Solomon Spaulding Resurrected.—It may be answered to our contentions in the preceding paragraphs that if a man commits what seems to be, according to our lights, an act of such presumption, it is fair also to conclude that any of his other works, particularly those involved in dispute, were similarly produced. This is of course the very thing to which our author is attempting to argue and which he evidently believes he has gone near to proving. We must be consistent critics, however, and argue all conclusions to their logical ends. We may ask therefore: Why, if Smith gratuitously and deliberately inserted various passages in the text of Scripture, do we not argue also that he must have written the "Book of Mormon" in precisely similar fashion? The additions found in Genesis vi and vii, giving the accounts of the doings of Adam and Enoch, certainly show a marked capacity for producing the very kind of narrations characteristic of the "Book of Mormon." One might reasonably hold indeed that their origin was the same, wherever it may have been located. Sheldon, however, as well as most anti-Mormon writers, is barred from the use of this very obvious conclusion for one of his opinions by the fact that it is necessary to accept the allegations of the Spaulding-authorship theory merely because it is supported by the same kind of "affidavits" as those of the Ingersolls, Fulgates, and other exponents of "integrity and reliability," which have been so often used as "evidence" of Smith's bad character. To question the validity of these "affidavits" in one connection must very seriously embarrass their use in another—and all are of the same description, open to the same line of objections. Furthermore, the representative of a family of "shiftless and untrustworthy character" seems so liable in the eyes of our friends to perpetrate some troublesome "hoax" of the "Book of Mormon" variety that the two lines of allegation seem—to them—beautifully matched parts of one whole. It seems necessary therefore to follow our author into the tedious windings of this contemptible Spaulding theory in order to demonstrate, if for no other reason, the complete absurdity and futility of its allegations. He introduces his argument as follows:

"In the fourth place, the high pretensions of Joseph Smith in relation to the Book of Mormon must be regarded as most seriously damaged by the historical demonstration that to a conspicuous degree the groundwork of that book was borrowed from a romantic story of Solomon Spaulding entitled 'Manuscript Found.' This was begun in 1811 or 1812 at Conneaut, Ohio, was left for a time in the printing office of Patterson in Pittsburgh, was probably taken thence to Amity, Pennsylvania, to be retouched, and was sent anew to Patterson's establishment shortly before the death of the author in 1816."

This statement, so far as the dates are concerned, is taken from the revised form of this story as presented by a certain A.T. Schroeder, who, as our author remarks, published a "very careful review" of the "relations" between the "Book of Mormon" and Mr. Spaulding's romance entitled "Manuscript Found." Schroeder is the strongest advocate of the theory that Spaulding wrote more than one story of the title mentioned, a fact not clearly stated or understood before. Apart from his arguments, it has no strong support, and it is more than probable that it is untrue, as may be judged later.

Scribbler and Scapegoat.—According to accepted data, Solomon Spaulding was born in Connecticut in 1761. He is said to have been a graduate of Dartmouth College and was for a number of years a Congregationalist preacher. He was engaged in mercantile business after 1800, having been located at Cherry Valley, N.Y., Conneaut, O., and finally at Amity, Penn., where he died in 1816. While at Conneaut, he seems to have become interested in Indian antiquities, particularly in the mounds and other works in the neighborhood, and started to write a romantic story, with the reported intention of explaining them and describing their builders, their customs, etc. This work, begun in 1808 or 1809, was read by him to a number of his neighbors, as represented in Howe's book "Mormonism Unveiled," about 1810. According to the usual account, his manuscript was never published. According to the theory, it was stolen and after various vicissitudes fell into the hands of Joseph Smith, to be recast as the "Book of Mormon."

History of the Spaulding Theory.—The attempted justification of this account is made in the alleged event that a "Mormon" missionary read some extracts from the "Book of Mormon" at Conneaut, O., in 1834, when former neighbors and several relatives of Mr. Spaulding "immediately recognized it as his work"; the result being a public meeting and the deputation of one Philastus Hurlburt, there conveniently present, to visit the author's widow to obtain the manuscript of the book from which they had heard the extracts read. Whatever may be assumed to be the truth regarding the public meeting or the deputation of this Hurlburt on the fool's errand of seeking for the manuscript of a book already in print from the family of the author from whom it is reported to have been stolen, it is probable that Hurlburt actually called on this lady and that he obtained a manuscript from her. That it was not what he wanted seems established (1) by the fact that he makes no mention of or quotation from it in the book prepared by himself and Howe, (2) by the fact that it was actually recovered by President Fairchild of Oberlin College in 1884, being identified by Hurlburt's signature and that of several of Spaulding's old neighbors. It bears no possible resemblance to the "Book of Mormon," either in plot, treatment, or style. Upon this fact is based the theory that Spaulding wrote several manuscripts of ancient American romance, one of which is supposedly described in the "affidavits" of numerous "old neighbors" of Mr. Spaulding as given in Howe's book.

The "Historical Demonstration."—In order to show the sort of thing which, according to our author, constitutes "historical demonstration" when applied to "Mormon" matters, it will be in place to quote briefly from the numerous "affidavits" published in Howe's book and analyze the allegations to which they seem to argue. We shall find, to be sure, an element of perfect confidence in the asserted identification of the "Book of Mormon" as the writing of Solomon Spaulding, but must recognize that there is considerable margin for forming an opinion contrary to the claims made by and for the "deponents." Among the persons uttering "affidavits," according to Howe, may be mentioned a certain John Spaulding, alleged to be a brother of Solomon and also a resident of Conneaut, together with his wife Martha; Henry Lake, alleged to have been the "partner" of Solomon Spaulding; and several "old neighbors," Aaron Wright, Oliver Smith, John Miller, and others.

Howe's "Testimonies."—These persons, as represented, agree in asserting that Spaulding had written a romance of ancient America during his residence in Conneaut and that he had frequently read it or parts of it to them at times around the year 1810. In professing to describe its contents, some of them come near to describing, in a vague way, some of the main incidents of the early portions of the "Book of Mormon," and with a wealth of detail that indicates either phenomenally good memories or else strong persuasions on the part of some interviewer who has cleverly wrought simple suggestions of names and incidents into a semblance of recollection. Thus the document given over the name of John Spaulding alleges of the supposed Spaulding manuscript:

"It was a historical romance of the first settlers of America and endeavored to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews or the Ten Lost Tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem by land and sea until they arrived in America under the command of Lehi and Nephi. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites, the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps which caused the mounds so common in this country. Their arts, sciences, and civilization are all brought into view in order to account for all the curious antiquities found in various parts of Northern and Southern America. I well remember that he wrote in the old style and commenced almost every sentence with 'And it came to pass' or 'Now it came to pass.'"

Mrs. Martha Spaulding deposes also that:

"He [S. Spaulding] was then writing a historical novel founded on the first settlers of America. He represented them as an enlightened and warlike people. He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the Lost Tribes of Israel; and this idea he carried out in the book in question. The lapse of time which has intervened prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his writings; but the names Lehi and Nephi are yet fresh in my memory as being the principal heroes of his tale."

Henry Lake is quoted as stating:

"Solomon Spaulding frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which he entitled the 'Manuscript Found,' and which he represented as being found in this town. I spent many hours in hearing him read said writings, and became well acquainted with their contents. The Book represented the American Indians as being the descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel and gave an account of their having left Jerusalem and of their contentions and wars, which were many and great."

Aaron Wright is quoted as stating:

"One day when I was at the house of Solomon Spaulding, he showed and read to me a history he was writing of the Lost Tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their descendants. He traced their journeyings from Jerusalem to America. He told me that his object was to account for the fortifications, etc., that were to be found in this country and said that in time it would be fully believed by all except learned men and historians."

Oliver Smith is quoted as stating:

"Solomon Spaulding boarded at my house six months. All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of this country. He said he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem by land and sea till their arrival in America and give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, laws, and contentions. In this way, he would give a satisfactory account of all the old mounds so common in this country. Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as the leading characters when they first started for America."

"Complete Identifications."—In addition to these main statements, which on the professed authority of the persons represented as having signed the alleged "affidavits," various writers following Howe have accepted as "historical demonstrations" of the theory that Spaulding wrote the "Book of Mormon," these "deponents" and several others make such statements as the following:

"To the best of my recollection, the 'Book of Mormon' is the same as what my brother Solomon Spaulding wrote, except the religious matter" (John Spaulding); "I have examined the 'Book of Mormon,' and find in it the writings of Solomon Spaulding from beginning to end, but mixed with Scripture and other religious matter which I did not meet in the 'Manuscript Found'" (J.N. Miller); "Spaulding traced the journey of the first settlers of America from Jerusalem to America as it is given in the 'Book of Mormon,' except the religious matter" (Aaron Wright); "I have read the 'Book of Mormon' and believe it to be the same as Spaulding wrote, except the religious part" (Nahum Howard); "I have examined the 'Book of Mormon' and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly, taken from the 'Manuscript Found'" (Henry Lake).

Others of the alleged "deponents" state with more or less confidence that the two books are the same or principally so, and very many of them add that they distinctly remember the names of Nephi, Lehi, Nephites, and Lamanites. A few add also the names of Mormon and Moroni. These six names are apparently the only ones "distinctly remembered" by and among these people as quoted by Howe. None of the other strange names seem to have been remembered. Upon these meager allegations are based the so-called Spaulding theory, which people possessed of education and critical judgment—in matters other than those concerned with "Mormonism"—confidently announce as "historically demonstrated." There are, however, several plain elements incongruous with this conclusion, which form a very firm ground for questioning the accuracy or even the validity of these professed "affidavits."

Amazing Feats of Memory.—In the first place, these "affidavits" were uttered, according to Howe, not earlier than 1834 and profess to describe a book seen or heard read not later than 1810 or 1812—several of the "deponents" specify that it was about 1810—between twenty-two and twenty-four years before the date of the alleged "testimonies." In any other connection or in a court of law, it would be recognized without question that "precise recollection," particularly of names and minor incidents so far in the past, must be extremely unreliable; and that the ability to identify a book seen in print for the first time with one heard read in manuscript some twenty years before is extremely questionable. If one man professes to be able to perform any such feat of memory, he may be credited with phenomenal powers of recollecting, but when several persons, evidently not highly educated nor given to the cultivation of precision, are credited with any such ability, we have merely a good example of absurd fatuity or of implacable prejudice, as in the present case, which seizes any drifting straw of "testimony" as if it might be strong enough to float with the weight of their theory upon it. Such conclusions as the above, even Professor Sheldon, as the most scholarly critic of "Mormonism" in recent years, is bound to recognize. Thus, in the case of Dr. Anthon's lapses of memory, as shown in his contradictions between the first letter written to E.D. Howe in 1834 and the second written to T.W. Coit in 1841—seven and fourteen years after the event described, respectively—he writes:

"Mormon apologists are able to point out some discrepancies between the two letters. But they are such as might result from a memory not supported by records at hand."

This statement is made furthermore in spite of the fact that Anthon remarks in the first letter: "I have frequently conversed with friends on the subject since the Mormonite excitement began," indicating that the matter of his conversation with Harris was, during the first seven years at least, somewhat before his mind. If under such conditions, and also in view of the fact that, as he states in his second letter, his "name was constantly being mentioned by 'Mormon' speakers," particularly in connection with the supposed fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah already referred to, the memory of so learned a man could show even such lapses as we have noted, it is quite certain that the plain and unlearned people alleged to have uttered the "affidavits" quoted by Howe after over twenty years in which, as several of them acknowledge, Spaulding and his manuscript had become somewhat vague in their minds, may be considered as having made far more serious lapses. Nor is it any less reasonable to hold that the more significant parallels drawn by them between Spaulding's reported manuscript and the "Book of Mormon" were elicited in answer to questions such as "Do you remember the name Nephi?" This we will discuss later on.

"Lost Tribes" Found Again.—In the second place, the statements attributed to Spaulding's old friends and neighbors by the author of "Mormonism Unveiled" indicate either that they were really speaking of some other book or else that they were affirmative replies to such questions as the above, made by someone who had but the vaguest idea of the contents of the "Book of Mormon" or the main incidents found in it. This is shown in the statements attributed to John Spaulding and his wife, to Henry Lake (alleged former business partner of Solomon Spaulding), Aaron Wright (with whom, as alleged, he was on very friendly terms), that the story remembered by them represented the Indians as descendants of the "Lost Tribes of Israel." The "Book of Mormon" makes no such claim, representing that the Jewish emigrants from Jerusalem consisted principally of Lehi and his four sons with their wives and dependents, who were, as represented, utterly different people from the so-called 'Lost Tribes'—these were the body of Israelites who did not return to Palestine after the Babylonish captivity and have been sought for and "discovered" in all parts of the earth. Nor is this a "minor inaccuracy": it shows that the four persons who repeated the allegation were certainly confusing Spaulding's possible beliefs in the matter—for it was as fashionable then to believe that the Indians are the "Lost Tribes" as it is now to believe that all men are descended from apelike ancestors—with what he may be assumed to have stated in his manuscript. Such slips do not beget full confidence in the allegations touching the remainder of the manuscript's contents.

Accounting for Antiquities.—In the third place, the allegations made above to the effect that Mr. Spaulding had intended his story to "account for the fortifications, etc., that were to be found in this country" refer to some other book than the "Book of Mormon," which treats such matters in a most incidental fashion if at all and evidently makes no attempt to "account for" anything of the kind. This statement will bear the fullest investigation. If Spaulding really wrote a story that formed even the groundwork of the "Book of Mormon," and his hand was so obvious as to be recognized by "old neighbors" and others, it is remarkable that none of them mention the omission of these references.

Patient Listeners.—In the fourth place, these witnesses are made to state that Spaulding had read them his manuscript sufficiently often and sufficiently fully to give them a knowledge of its contents; which indicates that it must certainly have been some other book than the "Book of Mormon," which contains on reasonable estimate at least 340,000 words, most of it of a character by no means calculated to enchain the interest of a casual reader or hearer nor to "stick in his memory." When therefore such a "deponent" as J.N. Miller, as above quoted, states "I have examined the 'Book of Mormon' and find in it the writings of Solomon Spaulding from beginning to end," etc., it is perfectly evident that he is exceeding his knowledge and making a perfectly indefensible allegation.

The 'Added Religious Element.'—In the fifth place, the allegations to the effect that the 'Book of Mormon' is identical with the Spaulding manuscript described "except the religious part" are amply sufficient to any competent literary critic to condemn the validity of the entire mass of "testimony" given by Howe. If the very vague and general statements made by these persons be interpreted to indicate that the supposed story in their minds contained no more religious and Scriptural matter than the known and attested manuscript of Spaulding, we may say without hesitation that their statements are false and mendacious on the very face. Only a casual examination of the 'Book of Mormon' is sufficient for a demonstration of this contention. For not only do the religious passages appear as parts of the whole, unless we allow a doubt to attach for the mere sake of argument to some of the longer orations and disquisitions, but it would be impossible for even the most skillful critic to say where the religious element might have been added in any place or where it could be omitted without changing the whole narration to something quite different. To state or to tolerate the statement of a person of uncritical mind that the alleged writings of Spaulding or any other man are to be found in the 'Book of Mormon' "mixed with Scripture and other religious matter which I did not meet in the 'Manuscript Found'" is merely to assist an "imposture" quite as great as ever the 'Book of Mormon' itself has been asserted to be. The religious matter and the religious character of the entire book positively cannot be separated from the bald outlines of the story and leave anything that a scholar, let alone an unlearned man or woman, could recognize and discriminate as from a different specific source.

How Names were 'Remembered.'—In the sixth place, the "singular unanimity" among these "witnesses" in the matter of names "distinctly remembered" is a most suspicious circumstance in itself. As stated above, the testimony of the entire coterie as given by Howe agree upon six names merely out of all the scores given in the 'Book of Mormon.' It is strange, for example, that none of these "deponents," all so familiar as represented with Spaulding's works, should have remembered to mention Coriantumr or Jared or his unnamed brother; or to have remarked that Nephi had a brother named Sam, which moves a certain critic to animadvert sarcastically on this "Yankee nickname"; or to have remembered that their "curiosity had been excited by the mention of the 'cumoms' and 'cureloms,'" supposed to have been some kind of domestic animals. It is a conclusion almost obvious that the names of Nephi, Lehi, etc., were given affirmatively as answers to direct questions asked by persons having a very meager knowledge of the 'Book of Mormon,' and that they were not volunteered by any of the "deponents" unless by such as may have read the 'Book of Mormon' and concluded that these names were familiar.

Edited "Testimonies."—In addition to the fact—which would be unescapably obvious in other connections—that the very circumstantiality with which these several "deponents" profess to describe Spaulding's manuscript not seen or heard read by any one of them for over twenty years constitutes a very suspiciously vivid suggestion that their "testimonies" are not in the form in which they originated them or at the least were not volunteered by any of them apart from suggestions and questionings by an interested party, there is excellent reason for assuming that their form in Howe's book represents some very radical editions of several particulars. In the case of documents pertaining to the other side of the controversy, such a suspicion would be formed without hesitation. Indeed, such suspicions have been frequently stated and by the writer under discussion. Thus, as quoted above, he calls Sidney Rigdon Smith's "accomplice" in the perpetration of a "double outrage against the text" of Scripture: and "accomplice" means something other and worse than "tool," "dupe," or even "confidant." Later, in discussing the "three witnesses" to the "Book of Mormon," he remarks that "they might with a fair degree of propriety be styled his confederates in that project." Yet, in expressing such opinions, to which he is fairly well entitled, no suspicion seems to occur that there may have been some "faking" on the anti-Smith side also. The reasons for such a conclusion may be briefly stated.

Motive for the Fraud.—The book entitled "Mormonism Unveiled," which contains the Spaulding "affidavits," was doubtless largely prepared by Hurlburt, although signed by E.D. Howe. Hurlburt was himself an apostate "Mormon," and Howe entertained a bitter animosity against the Church because of the fact that his wife and daughter had joined it contrary to his wishes. That two men of their bitter feelings would miss any opportunity to discredit Smith and his people or fail to interpret any "testimonies" that they may have collected to suit their contentions is highly improbable. Of Howe we know little, but Hurlburt has left a record that is susceptible of unfavorable interpretation. He was called "Doctor," not because he was a qualified physician, but because he was the seventh son of his father, hence, according to old folk-lore superstition, the supposed possessor of supernatural qualifications as a healer—in other words, it was his name. He is said to have been a member of the Methodist connection at one time but to have been excommunicated under charges against his character. Early in 1833, he came to Kirtland, Ohio, "to investigate Mormonism," and later joined the Church. On March 18 of that year, he was ordained an elder and sometime later was sent on a mission to the Eastern States. On June 3 of the same year, on accusation of "unchristian conduct" involving charges of immorality, he was tried and cut off from the Church. On June 21, he presented an appeal stating that he had not been justly treated in the fact that he had been tried while absent, and in consequence of "confession" and "repentance" was "restored." Two days later, however, he was again cut off because, as stated, he had boasted that he had "deceived Joseph Smith's God or the spirit by which he is actuated." Whatever may have been the merits of the case on either side, it is certain that Hurlburt was anxious to remain in the Church but was forced out by the authorities on charges of misconduct. Such a circumstance, of course, to use a legal phrase, "establishes a motive" for his subsequent doings. What more probable than that he should "seek revenge"? This seems to be the leading motive with all "Mormon" apostates, who seem to be characterized by a bitterness against their former associations that is fairly "in a class by itself."

A Doctored Subjunctive.—In view of the matters discussed above, the origin of the Spaulding authorship story might seem clear. "Mormonism" was at this time making a considerable stir in New York and Ohio, particularly, and the "Book of Mormon" was being industriously circulated among the people. Undoubtedly, some of the former neighbors and associates of Mr. Spaulding must have remembered that he had written a romance of ancient America, and the suggestion would have been natural that his book, never printed, "might have been the same" as this new "revelation." The lapse from the subjunctive mood to the indicative is easy in the case of rumors in rural communities. Consequently, within a short time, numerous persons might be found willing to state that the two books were certainly the same. But, as frequently remarked, rumor travels almost as fast as it grows in bulk. The professed identification of the writings of Spaulding coming to the ears of such men as Hurlburt and Howe would have been eagerly followed up by them and worked to the limit. How conclusive were their "demonstrations" we have already seen. Hurlburt, as seems established, actually traced the widow of Solomon Spaulding, then an aged woman long married to a second husband named Davidson, and through her obtained possession of a manuscript story of Mr. Spaulding which was recovered fifty years later in 1884 and now rests in the library of Oberlin College, Ohio. This manuscript bears the following endorsement on the outside last sheet:

"The Writings of Sollomon Spalding Proved by Aron Wright ote Smith John Miller and ovuners The testimonies of the above Gentlemen are now in my possession. D. P. HURLBUT."

Spaulding's Real Story.—This apparently well-accredited manuscript of Spaulding contains a tale that is conspicuous in no particular. Its spelling is ludicrous in some places and its grammar hardly suggests an educated man. These things may indicate a growing habit of carelessness in the author, but they certainly show the confirmed amateur in writing. The date of the story may be fixed by the circumstance that it professes to embody the translation of "twenty-eight sheets of parchment ... manuscripts written in an eligant hand with Roman Letters & in the Latin Language," professedly found in "a cavity within the wall" of "an ancient fort" "near the west Bank of the Conneaught River." Spaulding located at Conneaut, Ohio, about 1808, removing thither, according to accepted accounts, from New York State. The manuscript is supposedly therefore of a date somewhat later; about 1810 probably as stated in the "affidavits" given by Howe. This story, written according to statements in the hope of yielding funds to pay the author's debts, is certainly his "first effort"—one would dislike reading anything earlier and worse from his pen—and gives very poor promise of improvement as a story-teller or originator of readable narrations since at this time Spaulding was certainly between 48 and 49 years of age; quite too old "to learn a new trade." The construction of his plot indeed shows very unhopeful signs of ability to do more extended work or to produce any writing as elaborate as the "Book of Mormon." He was evidently also a slow and laborious writer, constantly erasing and rewriting: which facts show that this Oberlin manuscript was his "first draft." This very opinion indeed is expressed by L.L. Rice, formerly state printer of Ohio, in whose possession the manuscript was found by President Fairchild of Oberlin. He writes:

"I should as soon think the Book of Revelation was written by the author of 'Don Quixote' as that the writer of this manuscript was the author of the 'Book of Mormon.' ... I am of the opinion that no one who reads this manuscript will give credit to the story that Solomon Spaulding was in any wise the author of the 'Book of Mormon.' It is unlikely that any one who wrote so elaborate a work as the Mormon Bible would spend his time in getting up so shallow a story as this, which at best is but a feeble imitation of the other."—From Letter to Joseph Smith 3d, Lamont, Iowa (1884).

This Book Described by "Witnesses."—As suggested above, Hurlburt probably showed the manuscript obtained from Mrs. Davidson to several persons residing in Conneaut and, as he states on his endorsement, took their "testimonies"; probably touching its genuineness, etc. Whatever they may have said in these "testimonies," it is certain, as indicated above, that they did not describe the contents of the "Book of Mormon," which has no history of the "Lost Tribes of Israel," etc. These "doctored" statements, however, actually do specify the contents of a tale closely like that given in the "Manuscript Found" recovered by President Fairchild. Thus, Spaulding's attested work actually describes the inhabitants of pre-Columbian America as "separated into... distinct nations"—the Kentucks, Ohons, and Sciotans—which waged "cruel and bloody wars." Thus, to quote from the book in question, giving the peculiarities of Spelling, etc., as in the original:

"It was indeed a melancholy day.—The contest was not decided—Neither army had gained a victory or had reason to boast of any superior advantages obtained or any heroic achievements which were not matched by contending warriors. An immense slaughter was made. Near one hundred thousand were extended breathless on the field—This was only the beginning of the war—& what must be its dreadful calamities if it should continue to rage—if a few more battles should be fought & the infuriated conqueror should turn his vengeful sword against defenseless women & children & mingle their blood with the blood of heroes who had fallen bravely fighting in their defense. When both armies viewed the immense slaughter that had been made of their respective friends—instead of cooling their ardor for the war it only served to increase their malice & their thirst for revenge."—Manuscript Found, p. 95.

It may be readily seen that such a war as this must have been dreadful indeed, quite worthy to be described in the words of the author's "brother" as quoted above. It takes very little imagination, however, to understand how thoroughly one must need to revise such a story as this to make it of distinctly "religious" significance and how difficult it would be for one to recognize it after the alteration.

Antiquities Discussed—In another particular, Spaulding's manuscript answers to the description given in several of Howe's "affidavits," wherein it is stated that the book heard read to them contained an account of the "arts, sciences, and civilization," also "a satisfactory account of all the old mounds so common in this country." Immediately following the account of the dreadful battle just quoted, we find that the surviving soldiers of both armies buried their dead comrades in trenches and heaped mounds of earth upon them. We find also that out of the thirteen chapters of the story, chapters 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10—six in all—are principally devoted to extensive disquisitions on the customs of natives, "Description of the Learning," religion, military arrangements, amusements, money, etc. Such long chapters, if read several times to any one person—providing that he were willing to listen—must have left strong impressions on the mind of the author's "learning," if no more.

Strange Names Galore—In regard to the "distinct recollections" of certain names, it is perfectly possible to account for that also. Spaulding uses numerous strange names, some classical—for his hero, the professed author of the parchment manuscript, is a Roman—some fanciful. Among these are: Fabius, Crito, Hadokam, Bombal, Hadoram, Lobaska, Hambon, Moonrod, Elseon, Lamesa, Hambock, Drafolick, Habelon, Ulipoon, Labano, Hamelick, Hamelon, Taboon, Hamsien, Kelsock, Hamkoo, etc. It is probable that such a rush of strangers would leave an impression on the mind of the average listener that would enable him to "remember distinctly" such other unfamiliar names as those given in the "Book of Mormon," particularly if brought to his attention in the form of direct questions, as previously suggested.

What Memory Cannot Do—Nor need we assume that the "distinct recollections" of the phrase "it came to pass" is in any other category. It is in fact mere fabrication. The supposition that a man who could write no better than the author of the "Manuscript Found" should, even if persisting in reading his writings to complacent neighbors, be able to create such a furore in a rural settlement that people would remember details for over twenty years is altogether too preposterous for serious consideration. Let anyone doubting this statement try for himself to see how clearly he can remember the details of stories, sermons, articles, etc., read by him or to him twenty years ago. He can then judge of the reliability of these alleged "affidavits" of Howe and Hurlburt.

An Interview with E.D. Howe—In this connection, it will be interesting to repeat a conversation between Mr. Howe and Edmund L. Kelley of Independence, Mo., held in the summer of 1883; Mr. Kelley being the questioner:

Q: What do you know personally about the 'Book of Mormon' and the Spaulding story being the same?

A: I don't know anything.

Q: Why did you publish a work claiming that the 'Book of Mormon' was the Spaulding romance?

A: Because I could better believe that Spaulding wrote it than that Joe Smith saw an angel.

Q: Are those your grounds?

A: Yes sir, they are; and I want you to understand that you can't cram the 'Book of Mormon' down me.

Q: Do you swallow the Bible?

A: That is my business.

Q: Have you not published a pamphlet that does not endorse the Bible?

A: Yes, I have.—Braden and Kelley Debate (1884) p. 83.

What Spaulding's Daughter Said—The same interviewer also reports a conversation with Mrs. Martha McKinstry, a daughter of Solomon Spaulding, then an aged woman residing in Washington, D.C., which took place, he states, on April 4, 1882.

Q: When did you first think about the names in the 'Book of Mormon' and the manuscript agreeing?

A: My attention was first called to it by some parties who asked me if I did not remember it, and then I remembered that they were. —Ibid. p. 82.

It is to be regretted that the "parties" questioning this lady—and others—did not have a larger supply of 'Book of Mormon' names to "recall to her mind."

An Expert Opinion—In spite of all these facts and considerations of which our author says nothing and has evidently made no account, he states as follows:

"Several witnesses shortly after the appearance of the 'Book of Mormon' affirmed in the most explicit terms that the Spaulding story to which they had listened had this peculiar cast (i.e., the voyagers were represented as starting from Jerusalem). Moreover, the testimony of the brother of Solomon Spaulding, of his business partner, and of several others assures us that the story in this form represented the voyagers to America as being Jews and as starting from Jerusalem. Herein it corroborates the statement of Howe who says that the Oberlin manuscript was shown to several of the witnesses whom he cites and was characterized by them as the earlier and discarded form of the Spaulding romance. [Reference here to Howe p. 288.] It is utterly vain, therefore, for Mormon apologists, as they have been wont to do, to plead the unlikeness of the Oberlin writing to the 'Book of Mormon' as disproving the obligations of Joseph Smith to Spaulding's manuscript. It affords not the slightest installment of a disproof of substantial obligations. The most that could be alleged would be that its style is in contrast with that of the 'Book of Mormon.' The contrast, however, may be explained by the twofold fact that Spaulding in the later version of his story wrote of set purpose in a peculiar style and that Joseph Smith in working over the materials furnished by Spaulding conformed them to a very appreciable degree to his own habits of expression."

With all respect for the attainments of our author, it must be protested that this line of argument is not "explanation" at all but "special pleading" pure and simple. The point at issue is not as to whether Spaulding wrote the "groundwork" of the book, but as to whether, after Joseph Smith had "worked it over" and "conformed" it "to his own habits of expression," it is credible that a lot of unlearned and uncritically-minded people who had neither seen nor heard of the original for over twenty years are to be allowed to persuade the public that they are able nevertheless to "recognize" the work of Spaulding "from beginning to end." In forming a judgment on this point, we must not forget that the whole theory of the Spaulding authorship of the 'Book of Mormon' is founded upon the alleged "testimonies" of such people, and that there is not a line of evidence apart from them that is worth considering. Our anti-Mormon friends are going "very far afield" merely to enjoy the pleasure of calling Mr. Smith a plagiarist and "impostor."

The "Deadly Parallel"—The decision of the matter does not rest, however, upon the "testimonies" of long-memoried "neighbors" nor yet upon the dogmatic deliverances of "experts." Joseph Smith left other writings which, as previously stated, show notable points of resemblance in style with the 'Book of Mormon.' The matter may be judged by giving three extracts of similar occurrences as found (1) in the 'Book of Mormon'; (2) in the "Inspired Translation" of Genesis or the Book of Moses as the "Mormons" have it; (3) in the "Manuscript Found" now in Oberlin College Library.

...

From the standpoint of literary criticism, it is scarcely necessary to argue that the author of the matter in the third column would scarcely be credited with writing that in the first; whereas the resemblances in style between the first and the second—the latter the admitted work of Joseph Smith—are too marked not to excite comment. In spite of the numerous examples of defective grammar and diction to be found in the 'Book of Mormon,' it cannot be denied that the author, transcriber, or "translator" possessed a far higher degree of literary ability than Solomon Spaulding shows in his only accredited effort. Nor is it a presumption on facts to claim that had an author of such literary ability—be that ability largely "undeveloped," if you will—worked over the writings of a man writing such things as are found in the third column, he must have disguised it so effectually as to have made it in fact a new book; also that practiced literary critics might be deceived, let alone unlearned "deponents" of the variety summoned by Howe.

A Diffident Suggestion—We might judge that our learned author was fully alive to the conclusions drawn in the last paragraph in the fact that he modifies the usual confident statement of Spauldingite writers in the following words:

"It amounts, we judge, to a historical demonstration that the manuscript story of Solomon Spaulding served as an antecedent and groundwork of the 'Book of Mormon.' Considerable liberty may have been used by Joseph Smith or by his accomplice or both in modifying details and introducing supplementary materials, but that the general framework and wide stretches of the subject-matter of the 'Book of Mormon' were borrowed from Spaulding is not open to reasonable doubt."

Reasonable Doubts—We may judge of the "reasonableness" of the doubt from the examinations previously made of the Howe "affidavits." We conclude that the Doctor is not basing his conclusions on "reason" but rather on a "childlike faith" in the impeccability of Howe and the accuracy of the "recollections" of his several "deponents." Of course, even honest people may be made to say anything under heaven if only we have their written statements before us and also the time to "edit them into shape." However, our author proceeds as follows:

"This conclusion holds whether or not any reliable evidence is at hand as to the medium through which Joseph Smith was brought into possession of the Spaulding manuscript or enabled to use its contents very largely in shaping the 'Book of Mormon.' As other noted crimes have gone undetected, so might a carefully concealed theft in this connection. But as a matter of fact, there is evidence as to the medium in question which, if not demonstrative, affords a basis for a thoroughly probable inference. A sufficient list of data points to Sidney Rigdon as the man who helped Joseph Smith by supplying him with the highly imaginative story of Spaulding to pass on from his empty bluff about a Golden Bible to an appearance of a real discovery."