my child! take and

receive the water of the Lord of the world, which is our life, and

is given for the increasing and renewing of our body. It is to wash

and purify. I pray that these heavenly drops may enter into your

body, and dwell there; that they may destroy and remove from you

all the evil and sin which was given to you before the beginning

of the world; since all of us are under its power, being all the

children of Chalchivitlycue" (the goddess of water), She then

washed the body of the child with water, and spoke in this manner:

"whencesoever thou comest, thou that are hurtful to this child;

leave him and depart from him, for he now liveth anew, and is

born anew; now he is purified and cleansed afresh, and our mother

Chalchivitycue again bringeth him into the world." Having thus

prayed, the midwife took the child in both hands, and, lifting him

towards heaven, said, "O Lord, thou seest here thy creature, whom

thou hast sent into this world, this place of sorrow, suffering,

and penitence. Grant him, O Lord, thy gifts, and thine inspiration,

for thou art the Great God, and with thee is the great goddess."

Torches of pine were kept burning during the performance of these

ceremonies. When these things were ended, they gave the child the

name of some one of his ancestors, in the hope that he might shed

a new lustre over it. The name was given by the same midwife, or

priestess, who baptized him.

This is a perverted form of baptism preserved in the customs of the

native Americans. The Nephites, in the days of Mormon--and how much

before that is not known--fell into this error of infant baptism and

were evidently teaching the damnation of those infants who did not

receive that ordinance. When young Moroni was called to the ministry,

his father, Mormon, charged him strictly against this error and

sharply proclaimed against the iniquity of it. Yet it seems to have

persisted in the customs of the native Americans until we see it in

the form represented by Sahagun, though of course it may have received

modifications--such for instance as being administered by women--since

the period with which the Book of Mormon closes.

It is in this manner that the Book of Mormon settles the question

of infant baptism, not, as Mr. Campbell insinuates, viz., that the

question of infant baptism being under discussion in western New York

Joseph Smith inserted a decision on the controversy in the Book of

Mormon.

Further in relation to this matter of baptism in the Book of Mormon,

it does settle the question of the manner of baptism through the

instructions which Jesus is represented as giving to the Nephites--and

was there a subject in relation to the gospel on which Christians

needed instructions more than upon this? And now Jesus to the Nephites:

Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through

your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise

shall ye baptize them; behold, ye shall go down and stand in the

water, and in my name ye shall baptize them. And now behold; these

are the words which ye shall say, calling them 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 then shall ye immerse them in the water and come forth again

out of the water.

There can be no doubt as to the manner of Christian baptism after these

instructions from the Master, by those who accept the Book of Mormon

as an authority. How much wrangling and idle disputation would have

been saved the Christian world if something as definite as this had

been found in the Christian annals of the eastern world! In passing,

and in proof of the divinity of this ceremonial, I call attention to

the simplicity and yet comprehensiveness of it; to the directness of

it. Place the simplicity and directness of this formula of baptism

in contrast with Sahagun's description of baptism among the native

Americans, or contrast it with the same ceremony as practiced among

the paganized Christians of the old world, [21] and the simplicity and

dignity of the ordinance as given by the Savior to the Nephites will

not only appear, but will strongly plead for its divine origin.

I also call attention to the settlement of what Mr. Campbell calls

"transubstantiation," this is, to the Christian memorial known as the

Lord's supper, about which gathers some of the most vexed questions of

Christian controversy. For the manner in which this simple memorial of

Christ's atonement was changed to what was considered a magnificent

spiritual, yet real sacrifice, the reader is referred to what is said

in volume I of the New Witness, chapter v. Here I only wish to call

attention to the simple beauty and comprehensiveness of the prayer

which consecrated the emblems of the body and blood of Christ, found in

the Book of Mormon. Trusting to the presence of qualities of simplicity

and appropriateness to establish the divine origin of said formula,

which result, if accomplished by the citation, will tend also to prove

the general claims of the Book of Mormon.

Now the prayer of consecration:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son Jesus

Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those

who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of

thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that

they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always

remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them,

that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

"The manner of administering the wine. Behold, they took the cup, and

said:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son

Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all

those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the

blood of thy Son, which was shed for them, that they may witness

unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember

him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

Of this formula I have already said what Archdeacon Paley has said of

the Lord's prayer, when appealing to its excellence as evidence of its

divine origin--"For a succession of solemn thoughts, for fixing the

attention on a few great points, for suitableness, for sufficiency,

for conciseness without obscurity, for the weight and real importance

of its petitions, this prayer is without an equal." Its composition

in excellence arises far above any performance that Joseph Smith

could be considered equal to, and, in a word, carries within itself

the evidence of a divine authorship. Such passages as these need no

argument in support of their divine origin. We may trust entirely to

the self-evidence which breathes through every sentence. A Campbell's

mockery against such passages amounts to nothing.

VII.

_The Book Contains Nothing New_.

Relative to the objections urged against the Book of Mormon that it

reveals nothing new, that it adds nothing to our Christian treasury of

knowledge, in other words, the charge that it contains no revelation--I

refer for answer to all that, to what I have said concerning the

knowledge which the Book of Mormon imparts on so many great and

important subjects in chapters xxxix and xl.

Moreover, objections based upon this plea that the Book of Mormon

reveals no new moral or religious truth, is a position not well taken

by Christians at least. It must be conceded that the things which

Christians would be compelled to allow as the important things for men

to know--the existence of God the Father; the relationship of Jesus

Christ to him, and the latter's relationship to men in effecting their

redemption; the means by which that redemption is achieved; the final

coming and universal reign of God's kingdom on earth, etc.,--all these

important truths are repeated in Christ's ministry among the Nephites.

When Messiah came to the new world he had the same announcement to make

concerning himself and his relations to the world, the same ethical

and spiritual doctrines to teach; and as he had been accustomed to

state these doctrines in brief, aphoristic sentences while in Judea,

it is not strange that the same things were given to the Nephites in

their language much in the same form. In a word, he not only had the

same revelation to make to the inhabitants in the western hemisphere

as to those in the eastern hemisphere, the same religion to teach, and

therefore, as I have already remarked, it is sameness of doctrine,

identity of construction, that should be looked for rather than

something new in religion and ethics.

I would also remind the Christian reader of the fact that this same

alleged want of originality, this alleged lacking of that which is new,

is charged against the Lord Jesus Christ both by infidels and Jews.

They demand to know what moral and religious truth Jesus taught the

world that was not already taught by Buddha and the Jewish Rabbis. Not

only is it claimed that Christ's moral truths were borrowed from more

ancient teachers, but that the principle events of his life, also, from

his birth of a virgin to his crucifixion and resurrection as a God,

were stolen from myths concerning old world heroes and teachers.

One writer devotes a volume to the subject in which he traces in

the heathen mythologies sixteen crucified Saviors; the traditions

concerning whom more or less bear some resemblance to chief events in

the life of Messiah.

Perhaps one of the most elaborate and carefully prepared comparisons

of the teachings of the Messiah as recorded in the New Testament, and

the Rabbis in the Talmud appear in "The Open Court" for October, 1903,

(Vol. 17). Of the long parallel I can only give samples:

New Testament. Talmud.

"More acceptable to the

"Blessed are the poor in spirit". Lord than sacrifice is the humble

spirit."

"Let this be thy short form

"Thy kingdom come. Thy of prayer: Thy will be done

will be done on earth as it is in in heaven, and may peace of

heaven." heart be the reward of them

that reverence thee on earth."

"Lead us not into temptation, "Lead me not into sin, even

but deliver us from evil." from its temptations deliver

thou me."

"For with what judgment ye "Whoso judges his neighbor

judge, ye shall be judged." charitably, shall himself be

charitably judged."

"How wilt thou say to thy "Do they say: Take the

brother, let me pull out the splinter out of thine eye? He

mote out of thine eye; and behold will answer: Remove the beam

a beam is in thine own out of thine own eye."

eye."

"All things whatsoever ye

would that men should do to "What is hateful unto thee,

you, do you even so to them, that do not unto another. This

for this is the Law and the is the whole Law, all the rest

Prophets." is commentary."

"Freely ye have received, "As freely as God has taught

freely give." you, so freely shall ye teach."

"The Sabbath was made for "The Sabbath has been delivered

man, not man for the Sabbath." into your power, not

you into the power of the Sabbath."

"It is enough for the disciple "It is enough for the servant

that he be as his master." that he be as his master."

A parallel somewhat similar, though neither so closely identical nor

so extended, can be drawn between the teachings of Buddha and Christ,

which any one may verify for himself by consulting Max Muller's lecture

on _Dhammapada_, or The Path of Virtue. [22]

To a limited extent, also, a similar parallel might be drawn between

the teachings of Christ and Confucius, and even of other moral

philosophers. To illustrate what I mean, take the "Golden Rule," for so

long, and even now, by a great many people, regarded as an exclusively

Christian utterance, and you will find the substance of it in the

utterance of many teachers before the time of Christ:

1. Golden Rule by Confucius, 500 B. C.

"Do unto another what you would have him do unto you, and do not to

another what you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this

law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest."

2. Golden Rule by Aristotle, 385 B. C.

"We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them

act toward us."

3. Golden Rule by Pittacus, 650 B. C.

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him."

4. Golden Rule by Thales, 464 B. C.

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."

5. Golden Rule by Isocrates, 338 B. C.

"Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you."

6. Golden Rule by Aristippus, 365 B. C.

"Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for

another's welfare as your own."

7. Golden Rule by Sextus, a Pithagorean, 406 B. C.

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them."

8. Golden Rule by Hillel, 50 B. C.

"Do not to others what you would not like others to do to you." [23]

Though perhaps not properly belonging to my treatment of this objection

to the Book of Mormon, I may say in passing--and to keep those who

read these pages in the presence of the full truth--I may say that

the presence of ethical and religious truths, in what we call heathen

mythology, is easily accounted for. The gospel was taught in very

ancient times, in fact from the beginning--a dispensation of it was

given to Adam--and although men departed from it in large measure

as a system of truth, still fragments of it were preserved in the

mythologies of all people. So that as a matter of fact Christianity, as

taught by Jesus, derived nothing from heathen mythology, but heathen

mythologies were made rich by fragmentary truths from the early

dispensations of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

VIII.

_Modern Astronomy in the Book_.

From a remark of the younger Alma's (first century B. C.), and from one

of Mormon's (fourth century A. D.), it is evident that the Nephites had

knowledge of the movement of the earth and of the planets. Alma, in his

remark, appeals to the earth's motion, "yea, and also of the planets

which move in their regular form," as being evidence of the existence

of the Creator. [24]

Mormon's remark comes in course of some reflections of his upon the

power of God, when abridging the Book of Helaman, in which he says:

Yea, and if he say unto the earth, move, it is moved; yea, if he

say unto the earth, thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the

day for many hours, it is done; and thus according to his word, the

earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth

still; yea, and behold, this is so; for sure it is the earth that

moveth, and not the sun. [25]

Both these passages are referred to by Lamb [26] as evidence of the Book

of Mormon being modern, and the second passage he sarcastically refers

to as "a modern scientist attempting to explain Joshua's miracle;" to

which I might say: Why not an ancient Nephite's explanation of Joshua's

miracle, since the Nephites were acquainted with that same miracle,

having with them the book of Joshua with other Hebrew scriptures?

Moreover, the knowledge of the movement of the earth and of the planets

is not modern knowledge. It is quite generally conceded that the

ancients had the knowledge of these facts, and that the discoveries

by Copernicus, Kepler and others are but a revival or restoration of

ancient knowledge concerning the movement of the earth and planetary

system. [27]

The Holy Inquisition in passing sentence on Galileo took ocassion

to say something of the Copernican system, teaching which was the

philosopher's offense, and denounced it as "that false Pythagorean

doctrine utterly contrary to the Holy Scriptures." ("Intellectual

Development of Europe," Draper, Vol. II., p. 263).

Again: Because the inhabitants of the eastern hemisphere were fallen

into ignorance concerning the facts of astronomy, it does not

necessarily follow that the inhabitants of the western hemisphere were

without correct knowledge on that subject. Indeed, the authorities on

American antiquities agree that the ancient native Americans were well

advanced in knowledge on that subject. Priest, for instance, has the

following passage on the subject:

As it respects the scientific acquirements of the builders of the

works in the west, now in ruins, [the mounds], Mr. Atwater, says,

"when thoroughly examined, have furnished matter of admiration to

all intelligent persons who have attended to the subject. Nearly

all the lines of ancient works found in the whole country, where

the form of the ground admits of it, are right ones, pointing

to the four cardinal points. Where there are mounds enclosed,

the gateways are most frequently on the east side of the works,

towards the rising sun. Where the situation admits of it, in their

military works, the openings are generally towards one or more of

the cardinal points. From which it is supposed they must have had

some knowledge of astronomy, or their structures would not, it is

imagined, have been thus arranged. From these circumstances also,

we draw the conclusion that the first inhabitants of America,

emigrated from Asia, at a period coeval with that of Babylon, for

there it was that astronomical calculations were first made, 2,234

years before Christ." [28]

"These things could never have so happened, with such invariable

exactness, in almost all cases, without design. 'On the whole.' says

Atwater, 'I am convinced from an attention to many hundreds of these

works, in every part of the west which I have visited, that their

authors had a knowledge of astronomy.'"

Baldwin has the following passage on what he regards as a telescopic

device, discovered in an ancient mound:

Mr. Schoolcraft gives this account of a discovery made in West

Virginia: "Antique tube: telescopic device. In the course of

excavations made in 1842 in the eastern-most of the three mounds

of the Elizabethtown group, several tubes of stone were disclosed,

the precise object of which has been the subject of various

opinions. The longest measured twelve inches, the shortest eight.

Three of them were carved out of steatite, being skilfully cut and

polished. The diameter of the tube externally was one inch and

four tenths; the bore, eight tenths of an inch. This calibre was

continued till within three eighths of an inch of the sight end,

when it diminishes to two tenths of an inch. By placing the eye

at the diminished end, the extraneous light is shut out from the

pupil, and distant objects are more clearly discerned.' He points

out that the carving and workmanship generally are very superior

to Indian pipe carvings, and adds, if this article was a work of

the Mound-Builders, 'intended for a telescopic tube, it is a most

interesting relic.' An ancient Peruvian relic, found a few years

since, shows the figure of a man wrought in silver, in the act of

studying the heavens through such a tube. Similar tubes have been

found among relics of the Mound-Builders in Ohio and elsewhere. In

Mexico, Captain Dupaix saw sculptured on a peculiar stone structure

the figure of a man making use of one. Astronomical devices were

sculptured below the figure. This structure he supposed to have

been used for observation of the stars." [29]

Later, referring to the Dupaix Mexican observatory, Baldwin says:

"In this part of Mexico Captain Dupaix examined a peculiar ruin,

of which he gave the following account: "Near the road from the

village of Tlalmanalco to that called Mecamecan, about three miles

east of the latter, there is an isolated granite rock, which was

artificially formed into a kind of pyramid with six hewn steps

facing the east. The summit of this structure is a platform, or

horizontal plane, well adapted to observation of the stars on

every side of the hemisphere. It is almost demonstratable that

this very ancient monument was exclusively devoted to astronomical

observations, for on the south side of the rock are sculptured

several hieroglyphical figures having relation to astronomy. The

most striking figure in the group is that of a man in profile,

standing erect, and directing his view to the rising stars in

the sky. He holds to his eye a tube or optical instrument. Below

his feet is a frieze divided into six compartments, with as many

celestial signs carved on its surface." It has been already stated

that finely-wrought "telescopic tubes" have been found among

remains of the Mound-Builders. They were used, it seems, by the

ancient people of Mexico and Central America, and they were known

also in ancient Peru, where a silver figure of a man in the act of

using such a tube has been discovered in one of the old tombs. [30]

Even Prescott, who is inclined to be sceptical of the statements made

concerning astronomical instruments among the Aztecs, and ridicules

Dupaix's assertion of the existence of an astronomical observatory,

nevertheless says:

We know little further of the astronomical attainments of the

Aztecs. That they were acquainted with the cause of eclipses is

evident from the representation, on their maps, of the disk of the

moon projecting on that of the sun. Whether they had arranged a

system of constellations is uncertain; though, that they recognized

some of the most obvious, as the Pleiades, for example, is evident

from the fact that they regulated their festivals by them. [31]

Nadaillac, always conservative concerning the civilization and

knowledge of the native Americans, on this point says:

The various races which occupied Central America had some knowledge

of astronomy. They were acquainted with divisions of time founded

on the motion of the sun, and long before the conquest they

possessed a regular system. [32]

Bancroft, on the same subject, remarks:

Perhaps the strongest proof of the advanced civilization of the

Nahuas was their method of computing time, which, for ingenuity and

correctness, equaled, if it did not surpass, the systems adopted

by contemporaneous European and Asiatic nations. The Nahuas were

well acquainted with the movements of the sun and moon, and even of

some of the planets, while celestial phenomena, such as eclipses,

although attributed to unnatural causes, were nevertheless

carefully observed and recorded. They had, moreover, an accurate

system of dividing the day into fixed periods, corresponding

somewhat to our hours; indeed, as the learned Sr. Leony Gama has

shown, the Aztec calendar-stone which was found in the plaza of the

city of Mexico, was used not only as a durable register, but also

as a sundial. [33]

IX.

_The Geography of the Book_.

It is objected to the Book of Mormon that it lacks "local coloring" and

definiteness in respect of its geography; and it is usually contrasted

to its disadvantage with the Bible in this respect. "I have not been

able to find an edition of the Book of Mormon with maps in it," says

one objector, "nor have I been able to find with perfect surety the

location of the land in which Christ is supposed to have appeared to

the Nephites." [34]

"We find almost nothing," continues Dr. Paden, "which would fit with

the tropical climate; in fact, the general description would better

coincide with Pennsylvania or New York." [35] "The grandest mountains in

the world, and the highest table lands," says another objector, "are

as entirely ignored as is the general shape of the two continents and

other physical facts. While the physical characteristics of Palestine

are woven as a web into almost every page of Bible history, the

Book of Mormon is unable to appeal to a single geographical fact in

confirmation of its pretended histories, except the general one that

there was a 'land south' and a 'land north.'" [36]