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.