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]]