Appleby, W. I. Mormonism Consistent! Truth Vindicated, and Falsehood Exposed and Refuted: Being A Reply to A. H. Wickersham, 1–24. Wilmington DE: Porter &Nafe, 1843.
ON the sixth day of April, A. D. 1830, was the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” organized with six members; according to the revelations and commandments of God; and from that time up to the present, has all manner of falsehoods been put in circulation, to prejudice the minds of people against us, without ever hearing our doctrine—investigating and judging for themselves. Every year we see book after book, and pamphlet after pamphlet, circulated and heralded forth, to try to put down Mormonism, (so called,) but all to no purpose. If we were to undertake to answer all, and expose their falsehoods, it would take a standing army of writers. But when I see such falsehoods, sarcasm, and foul aspersion heralded forth, as contained in a pamphlet, lately published by A. H. Wickersham, attacking me personally, and the Church generally; silence any longer ceases to become a virtue. Under these considerations, I have thought proper to reply to the gentleman, and treat him and his production, with that plainness which they merit, and the cause I am advocating requires. But in so doing, I do not say that I shall give technical phraseology or correct grammatical composition, as I lay but small claim to erudition.
August, 1843 .
“And all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and, brimstone; which is the second death.”—Rev. xxi, 8.
“And there shall in no wise enter into it, any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie.”—Rev. xxi, 27.
“For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”—Rev. xxii, 15.
I take my pen in hand to expose the folly and falsehoods of Mr. A. H.
Wickersham, the great champion of theological warfare; as contained in a pamphlet lately put forth by this politician, in reply to a statement of facts, showing the hypocrisy of the pliant tool of sectarianism, and his satellites, as developed at a public discussion at Centreville, Del., in May last, and published by the author of this, in the “Del. Republican, a paper published in the city of Wilmington, and which pierced to the heart of this braggadocia, and paralyzed all his brackers.” I allude to the “small fry.”
Thus wringing and twisting under the goadings of the lash of truth, this redoubtable champion of self-sufficiency, musters all his strength and abilities, seizes his pen, and at it he goes, “Pugnes et calcibus,” to refute the same, and after several weeks’ conception, behold! a heterogeneous mass of nonsense, falsehoods, sarcasms, and ridicule are produced.
I shall therefore endeavor to investigate the same, and divest them of all their covering, which he has thrown around them, and expose them in all their naked deformity, by scripture, reason, and living testimony, if required; so that there shall not be a stone left to tell the place where slumber the ashes of this fallen hero. But in doing this, I lay no claim to erudition, like that of Mr. Wickerhsam, who is willing to sacrifice all honor at the Baal altar of sectarianism, for popular favor and political purposes. He told a gentleman at New Castle, who was attending court, last May, that he cared nothing about debating himself, but said “that the Methodists about Brandywine Hundred had applied to him,” (he being their champion and tool) “to hold a debate with some of the Mormon Elders, and if it was possible, put down Mormonism,” (not with truth, for that we cannot do; but with lies of John C. Bennett, the “Spaulding Story,” &c.,) remarking at the same time that the “Methodist Priests were afraid of the Mormon Elders, as they were of a Panther.” So this veritable champion says within himself, I am getting to be a great man among the “small fry,” I am a teacher of a country school; I understand orthography, etymology, syntax, and prosody, have I not underwent an academical,  collegiate, and almost a theological education? Have I not been to Parnassus? Yes! my production will show that the composition is by one fresh from the seat of the muses, not in poetry, but prose, and that a good specimen of a Billingsgate vocabulary; am I not seeking after popularity, and what care I for truth? Do I not expect to have an office given me shortly; and how shall I manage it to become there popular? Why, I will endeavor to put down Mormonism, and lies shall be my weapons, and if I can only succeed, I shall become popular enough, as nearly the whole sectarian world are opposed to Mormonism, so I will go to work; I care nothing about being damned in eternity, so I become popular, and get an office in these “diggings,” of a “Country Squire,” or something else. “Associate Judge” I can not expect to be; for, says this poltroon, “To us in Delaware, where exalted talents &c., are required to entitle any one to a seat on the Bench, the very name of an “Associate Judge,” carries with it the idea of something beyond the common grit.” I suppose this politician cares nothing about honesty or morality as the requirements of a Judge, so he has but talents; and if nothing but talents are required, (throwing aside morality and virtue) there is certainly no chance for Mr. Wickersham to get the office about “the diggings” of Delaware.
Solomon says “Answer not a fool according to his folly, else thou be like him,” but continuing the sequel, he says “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Therefore I shall take the admonition and proceed.
Some two or three years ago, an Elder of the Church of Latter Day Saints, first preached the fulness of the gospel, in the village of Centreville, Delaware; it was not long before some were baptized, and a branch of the church organized there; this set priest and people∗, (with few exceptions) in array against the doctrine, not with truth, but with all manner of lies they could rake up. In the mean time, truth has conquered, and many that were under the serpent fangs of priestcraft, and sectarianism, have come to the knowledge of the truth, and obeyed the same, and at present numbers perhaps forty or fifty members, and still increasing, although our opposers have tried hard to put us down, in every way they possibly could, (truth always excepted), by disturbing our meetings, collecting and telling all manner of falsehoods and nonsense they could get in possession of about the society to prejudice the minds of the people. Dr. O——, of Pennsylvania, the first great champion, (who was a strong politician, and seeking after office, like Mr. Wickersham) was called out to debate with Elder Barnes, and afterwards with Elder Davis; but soon retired from the field of battle, shorn of all his laurels, in disgrace and contempt; but like the country school master publishes his valedictory, and fires off his squib, in pamphlet form, as the last resource; but Elder Moses took the retiring hero’s own weapons, and whipped him so completely that he has never dared to attack Mormonism since, neither did he get the  office he expected; and we see Mr. Wickersham beating in the same track of his predecessor, and if he gets no office for his services he will no doubt retire from the field as Dr. O—— has, if not already.
Mr. Wickersham, (as I purpose calling him, although I consider the ‘Mr.,’ an appellation not very appropriate to him, and adds nothing to his merit as a wearer) says, “about the first of March A. D. 1843, an evening meeting was held at Centreville, Del., &c., when some remarks were made calling in question the authenticity of the Book of Mormon; that Elder Clements challenged any man to meet him in a discussion of that subject, this challenge was accepted by two or three of his friends, who notified him, they being unprejudiced, met the next evening, debated—voted Mr. Clements used up— proposition made to Mr. Clements to hold another debate, but declined, as being among a set of blackguards; and soon after sloped, and Elder Stratton also, to parts unknown.”
The fact is, about the first of last February, I preached two or three times at a private house near Centreville, as the Methodists were occupying the School House, and had been for nearly a week, holding a protracted (distracted) meeting. On the Sunday following after I arrived, I preached once in the School House, and on Monday following,
∗ I wish it understood, that the above is not applied to those gentlemen and ladies who have treated me with respect, for several there are, and such I esteem.
(although the snow was blowing severely) I baptized three or four, and two of them had been at the Methodist meeting the week before and had been up to the altar to be prayed for. This, my readers, as might be expected, raised the ‘hue and cry’ among the Methodists and their adherents; that two whom they expected to have joined their ranks had deserted the mourning bench, for the waters of baptism. A few days after out comes a Methodist priest and says he had had a revelation, (from the Devil, I suppose, as none of them will admit that God will give any in these days,) that the Book of Mormon was false; and preached against Mormonism (as I was informed) for nearly a week, but all to no purpose.
About the first of March following Elder Clements (as I was informed) preached at Centreville; and now for the “evening meeting,” Mr. Wickersham; while the Elder was addressing the meeting, there was talking, laughing, noises, &c.. intermingled with “that’s a lie.” The meeting was dismissed, and the scene of confusion that followed will rest as a stain and disgrace upon all those who allow such things tolerated with impunity; casting their insults at the Elder, threatening to tar and feather him, (and among the most noted of them, as I was informed, by creditable eye witnesses, was a Mr. C——, who was chosen by Mr. Wickersham as his moderator at the discussion with me, and who was nearly the first one that said any thing about a committee to draft resolutions; and then got himself appointed Vice President of that committee; yet Mr. Wickersham calls such unprejudiced.)
After some arrangements, Elder Clements agreed to debate the subject of the validity of the Book of Mormon, the scriptures being the test. So away they goes to Brandywine Hundred, and gets Mr. Wickersham to debate with Elder Clements the following night;  and instead of the scriptures being the test, the Spaulding story, (that has been refuted a dozen times,) newspaper stories, &c., was as usual, brought forth, (but these are all the weapons they have to fight against the work,) with pretty much the same behaviour as was manifest the night before; such as blackguarding and insulting the Elder; in the mean time a vote being called, the rabble decided against Elder Clement; while ladies and gentlemen of virtuous principles, and liberal minds, retired in disgust, or sat in silence, as they witnessed such black proceedings, as it was of no use to speak, (I suppose,) for their voices would not have been heard, no more than Paul’s was, when the Ephesiands cried out “Great is Diana, the Goddess of the Ephesians.” And as Paul was declaring unto them the “Unknown God,” so are the Elders of the “Church of Latter Day Saints,” declaring unto this generation (who ignorantly worship a God “without, body, parts, or passions,) the true and living God.
After the scene had a little subsided, Elder Clements challenged Mr. Wickersham to go to the city of Wilmington and debate there; but this proposition, neither he nor his backers would accept; thinking perhaps, such conduct as had been transacted there would not be tolerated at Wilmington, and very wisely declined the offer, but challenged Elder Clements to debate again there at Centreville, or in Brandywine Hundred; where they thought no doubt, they would have another opportunity of blackguarding him, or of putting into execution their threat of taring and feathering; whereupon, Elder Clements, (and not without reason, perhaps very appropriately,) called them a set of blackguards, and in a few days after left the place as he and Elder Stratton are both travelling Elders, and only stopped at Centreville for a few days, to see the members of the Church and preach for them.
Mr. Wickersham says they “sloped”—if they did, I assure him it was not because they were afraid to meet him in debate, or any other person that were present at the time.
We fear not them that can “kill the body;” our God only do we wish to fear, and him we are afraid to offend.
Mr. Wickersham complains that the “Saints about Centreville, circulated false reports concerning him to prejudice the public mind against him, as being a Deist, Athiest,” &c. If they did, I do not know but they had good reason, for I think it was somewhat manifest, at the discussion I had with him, he would not believe the proofs drawn from the Bible, yet at the same time would believe the assertions of J. C. Bennett.
And furthermore, when a man says he believes the Bible, and then, when he is referred to certain texts, contained therein, asserts it does not mean what it says but something else, yet cannot tell what that something else is, what does it prove? Answer—hypocrisy of the deepest dye.
About this time, (i. e., the first of May,) says Mr. Wickersham, he heard of me making my debut at Wilmington, fearing I might pass by, he directed a note to the Saints at Centreville, containing the following question.” “Can the Book of Mormon be proved to be the word of God, by evidence drawn from the Bible, or does the book  itself, or any other testimony prove it to be such.” (coupling this with a few bombastic words, in the real bantum style.) “This note,” he says “had the desired effect, it was shown to the Judge, as he was addressing a meeting at Centreville, and seeing no way to get out of it— accepted it, but would not name any time for the discussion, though strongly solicited to do so.” Now I will show how much truth there is in Mr. Wickersham’s statement, and have not the least doubt but that I shall find twenty false assertions before I am done investigating the subject.
I left home, Recklesstown, Burlington Co., N. J., May the 2nd, and arrived at Philadelphia the same day, left a MSS. of some printing I was getting done, and while the printers were setting up the type, I concluded to pay a visit to the saints in Wilmington and Centreville, Del., and invited Elder Wharton, of Philadelphia, to go with me, which invitation he declined, as circumstances would not permit it, but promised to go the next week if I would go with him, as I was to return in a few days to examine the proof sheet of the printing I was getting done. May 4th I arrived at Wilmington, and on Saturday the 6th, took stage and went to Centreville, having preached in the Hall at Wilmington, the night before. Nearly as soon as I arrived at Mr. Mousley’s, a note (the challenge above referred to) was placed in my hands, by a brother in the Church. Reader, now recollect, Mr. Wickersham says he heard of my making my debut in the city of Wilmington, and immediately addressed a note on that account, when in fact the note had been at Centreville for nearly a week before I came to Wilmington; and as I only preached there the night before I arrived at Centreville, he knew nothing of it; and furthermore, he must have written his note, and sent it to Centreville the same day I arrived, but the note had been there for several days before, and this I am prepared to prove by respectable witnesses.
I gave him to understand that I would meet him, but could not specify any particular time, as I had to return to Philadelphia to attend to my printing; but as soon as I could return I would meet him. He says I “accepted the challenge twice that he proposed, and then said it was objectionable.” I accepted the challenge to debate on the subject of the Book of Mormon, but not the form of question he proposed, neither the rules; for he will find out if he deals with me “that it takes two to make a bargain.” The reader will perceive that the question he proposes, throws all the burthen of proof on me; but he was not a going to get any advantage in the question, if I debated with him; so I proposed the following; “Is it as reasonable to believe the Book of Mormon as it is the Bible, and does it come to us as well authenticated,” which was accepted. By this question the proof devolves as much upon him to give his reasons, as it does upon me; and he not believing much of the Bible, seems quite angry because I would not debate the first question.
He says “I returned to Philadelphia, post haste, for elder Wharton to help build up the temple of Mormonism, that was tottering.” Why! Mr. Wickersham, who are you? that can set any ism to tot-ering, by a single challenge? I might have said “ipse dixit.”
Truly you are a great man, a second Anak; the giant of Brandywine Hundred; no wonder they are going to give you an office; but here you have caught yourself again. As I before stated, Elder Wharton had informed me, that he was going to Delaware, the week after I was in Philadelphia, if I would accompany him, which I agreed to do, and this was the conclusion we came to, before either of us ever heard of any challenge from you. Here are two falsehoods, Mr. W., I have caught you in already one concerning the note, and the other Elder Wharton. Oh “mirabile dictu,” concerning such a hero! furthermore he says, the “challenge was shown to the Judge while addressing a meeting,” which is another, and this makes three; but these are only a beginning.
Monday, 8, I returned to Philadelphia, examined the proof sheet spoken of, &c.,—
-a day or two after, returned to Wilmington along with Elder Wharton, according to agreement; and on Friday following, came to Centreville. On arriving, we found that the expectation of the people was, that the debate would commence on the morrow, (Saturday) as they knew I expected to return with my pamphlet, that I was getting printed; accordingly a note was addressed to Mr. Wickersham, stating that we would meet in debate the next day, if he was willing. Accordingly, on Saturday forenoon we met, and after a great deal of twisting and turning, by Mr. Wickersham, because I would not debate the question, he proposed in his note, he at last agreed to debate the question,
“Is it as reasonable,” &c., and as he challenged “Priest, Prophet, or Seer,” I see no reason for this immaculate champion, this “ne plus ultra,” finding fault for debating one Saturday with Elder Wharton, and with me the next, as it was at his own option to debate with Elder Wharton, or to have declined. But really it is enough to make Mr. Wickersham angry to fight two battles, and to get whipped both times.
Accordingly, at 2, P. M., Mr. Wickersham appeared, (as arrangements had been made to commence the same afternoon) with several of his backers, the “small fry,”—the before mentioned Mr. C.——, excepted; and when Elder Wharton moved for the moderators to be chosen, that they might commence the debate, Mr. Wickersham hesitated, until Mr. C—— made his appearance, who, being so much prejudiced, that when asked in the presence of dozens “if he was not partial?” would not say positively but that he was only, “he did not think he was.” Yet this is the gentleman Mr. Wickersham chose for his moderator, both days of the debate.
He says Mr. Wharton “yielded the point that the last days were 1800 years ago.”
What inconsistency! but Mr. Wickersham labors hard to prove it from several texts, which I shall take up, not because his arguments are worthy of notice, but to show the falsity of his applications, and the fallacy of his reasoning. I shall first introduce some of the texts to prove that there will be an ensign lifted up, just prior to the gathering of the Jews; also of the spirit of God being  poured out upon all flesh, and the brute creation become in the Millenium, as harmless as they were in the morning of creation.
I refer the reader, first to Isa. xi. 11, 13; where the prophet speaks of the Lord setting his hand the second time, to gather the Jews, that at the same time he will lift up an ensign, &c.—also, Isa. xviii, 3, where he calls upon all the world to see the ensign that should be raised; and I will prove before I get through, that America is the land the prophet was speaking of, where the ensign should be raised, Isa. xlix, 22 to 26, speaks of the ensign or standard that should be raised to gather the Jews; and that kings and queens should protect them, and that the Lord would destroy all that oppressed them, also Isa. lxv, 25.
I can prove that the world came to an end 1800 years ago, just as easy as Mr. Wickersham can prove that 1800 years ago were the last days; and now for it. Heb. ix, 26, “But now once in the end of the world hath he (Christ) appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself.” Mr. Wickersham quotes Heb. i, 2, “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son,” &c.
It is very evident that the apostle had reference to the “end” and “last days” of the Jewish dispensation, and nothing else; as, also I. Peter, i. 20,—John’s first Epistle, ii. 18.
He quotes also, where the apostle is speaking expressly concerning the last time, that Anti-Christ should go out from them; as they, the Church, had received their anointing, (the seal of eternal life—see verse 27.) And in verse 26, the apostle says positively he has “written those things concerning them that seduce you.” The apostles had no more reference to the end of the world, or the days they were speaking of being the last days prior to the coming of the son of man, than they had of Mr. Wickersham becoming a “country squire,” or an “associate judge.” Acts ii. 16, 17, is quoted, but let us examine the text, and see if the apostle had any allusion to the day of Pentecost (the day on which he was speaking,) as being in the last days. When the disciples had received the spirit of God, some present mocked, &c., Peter says unto them, “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” (i. e. that spirit) Peter, after quoting this prophecies himself, and says “And it shall come to pass in the last days (saith God.) I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh,” &c. Joel says nothing about the last days in his prophecy, but Peter carries it beyond his day, even down to the time when the “spirit of God shall be poured out upon all flesh.” The reader will refer and read I. Cor. xv. 39 Isa. xi. 6, to 9. Rom. viii. 19 to 23, Isa. lxv. 20 to 25, &c.
Mr. Wickersham says “these points were yielded.” I deny the assertion. In refutation of Gen. xlviii. 9. to 22, Gen. xlix. 22 to 26. Jer. xlix. 30 to 32. Isa. xvi. 8., and Deut. xxxiii. 13, 17., (which were some of the texts brought forth to prove that there were other lands given to the branches of Joseph, besides what was given them in Canaan.) He quotes Josh. xxi. 43, 45, “And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware unto their fathers,” &c. True, he gave them all the land he had “sworn unto them” in Canaan, but Jo- seph’s prevailing blessing, is a land of promise, recollect, and not “sworn unto him.” Furthermore, there were but nine and a half tribes that received their inheritance, the other side of Jordan. See Numbers xxxiv. 13, and only one half tribe of Mannasseh that received their inheritance on this side of Jordan. Now, I ask Mr. Wickersham, where are the branches of Joseph that were to go over the sea? He says there is no evidence to prove that the inhabitants of Hazor, (the vine of Sibmah) mentioned by Jer. xlix. 30, to 33, were of the posterity of Joseph. I will refer him to Isa. xvi. 8. “The fields of Heshbon languish, and the vine of Sibmah is broken down, ….they wandered through the wilderness; her branches are stretched out, they are gone over the sea. (Compare this with Gen. xlix. 22, where the blessing is pronounced upon Joseph, as being “a fruitful bough, whose branches run over the wall.”). This Heshbon and Sibmah, (Shibmah) were cities built and inhabited by the chief tribes or nations of Israel. See Num. xxxii. 37, 38. Now, the tribe of Joseph, was the first and chief tribe of this nation; Jereboam, their first king, was of the lineage of Joseph, and he was the principal plant, as the birth right was given him. See I. Chro. v. 1, 2. And Hazor was a city and kingdom in the land of Canaan, and it was the Capitol of all the kingdoms round about; but it was destroyed. See Josh. xi. 10, 11. Afterwards in dividing the land it was given to Judah, Josh. xv. 23, and rebuilt by Solomon, I. Kings, ix. 15. Now in the days of Jeremiah, Jerusalem was the Capital and chief city, as Hazor was before its destruction by Joshua; and as Jeremiah had already been in jeopardy for saying that Jerusalem should be smitten and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. (see Jer. xxxvi.) Therefore he calls the country by its former names; and speaks of Hazor as its Capital, instead of Jerusalem. Therefore he says in the xlix. ch. 30, 32, “Flee, get you afar off, dwell deep O! ye inhabitants of Hazor, saith the Lord, for Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, hath taken counsel against you,” …“arise, get you up unto the wealthy nation that dwelleth without care, which have neither gates nor bars, which dwell alone,” &c. (Read the Book of Ether, commencing at page 542, B. Mormon.) Now was it not the inhabitants of Jerusalem that the prophet calls the inhabitants of Hazor; certainly, for Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem, and destroyed it, and not against Hazor. I ask Mr. Wickersham where such a nation dwelt on the eastern continent at that time, “having neither gates nor bars,” as the prophet tells the inhabitants of Hazor (Jerusalem,) to flee to? Therefore, we see the testimony of the Book of Mormon to be true, about Lehi’s coming from Jerusalem, as Hazor was applied to Jerusalem; so Mr. School Master you are “butting at a hat that has no head in it.”
He quotes P. P. Pratt’s “Voice of Warning,” page 55, “It is a matter of uncertainty where the ten tribes are.” Why not quote the whole of it Mr. Wickersham? Why all his attempt at deception? Pratt quotes Isa. lxi. 8. 9., where the prophet speaks of the covenant that “was to make Israel’s seed known among the Gentiles,” and then says  it is a matter of uncertainty,” &c., but the New Covenant will reveal these things, (i. e. it will only be known by revelation.) See Jer. xvi, 16; Eze. xx 33, 37. “Those points, says Mr. Wickersham, (referring to the last days being 1800 years ago, and all the land promised to the seed of Joseph being in Canaan) were given up,” yes, and by Mr. Wickersham, for he could say nothing but the “last days,” “the last days,” “the last days! ”
He says, I publicly reported at Wilmington “that he had been completely used up.” I would inform him, that the news was taken there before I arrived, by those who were present at the discussion. In fact, there were several gentlemen from Wilmington, at the discussion, who declared Mr. Wickersham a “used up man.”
On Saturday following, he says, “I resumed the debate as a fresh champion, although contrary to the rules of debate.” Mr. Wickersham it was at your own discretion, as I have before observed, to debate with Elder Wharton, or to have objected; but you made no objection, and if you be such a great sportsman among the “small game,” as you say you are, why find fault? True, you are a great sportsman, but you found that J. C.
Bennett’s new modeled gun you used, missed fire, flashed in the pan, and nearly blinded you; but you are a mighty champion yet [let you tell the story,] a second “Og, king of Bashan.” I wonder the “small game” of Brandywine Hundred does not present you with an iron bedstead, so you may be equal with him.
He says he understood the rules “that no decision shall be given,” “to have reference only to the moderators.” Why then had Mr. C—— so much to say and do concerning the resolutions? Why did he manifest so much partiality? Mr. Wickersham, there is one thing you have not, and cannot deny, and which will stick to you and all those who took a part in it, as the bark to a tree. That is, before I commenced debating with you, that there was a conspiracy formed, resolutions drawn up, men ( if I may so call them ) appointed, who were to compose the committee; and all planned and concocted, to decide against me. Yet, says Mr. Wickersham “the resolutions were unanimously adopted,” adopted by whom? a conspirated clan, and that perhaps, consisting of about thirty, out of something like two hundred. Says he, “there was not one vote heard in opposition to the resolutions.” Mr. W., was not the School House nearly full of gentlemen and ladies, that did not go out doors to hear the resolutions read, and treated the proceedings with disgust and contempt, and the Saints present, were informed not to vote against the proceedings, as all present knew and could see for themselves. The next day, a gentleman says to me, “the proceedings of yesterday, and the decision against you, will be in your favor.” And truly it has been verified; for, on the Monday following the debate, I baptized two gentlemen that were present both days of the discussion; and there has also been several baptized at Centreville since. Therefore, Mr. Wickersham, you see how much you, and all your clan, ( with your lies and collusiveness ) has been able to impede the cause of truth; you will now remember the words  of the Saviour “That you can do nothing against the truth, but all for it.”
The proceedings, he says, “aroused the ire of Judge Appleby, and he was determined to have the decision in his own favor,” &c. This, he knows not to be so. I only stated in my communication the proceedings of Mr. Wickersham and his abettors, for the benefit of those who were not present at the debate; those that were, knew for themselves, but it appears Mr. Wickersham was determined to have the decision in his own favor, any how, or else he, with his colleagues, would not have had resolutions drawn up concerning the debate, before I ever debated with him. “Thou hypocrite, out of thy own mouth art thou condemned.”
After nine days’ conception, he says “I brought forth my production.” This assertion is false; I wrote my communication in reply to the resolutions, on Monday, May 22d, and baptized two gentlemen the same day, ( I wrote a few lines the next day after the debate, but in reply, threw them aside, as having received further information concerning the getting up of the resolutions ). Tuesday morning, 23d, I left Wilmington, for Philadelphia; when I left, I deposited my communication in the hands of a gentleman in Wilmington, ( not being dated, ) telling him at the same time, to date it, if it became necessary to publish it in reply to the resolutions; as they had not yet made their appearance before the public. So your “nine days’ conception,” Mr. Wickersham, is reduced to one. But look at your own production ( in part, the rest extracted from J. C. Bennett’s Book ), of about one month’s conception; of falsehoods, slanders, egotism, tautologies, oddities, absurdities, bantlings, squibs, &c. And after all, a “Mountain labors, and lo! behold, it brings forth a mouse.” Mr. Wickersham says, “The offspring generally resembles the parent,” his production is proof positive of this. When I first saw him I took him to be a man of veracity, one that would not throw aside all honor for political favors or party prejudice; but we see by his production the poison that lies under the tongue; when falsehoods and sophistry are made the weapons to fight against truth. But as Solomon says, “answer a fool according to his folly;” and I intend to handle him and his lies, with that justice the nature of the circumstances requires.
“I complain,” says he, “that the decision was given against me,” “that the committee returned with the resolutions and decision, &c., as if the decisions were something different from the resolutions.” I never complain where I have an equal chance, but when I see such proceedings as there were manifested at that debate, they shall not be tolerated by me, with impunity. As for the decisions being different from the resolutions, every one present, that observed the proceedings, knew better; for whatsoever the committee resolved, the agreement of the “small fry,” was to decide with them. And this, Mr. Wickersham, you have not pretended to deny. Shame! where is thy blush? He says, “did I not hear the President’s voice, calling aloud, “all that are in favor of these resolutions, will say Aye;” “and did I not hear the welkin ring with response?”
Yes, I heard the clan  that was privy to all your proceedings, out in front of the School House, ( consisting of about thirty perhaps, and nearly one half of them, he and a Methodist local Priest, as I was informed, had brought from Brandywine Hundred ) responded to the resolutions.” “How happened it,” says Mr. Wickersham, “that not one of them voted against the resolutions?” Answer: because they heard the rules of the debate read at the beginning, “That no decision shall be given,” and all honorable gentlemen and ladies were willing and did abide by these rules.
As regards his remarks concerning “A country ‘squire,” I shall pass over them with silent contempt, for it is not only the Bible, the Book of Mormon, that are attacked by his infidel thrusts, but character, religion, honorable offices, &c., does not escape the venom of his pen.
He says “the Mormons are denouncing vengeance here, and endless damnation hereafter, on all who do not embrace their absurd notions.” Mr. Wickersham, this is not so, we denounce neither “vengeance or damnation” on no one; we preach the gospel to them, and warn them of a judgment to come, and then leave them in the hands of their God, to deal with them according to his pleasure; and we further know, that God has spoken from the Heavens in these days, and made known to his servants, that his judgments spoken by his prophets, are near at hand. See Rev. xvi. 6, to 20, Dan. vii. 9, 10, 27, Isa. xxiv. &c. And did the God of Heaven ever give a revelation to men, commanding them what to do, and then save them who disobeyed it?
He wishes to know, “if a Secretary of a meeting retires with a committee to draft resolutions in N.J.” I ask him if a Secretary is not chosen to execute the resolutions of a committee, and to read the same to the audienc, &c., when required? or whether a Secretary is chosen to stay in a School House, and draft one resolution, while the committee is in a private house, near by, drafting another ( as professed, though drawn up before,) and returns with the Secretary’s name signed thereto, approving of the resolutions, when in fact, he had not been with the committee, and therefore had no opportunity to know any thing of the resolutions, or sign his name thereto, ( only what was done before they retired, ) yet this is the way they do business in the “diggins” of Centreville.
He quotes Deut. xxxiv. 1, 4, to prove that Moses saw, from the “top of Pisgah,” all the land given to Ephraim and Mannasseh. Mr. Wickersham had better get on a “peep stone,” and then perhaps in reading the text, he will discover that Moses “saw all the land of Gilead, and all the lands of Naphtali; and all the lands of Judah,” but does not say he saw all the land of Ephraim, and Mannasseh; only “the land of Ephraim and Mannasseh,” but saw “all the land” of the others. So, Mr. Wickersham, you will have to try again.
He is surprised to think that God could invent and make a compass about 2500 years ago; recollect Mr. Wickersham, the coats of skin he made for Adam and Eve; his directions to Noah how to build the  Ark, to Moses the Tabernacle, &c. Mr. Wickersham tries hard to prove that when the prophet Isaiah in his 18 ch. of his prophecy, spoke of the land beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, that he meant the land of Ethiopia, “or a winged God.” Indeed! but hear what the prophet says, “Woe! (or Ho! as it is in the original) to the land shadowing with wings (or symbol of wings) beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.” Now stand in Jerusalem, where the prophet stood, and point out any land in all the world that will answer the description, but the continent of North and South America; look on the map, and see if they are not in the symbol of wings. But, says Mr. Wickersham, “draw a straight line from Jerusalem, beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, and you arrive in the Southern Ocean.” Stop, Mr. W., not so fast, but let us examine and see what was formerly termed Ethiopia.
The writer of the celebrated voyage of Hanno (in Murray’s Encyclopedia) a Carthagenian navigator, who attempted to sail round Africa, gives an account of Ethiopians near the straits of Gibraltar, or Pillars of Hercules; also, that “he sailed twelve days along the western coast of Africa,” which he says, “was then inhabited by Ethiopians, who were very numerous.” This coast is now called the coast of Morocco; hence the ancient Moors were called Ethiopians or Cushites. So we perceive that in ancient times, the whole land along the coast, from what is now called the Straits of Gibraltar, to the Cape of Good Hope, was termed the land of Cush or Ethiopia. So we find the rivers Nile, Niger, Senegal, &c., to be in Isaiah’s day, the rivers of Ethiopia, and beyond these rivers, is the land in the symbol of wings, viz: North and South America.
And furthermore, here is the land that Zeph. ii. 10, is speaking of “Far beyond the rivers of Ethiopia shall the daughters of his dispersed bring an offering.” Where are they to bring them to? Answer: to Mount Zion. And where is Mount Zion, on the land “shadowing with wings.” See Isa, xviii. 7.
Mr. Wickersham quotes Luke ii. 16, 31, 32; and John x. 24, 28, in opposition to Mat. xv. 24, where Christ says he is “only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel;”
John x. 16, “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold,” &c. What he has quoted them for, I cannot conceive, without he is trying to make Christ’s words false. I ask Mr. W. who or where those sheep was? that should hear his voice?
It was not the Gentiles, because they were converted by the preaching of the apostles, long after the days of Christ; but in reply to his quotations, refer to John i. 11, 12. In connection with Isa. xi. 11, 13, consult verse 15, and 16, and Isa, xviii. 3, Isa. xlix.
22. In connexion with Isa. xxix, 9 to 24, examine Hab. ii. 1, 3; Isa. xlv. 8, 9, and Psal. lxxxv. 10, 13, &c.
Mr. W. labors hard to prove that the marvellous work, mentioned by Isaiah xxix. ch., was done by the Messiah, and quotes Mat. xv. 7, 9, and Mark vii. 6, 9, to prove it.
But I ask him, did the words of a book that were sealed come forth, that Isaiah speaks of in Christ’s day? Was Lebanon, (a forest in Palestine) turned into a fruitful field?  did the deaf hear the words of the book? was shame turned away from the house of Jacob? did his face cease to wax pale? No, but Isaiah says in his xxix ch., that all this should come to pass after the coming forth of the “words of the book.” The house of Jacob was to come to a knowledge of their God, and the Jews to be gathered soon after, and this agrees with Eze. xxxvii 15, 22; yet Mr. Wickersham ridicules the idea, and what is it he does not ridicule? It is not only the Book of Mormon that is ridiculed by him, but the prophecies also.
In consideration of the two sticks that Ezekiel was commanded to write something upon, as a type of something that should happen in after years to the house of Israel, so the prophet takes one stick and writes upon it, for Judah and the children of Israel, and then takes another stick and writes upon it for Joseph, and calls it the stick of Ephraim.
Now, all the learned divines, admit the Bible to be the stick of Judah, and I ask Mr. Wickersham, where is the stick of Ephraim? God says “he has written to him his law,” see Hosea viii. 12. Furthermore, he says “Ephraim shall tremble from the west,” Hosea xi. 10; Eze. xvii. 22, 24. But, says Mr. W. “was the Book of Mormon written upon a stick.” No. “Does it contain the writing which Ezekiel was commanded to write upon his stick?” No, was it written upon a stick at all? Oh, no, it was written upon Gold Plates.”
Now, I ask Mr. W., was the Bible written upon a stick? No. Does it contain the writing which Ezekiel was commanded to write upon his stick? No. Was it written upon a stick at all? Oh, no. It was written upon tables of stone, and parchment &c. What a champion in polemical, theological warfare, that lays so much claim to erudition. Mr. W., do you not know that in ancient times, they wrote upon parchments, and kept them rolled on sticks? also on papyrus, &c.? Now tell me what Homer’s Iliad was written upon? and also the decree of the Roman Senate, concerning Antiochus, when he invaded Egypt. But Ezekiel, asccording to Mr. W’s argument, you meant nothing at all; yet you say the Lord commanded you, “to take the stick of Joseph” which was in the hand of Ephraim, and put it even with the stick of Judah, and they should become one stick in the Lord’s hand,” and then he was a going to gather the children of Israel, from every land and nation, and bring them into their own lands. See Eze. xxxvii. 21, 22, “says Mr. Wickersham, he did not prophecy of the 19th century.” What century did he prophecy of? Is not the Jews gathering now in fulfilment of prophecies contained in the Book of Mormon. See page 473, 485, 498, 513, 519, 3d edition, and God will gather them in spite of all opposition, and he will make an end of all nations, he says when he does it. See Jer. xxx. 3 and 11,— and do. xlvi. 28, and Ephraim is to be the first born in the gathering, see Jer. xxxi. 9. And when the two nations run together, their testimony, (i. e. God’s law written to them, the the stick of Judah the Bible, and the “stick of Ephraim, the Book of Mormon) will run together also, both bearing testimony of a dying crucified but risen Redeemer, and “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” 
He says I made an attack upon the Bible, and denied the authenticity of it, this I deny. I only referred him to some interpolations of men; for Mr. Wickersham knows, and so does every one else, that ever heard our Elders preach that we are firm believers in the Old and New Testament.
Mr. W. brought from J. C. Bennett’s book, the reputed character of Joseph Smith to militate against the Book of Mormon. I replied if he was going to judge prophets, by their character as recorded, he would find some of the ancient prophets committed worse deeds than has been attributed to Joseph Smith, admitting J. C. Bennett’s assertion to be true—and then I referred Mr. W. to Exodus ii. 11, 12; Exodus xxxii. 26, 28; Numbers xxv. 7, 13; 1 Samuel xv. 32, 33; Genesis xlx. 36; 2 Samuel xi. 4, 5; 1 Kings xiii. 18; &c.,—not to “justify crime,” as he says. but to show him that prophets in ancient days “were subject to like passions as we are.” And the question being, “Is it as reasonable to believe the Book of Mormon as it is the Bible? ” &c. He says “I denounced the prophets as drunkards, liars and debaucheers—justifying vice and immorality, endeavouring to prove the Bible a nullity.” To this I reply nearly in the words of the Saviour to the Jews, “When he (not the Devil, but Mr. W.) speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it,” if he says this. I was only quoting what was recorded in the scriptures, and is there any harm in this? He soon perceived at the debate that I believed too much of the Bible for him, and gave my reasons for it, and also for believing the Book of Mormon. I wanted the gentleman to give his reasons for believing, or professing to believe the Bible, and quoted 1 Cor. xii. 3; Rev. xix. 10, latter clause; Rom. viii. 9, latter clause, but I soon discovered all the reason he could give for believing it was because “every body” believed it, or admitted it, whether they believed it or not, but there is a wide difference between admitting a thing and believing it. And all Mr. W. knows or believes about the Bible, is by tradition and nothing else: see Luke x, 22. But let him obey the commandments of God are as laid down in its sacred pages, and get in possession of the spirit of God; and then he can say he knows the Bible to be true and not before.
Mr. W. speaking of the Temple that was constructed by Nephi, and referred to in the Book of Mormon p. 72, ridicules the idea of such a things as a Temple being built after the construction of Solomon’s; and says there “were but five individuals eight or ten years to build it.” Why all this falsifying, Mr. W., as it appears you have had the Book of Mormon to make quotations from? What a pity it is that you had not a “Peep Stone,” then perhaps you might have seen a little better. On p. 71, Nephi says that “himself and family, Zoram and his family, Sam and his family, Jacob, Joseph, and his sisters , and all who would go with him—journeyed into the wilderness, pitched their tents, began to till the land,” &c. Now I ask Mr. W. how he can say that there were only five, when in fact there might have been scores: and is it not possible out of all these families and people, that there might not, in the course of thirty years, be enough born and come to manhood, so  as to assist in building a Temple like the one described by Nephi. He constructed it he says, “not of precious things like Solomon.” There was no cedar, no hewing, no overlaying with gold, &c. only constructed on the plan of Solomon, (i. e. ground plan and built of stones. See Stephens Tarvels, &c. Vol. II, page 310, &c. the description he gives of a temple he found in Central America.) Now suppose those people had multiplied like Ahab, who had seventy sons (see 2 Kings x, 1,) and how many daughters I do not know; how many would there have been in thirty years?
But let us see if there was any one that assisted Noah in building the Ark, and how long he was at it before he completed it? Gen. vi. 14, where the Lord commands Noah,
‘Make thee an Ark of Gopher wood,’ &c. after giving him directions how to make it, he tells him to bring into the Ark, two of every kind, both beasts of the field and fowls of the air.” Now look at the chronology of time according to our Bible, when the Lord commands him to build it, and you will see B. C. 2349. Then turn to the 22d verse, where it says, “Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him, so did he,” and we find the same chronology, viz. B. C. 2349 years. So according to this, Noah was a great deal smarter, than Nephi, to build the Ark and to collect, from all parts of the Globe beasts of every kind, and also fowls of the air, and this all done in one year; for we have no account of any one helping him. Now Mr. W. put the building of the Temple, and the Ark together, and see if you can not swallow the one as easy as the other?
He says “there were ruins known to exist in Central America, (the lands he says, I said belonged to Ephraim, &c. but I contend that it is North and South America both that includes the promised land to the branches of Joseph) long before 1830, true the ruins of the city of Ottolum was known; but Stevens visited altogether 43. In a court yard in one, he found an enclosure made of stone, and inside of this enclosure was a stone covered with Hieroglyphics. See Vol. II p. 121 and 2. Read page 147, B. Mormon and see what it tells you concerning a certain stone, and the Book of Mormon was published in 1830, and this stone, and city after city, that it spoke of and described their situation, and who built them, when it came forth,—has been discovered since by Mr. Stephens for the first time, for he says “There they lay like the rock built city of Edom, unvisited, unsought for, and utterly unknown.”
I could refer the candid reader (if my limits would permit) to numerous testimonies of the kind. In Vol. II. p. 184, he gives a description of a place of sacrifice, with Idols standing near it. In B. M. p. 511, we have it recorded, that the Lamanites, took the Nephites prisoners, and sacrificed both women and children to their Idol Gods.
If all this be the effect of chance, or guess work, it is guessing mighty straight, is it not Mr. W.? y-e-s. But Mr. W. says “Mr. Stephens gives it as his opinion, that there is nothing to indicate Egyptian or Hebrew origin, among these ruins.” Read again Mr. W.
Vol. II. page 296 and 347, deducing Egyptian origin and concern-  ing the embalming room. Then read Mr. Norman’s travels in Central America in 1840, and see what he says about it, before you expose your ignorance any more.
“What were the proofs drawn from Priest’s Antiquities,” say Mr. W. “why somebody, found some pieces of raw hide, &c. with parchments enclosed.” Mr. W. you know very well that there was nothing said by me, about “raw hide” or parchments, but here are some of the proofs I offered which the reader can refer to himself, and see how you have misrepresented it. Read Priest’s Antiquities p. 159, where it speaks of Forts,
&c. that has been found, compare B. Mormon p. 348. Antiquities p. 160 and 61, 63 and 64, with B. Mormon p. 352. Antiquities p. 165, with B. M. p. 353. Antiquities p. 170, with B. M. p. 442, 44, 47, and 48. Antiquities p. 199, with B. M. p. 524 and 5, &c. And recollect Priest’s Antiquities were published in 1834, four years after the Book of Mormon.
As for his “debating on honorable grounds,” as long as he kept to the Bible he did, but he soon flew to the lies of J. C. Bennett, and when asked at the debate, to give the title of the Book, he was ashamed to do it, and all that were present, know it to be so. But he found he could do better with that, than he could with the Bible. His Pamphlet shows, and also the conspiracy, concerning the resolutions, what an honorable man he is.
He says “many things in the Book of Mormon, are opposed to reason and common sense,” and quotes from page 376, where he tries to make it appear, “that after an army of Lamanites were slain they were made prisoners of war.” Why not quote it as it reads Mr. W.? Why this attempt at deception, in every thing you undertake to quote?
“And now it came to pass, that we the people of Nephi, the people of Antipus, and I (Helaman) with my two thousand, did surround the Lamanites, and did slay them! Yea, insomuch, that they were compeled to deliver up their weapons of war, and also themselves as prisoners of war.” Mr. W. why did you omit “Yea, insomuch” in your quotation? Ans to convey the wrong idea, and deceive my readers if possible.
His sarcasms concerning the “Brass Ball with two spindles (or compass, which only worked by faith”) is too trifling and futile to notice. Mr. W. what was done concerning the things of the Lord, without faith, in ancient times? Read Heb. xi.
Again he ridicules the idea of the Barges, that the Lord commanded the Brother of Jared to make. See B. M. p. 527—because they were to “be tight on all sides like unto dish” “with a hole in the bottom,” “and a hole in the top.” I wonder if Mr. W. ever saw a vessel go to sea, but what was tight like unto a dish (or intended so to be) when the hatches were down, and when off a “hole in the top”? and do you not know Mr. W. that there is a P——y sometimes in Boats that makes a hole in the bottom (towards the end) and if water comes in at the bottom or top do they not stop them up? Why, Mr. W. learned as you profess to be, and yet don’t know, what a hole in the bottom and top of a vessel is for, without telling. The Boats were to be the  “length of a tree,” and Mr. W. desires to know how long that is. If he will inform me whether Isaiah had reference to an old tree, or a young one, (see Isa. lxv. 22,) where he says “the days of his people are as the days of a tree.” I will inform him of the length of the Barges.
He seems surprised, that windows should be mentioned as long ago, as the building of the Tower of Babel; and enquires “could they have been glass! ” Mr. W. what kind of a window was it God commanded Noah to make to the Ark, (see Gen. vi. 16.) Perhaps you think that the Lord did not know how to make glass then, but has found out since.
“But to cap the climax of this nonsense,” says he, he quotes from B. M. p. 555, where the last great struggle of the Jaredites are recorded, when the contending armies fought for several days until all had fallen, but two generals, when one cut off the head of the other with his sword, and because the account states, “he raised upon his hands (being in the agonies of death) fell, struggled, and died” Mr. W. thinks this “caps the climax.” Is there any thing improbable about it? does it look any more improbable, than the Angel of the Lord smiting 185 thousand Assyrians in one night, “and when they arose in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses.” See Isaiah xxxvii. 36.
Concerning the remark Mr. W. says Joseph Smith made to P. Ingersoll, it is about like his saying he heard of my being at Wilmington, and immediately addressed a note to the saints at Centreville, when in fact the note had been at Centreville, for something like a week before I came to Wilmington. The proverb, “That liars require good memories,” that he has applied as a taunt to me, he may take to himself, and another, (“That liars are not to be believed, even when they speak the truth,”) along with it.
On page 65, B. M. he says “it is asserted of Adam and Eve that had they not transgressed the command of God, they would have had no children”—what of it? had they any until they transgressed? did they know any thing about procreation or generation? did they know any joy or sin? was they not in a state of nudity, yet not ashamed? but after partaking of the forbidden fruit, was not their eyes open? they saw their nakedness, and made themselves aprons, (see Genesis ii. 7.) Moses in the 1 Chap.
Gen. gives a general outline history of the creation of man, and the command of God unto him, and in Chap. 2d and 3d, gives the manner in which he was formed, how man came in possession of knowledge, &c. So we see they had no children, until after they had transgressed, and never would have had if this had not been the case. We find that after they were driven out from the Garden of Eden, “That Adam knew his wife (not before) that she conceived and bare Cain, see Gen. iv. 1. But says Mr. W. “the inquisition was not made upon Adam because he had transgressed,” but because “dust thou art.” Indeed! what a critic, look again Mr. W. in Gen. iii. 17, 19. “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife and has eaten of the tree,” &c .
On the same page says he, we are informed, “that men are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the Great Mediator of all men.” “Here says he we are assured that all men are Mediators.” This is a base misrepresentation Mr. W. and you knew better, when you wrote it; but you done it with a view of deceiving. Who is the “Great Mediator of all men”? Is not Jesus Christ? Is he mediator for one man, or is he mediator for all, and are not all at liberty to choose eternal life through him?
On page 382, he says “the Book of Mormon contradicts itself, by saying the Nephites got possession of the city of Manti without the shedding of blood; and on page 381 says, that a part of the army of the Nephites in taking the same city fell upon the guards and destroyed them.” Mr. W. why is there not honesty enough about you to quote things as they transpired, why not quote p. 381 first, the account is clear enough then, but in nearly all your quotations, you quote what transpired last, first, but we cannot expect any better of such a base deceiver.
The account is, “Helaman with his army pitched in the borders of the wilderness near the city of Manti; the Lamanites saw them, and came out to make battle. Helaman having secreted on his right, Gid with a few men; and on his left Teomner, with a few, and remained himself with the main army in open view of the Lamanites, where he first pitched; and when the Lamanites came upon Helaman, he retired into the wilderness with his army, the Lamanites pursuing them. Whereupon Gid and Teomner, with their men rose up, out of their secret places, fell upon the Guards of the city, and cut them off; but Helaman with his army, travelled all night, by a circuitous route in the wilderness, (but the Lamanites encamped) and on the morrow, Helaman returned with his army to the city of Manti, and took possession of it, without he or his army that were with him shedding of blood.” So Mr. W. where is the contradiction? Gid and Teomner cut off the Guards, but Helaman and his men that returned, took possession of the city, but they shed no blood; Mr. W. did you ever read an account of a man that had a son two years older than himself? if not, refer to 2 Chro. xxi. 20, and first and second verses of the 22d Chapter.
On page 378 he says, “Helaman speaking of a band of soldiers under his command” says, “Behold my little band of two thousand and sixty fought desperately,” &c. “and on page 372, 373, and 376,” this same band Mr. W. says “is said to number only two thousand.” Mr. W. why did you not refer to page 376, near the bottom, and there you will find recorded, “That sixty sons of the Ammonites, came to join their brethren, my little band of two thousand,” which makes the two thousand sixty spoken of on page 378. Where you, an unblusing deceiver, commences to quote from first; you knew better when you wrote it, for you could not help seeing it as you have quoted from the same page.
Mr. W. quotes from page 192, B. M. where the Priest of King Noah stole away the daughters of the Lamanites,” turn to page 174,  and we see who this King Noah was and also his Priests; that they were very wicked men. On page 190, you find recorded where an army of Lamanites came against the city of King Noah, when he and his Priest’s fled into the wilderness, and while there an opportunity offered to steal away the daughters of the Lamanites, but Mr. W. it does not say they “married them” as you have quoted it. Who was those referred to, on page 203, that refused to be called by the name of their Fathers? was they not descendants of the Lamanites, (for all that was not called Nephites were denominated Lamanites) and Mosiah says on the same page that, “the Lamanites, were their brethren,” therefore they and those they had taken to wife, were displeased with their fathers, and took upon them the name of Nephi, and was baptized, into the church of God. See page 203. So Mr. W. the curse that you refer to, was placed upon the Lamanites, not upon the Nephites, unless they married with the Lamanites, and then no longer than they forsook their Idolatry, and turned to their God. Read the account of Samuel the Lamanite, commencing at p. 429.
Again on page 146, “it is related says Mr. W. that Mosiah, went into the wilderness, discovered a people called the people of Zarahemla, rejoiced greatly, because the Lord had sent Mosiah to them,” &c, “yet they denied there was any Lord; that Mosiah discovered a great deal about this people, and yet he could not understand their language.” Reader refer to page 146, B. M. and there you will find an account of one Ameleki, who is relating the circumstances of one Mosiah, (that was made King over the land of Zarahemla,) and his men going into the wilderness and discovering a people called the people of Zarahemla, Mosiah having with him the brass plates (which Lehi brought from Jerusalem, see B. M. p. 16) containing the record of the Jews, which caused the people of Zarahemla to rejoice, that the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah to them.”
(But when did they rejoice? When they discovered who Mosiah was, and concerning the plates of brass.) For at the time Mosiah found them they had become so far corrupted, that they denied the existence of a creator, and Mosiah could not understand their language. But says Mr. W. “how could they rejoice in the Lord, when they denied the existence of him.” But I ask him did they rejoice as soon as they saw Mosiah. Ameleki is relating years after, what took place, and hear him. “Behold it came to pass (not when he first discovered them) that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla, came out from Jerusalem,” &c. But how or when did he discover it? Hear Ameleki again. “But it came to pass, that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language.” “And it came to pass that after (not before) they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory, and they are written but not upon these plates.” So now Mr. W. we have it, that Mosiah found them, in the situation described, taught them his language, found out their genealogy, the plates of Brass giving the history of the Jews, which caused them to rejoice and praise the Lord, but not until after they were taught the language of Mosiah .
“About 31 pages of this Book, out of 520,” says Mr. W. “are taken from the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” What of it Mr. W.? I consider this a great testimony in favor of the Book; for if it had been wrote for deception, the author would have taken care, and left them out. When Lehi first came to this land, he brought a record of the scriptures from the creation up to the days of Zedekiah King of Judah, together with the Prophecies of Isaiah, and a part of the Prophecies of Jerimiah, in whose days Lehi left Jerusalem, see Book of Mormon, p. 16 and 17. Therefore when teaching their people they referred to the Prophecies of Isaiah &c., to prove their words, and instruct them in the ways of the Lord. According to your mode of reasoning Mr. W. the New Testament cannot be true, because Christ and his Apostles, quoted from the scriptures of the Old Testament. What nugatory objections?
Concerning the “Spaulding story,” Mr. W. very well knows that we have refuted that years ago, over and over again, and we have the refutations in our possession, for sale at the present time, and the witnesses he refers to, we can prove, has given two or three different testimonies concerning the “Manuscript found.”
As for John C. Bennet, Mr. W. appears to believe more in his Book, than he does in the Bible. This was evident at the debate.
Mr. W. labors hard to prove that the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, never heard or saw any thing to testify to, only what Joseph Smith told them. But hear the testimony of the witnesses themselves. (They retired to a private place to pray, and while calling upon God the visions of Heaven opened,) “an angel of God came down from Heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates * * * and heard the voice of God, (not Smith) commanding them to bear witness of it.” So here is positive testimony, that they saw the plates, with their own eyes by the power of God; and that they heard his voice, and not “through Smith,” as Mr. W. would have it. He says “two of them has renounced Mormonism and declared the whole a humbug.” This is not so; they have never said it was not true, although through transgression, they have been expelled from the church.
The other eight witnesses witnessed, “that they saw the places and hefted them, and saw the engravings thereon,” and then calls God as witness what they say is true.
“But two of these has proved recreant to the cause,” says Mr. W. Suppose eight out of the eleven witnesses had “proved recreant” Mr. W.? There would be three left; and their testimony would be sufficient to establish the truth of the Book of Mormon according to the words of our Saviour: “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” Did it prove the doctrine of Jesus false, because Judas apostatized?
Mr. W. declaiming about “money digging,” “peep stone,” &c. I shall treat with that contempt it deserves, for these things has been disproved and refuted time after time; we whenever they undertake to write against Mormonism, the ? ? ? “Spaulding story.”
“Money digging. ” “Peep stones,” &c. in brought up. Mr. W. if  ever you undertake it again, I advise you to get some new ware; for these has been so long on hand they have got cracked.
Mr. W. says “Joseph Smith’s testimony was refused before a jury of his country, he was such a depraved character—and these facts can be proven, by near a hundred witnesses.” Was not the testimony of Jesus refused? And Mr. W. I can produce thousands of witnesses that will testify to the virtue and morality of Joseph Smith who have known him for years. But who are those that testifies he is such a depraved character? his enemies, and enemies to the cause of God, to his servants, and to truth; just like Mr. Wickersham.
Christ’s Apostles testified to his resurrection, but the Jews as a nation denied it, but what if they did? The Apostles testimony condemned them; and so it will be with this generation; if there is only three witnesses left to testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon, their testimony will condemn the world wherever it is borne.
Mr. W, says, “Joseph Smith’s character at present is no better, according to the testimony of Gen. Robinson, Col. Higby and Capt. Only.”—Where did you get their testimony from Mr. W.? Ans. From J. C. Bennett’s Book. Who is J. C. Bennett? A Polygamist and base adulterer; who was expelled from the Church of “Latter Day Saints” for adultery and other heinous crimes. And how did he get their testimony? Ans. He forged it, without their knowledge or authority, and this they have testified to.
Mr. W. says “I assure my readers that destruction awaits this generation, if they do not believe the Book of Mormon.” I said that destruction awaited this generation unless they speedily repented and obeyed the proclamation that God has sent. And he that believes the Bible, will believe the Book of Mormon also, for it testifies of it. As Jesus told the Jews, that professed to believe in the Prophets, “If ye believed them, ye would also believe in me; for they testify of me.” Mr. W. did God ever give a revelation to the children of men, calling on them to repent and obey his commandments, and then save those who disobeyed it? How many were saved in the days of Noah, that disobeyed his commandments and recollect, “As it was in the days of Noah, so also, shall the coming of the Son of Man be.” And the Lord says that “he will destroy all nations when he gathers the Jews. see Jer. xlxi. 28, and they are already gathering, and we see by this that the “times of the Gentiles” are nearly fulfilled, see Rom. xi. 25, Luke xxi, 24.
But says Mr. W. “the B. M. says that if the Gentiles does not repent, the Indians (the seed of Jacob) will go through among them as a roaring lion, among a flock of sheep,” &c. I answer it is the words of Christ himself, as spoken to his Apostles, on this land, which he visited after the resurrection, chose them, and gave unto them his laws, See B. M. p. 471 to 74, &c. also Isa. xvi. 1. Now Mr. W. find fault with Christ, and the Bible too, for that testifies to the same thing, and nearly in the same words. See Micah v.
7 to 9 .
“They are now training and instructing their disciples (says Mr. W.) in the art of war.” “The Nauvoo Legion,” “containing some six or seven thousand men, which according to Gen. Bennett is the most efficient and best drilled corps in the Union.” Well, Mr. W., you believe this certainly! as it comes from Gen. Bennett, perhaps you are not aware, that they are obliged to do military duty in the State of Illinois? That “Legion,” I know is a terror to J. C. Bennett, Missourians, Mobbers, and all wicked men, and Mr. W.
I find is a little afraid of it, too. Yes, indeed, if it was not for that “Legion” how quick the mobbers would be driving the saints from their homes, and murdering them as they have done; being aided and abetted, and set on by just such lying publications, as Mr. W.’s with Priests at the head of the mobs. We will not disturb any person if they will let us alone. Neither will we transgress the laws of the land, but use our utmost endeavours to see these enforced.
Mr. W. says “he did not back out from the discussion.” Did you not say the last address you made, that you was done debating? Certainly you did; for you had used up your ware.
Thus Mr. W. I have taken up and exposed your falsehoods, and sophistry. As for debating orally with a man as devoid of honor, as your pamphlet has shown you to be, I discard the idea. I have treated your falsehoods, sophistry, sarcasms, and ridicule, as the merit of the case deserves. I feel I have done my duty to my God, and to my fellow men, in trying to undeceive them of your misrepresentations.
And now, Mr. W., I warn you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, (my master) to stay your hand in fighting against and trying to oppose the cause of God, but repent of all your sins, and be baptized for the remission of them; and seek to obey all the commandments of God. And if you do this with an honest and sincere heart, you shall be blessed, but if you do not, the wrath of a just and offended God will come upon you, and your strength will fail you in the day of trouble; in sorrow and dismay will you be banished from his presence; and the pangs of eternal torment will wring your guilty soul; then shall you remember and know, that the work your puny arm has been raised to oppose, is the work of God.— Amen.
And I herewith bear my testimony unto all people, into whose hands this pamphlet may come that the Book of Mormon is true; that it has been revealed to man by the administration of angels from the courts of glory, and been translated by the gift and power of God. That it bears record of a bleeding, dying, crucified, but risen Redeemer, and contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as revealed by him, in person, to the ancient inhabitants of this continent, the Indians of whom are a remnant. And that it contains revelations, which immediately concern this generation. And that this is the gospel committed by the angel, which John saw in a vision on the Isle of Patmos. See Rev. xiv. 6 to last verse. That the covenant God made with Abraham to gather his scattered seed in the last days, to the land given to their fathers, is beginning to be fulfilled. And that the judgment of Almighty God now hanging over the nations—that nothing but a speedy repentance, and obeying the proclamation that he has made, will save them from being utterly overthrown, by the potent arm of Almighty power. For the Lord God of Israel has sent his angels, and revealed things unto his servants which will shortly come to pass. And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come. Amen.